Benazir Bhutto dies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7161590.stm
twas only a couple of months ago she survived another bomb attack, somebody mustve really had it in for her
twas only a couple of months ago she survived another bomb attack, somebody mustve really had it in for her
Post edited by mel the bell on
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
Comments
Depressing news. I'm not really sure what to make of her politics since I only know sketchy details (including what appears to have been a rather stupid and short-termist support for the Taliban as a "stabilising" force during the 1990s) but she seems to have been quite solidly anti-Islamist especially in recent years.
From what I can gather, she seems to have had some favour with the current US administration which won't have pleased religious conservatives in Pakistan let alone Islamists. They might have been behind the assassination attempts (including this successful one) although she also mentioned elements in the Pakistani government allied to the religious extremists as being behind it after the failed attempt on her life earlier this year.
She did back the Taliban in the 1990s but for strategic rather than ideological reasons (it's more akin to the US support for the Mujahedin rather than, say, Thatcher's support of Pinochet). She's certainly no friend of the Islamic extremists.
What was the corruption? All I've seen is that she was removed from office on charges of "corruption" which can be a euphamism for a coup de tait, although Pakistan does have a history of political corruption. Any details?
She/her family had hidden bank accounts where they were funneling money for one.
both the us and uk supported both the taliban and saddam hussain....till it suited them otherwise...i'd say most other world leaders are corrupt to a point too.
i still give her respect for keeping to her principles and despite mounting attacks against her she kep on doing what she did, doubt i could carry on with public rallies and stuff knowing i'd already been "marked" for death.
its also going to be destabilising to the country rather than just the death of 1 "bad apple"
Well, the US and UK (and a lot of Western European countries who are usually left out of the blame-game, notably Germany and France) did support Saddam in the 1980s out of the same stupid short-termism that motivated Pakistan to support the Taliban. However, the United States didn't support the Taliban. It supported the Mujahedin ,a wide-ranging anti-communist Islamic movement. Whilst elements of the Mujahedin *did* end-up as Taliban many of them didn't and, indeed, formed the United Front forces who fought the Taliban during the civil war of the 1990s so it'd be just as true to say "the United States supported anti-Taliban elements in Afghanistan in the 1980s". The whole, messy picture of US intervention in the anti-communist uprising in Afghanistan in the 1980s is a lot more complex than many people make it out to be.
I agree with you about Bhutto's undeniable courage, though. I do wonder if she'd have been a progressive anti-Islamist leader if she'd made it back into power or a crooked leader using anti-Islamist rhetoric to ensure support from the US and Europe in the same way South American fascists played on anti-communist concerns to fill their countries with torture chambers and death squads. Her previous record (although not exactly squeaky-clean) suggests the former which is why I find this news so depressing.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#6
I'm afraid I'd want to see something more than just a quotation since the US supporting the Taliban (ie Mujahedin after the Soviets had been defeated) simply doesn't make any sense. It's a bit like someone claiming they'd bankrolled Hugo Chavez's election campaign. The Taliban never hid their strongly anti-Western agenda and Al-Quaida (whose ideology is extremely close to the Taliban - hence their using the country to house their bases) had carried-out terrrorist attacks against the USA in the early 1990s, well before the Taliban gained control of Kabul.
Sorry, but I wouldn't put much faith in the story reported on that website.
Maybe a good thing.... I can't say I would be happy to see a convicted criminal running a nuclear weapons equipped country.
I disagree. I think that she is was a proven democratic leader - despite charges if corruption which I believe to be not true. I just hope that someone can step up into her shoes with as much bravery and integrity and ensure that the elections are not a whitewash.
It's all too easy to over simplify politics in areas such as Pakistan when our own liberties in the UK/US/Western Europe are taken for granted,
They weren't just charges...she was found guilty and ordered to pay the Pakistan Gov 11 million.
Edit: and 'proven democratic leader'...You know democracy is not the be all and end all as most westerners think it is..It just doesn't work in some cultures...Also 'proven'...I can't agree with that....she got removed twice!!
speccy rules!
No idea what to think of her as a politician, since I didn't follow up on that and reading it up won't help now anyways. But having a female canditate run for parlament in a country like Pakistan would have been a great sign of the country countering "islamistic" ideologies.
She probably had a bunch of bodyguards running around with her where ever she went. Wonder what they were doing this time around though...
Civil war is not always a bad thing...USA did ok out of it. Another word instead of Civil war could be revolution.
I believe they were bleeding to death around the car.
@beanz: that's a weird look at things ... considering civil wars in that area always rendered countries useless for a decade. Sure it _could_ work out, but then again Pakistan is not America
Well there are more examples than just USA...that was just one. I agree my outlook maybe 'not the norm' but I tend to look long term rather than short term.
Short term its gonna suck over there...long term I truly believe is a good thing that she will never be in power for a whole bunch of reasons. A few being...corruption of course, deceit, and the big one, a woman running a country in that part of the world...no matter how 'advanced' that is, its gonna piss off a whhhhhole lot of people over there and itself could of escalated into a full scale multi-country war...stranger things have happened.
Sorry on an individual level she is dead but on a 'good for the country' level I am not.
Erm, wrong thread I think.
But then again, it's all down to theoretic talk now anyways.
So blah ... speccy rules