BF2S Forums Bhutto assassination

RECONDO67 wrote:

rag heads don't like  to be reformed

Which is why there are riots up and down the country in protest of the killing.

Poor information ftl.

FEOS wrote:

Since it was quintessential AQ, and AQ claimed responsibility...I'll go with AQ on this one. She was pushing for harsher crackdowns on the Taliban and AQ in the NW tribal areas and stronger ties with the US. AQ had all the motive in the world to take her out...even more than Musharraf.

One link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/ … s.alqaeda/

Don't take the AQ claiming responsibility as proof that they did it. al-Qaeda were always going to claim responsibility for this (as well as many other extremist groups - its part of the terrorist mindset to claim responsibility for EVERYTHING in the hope their claim is taken seriously and thus they get the media spotlight), whether they were responsible or not.

It IS the religion. I can assure you. Best example is just looking at Pakistan and India today. Before 1947 it was the same country, so they both started off the same - Pakistan was created as an Islamic state and India went down a secular route.

So look what happens when you create a sole Islamic state, it's been a failure since 1947. Yet, when you look at the secular non-islamic neighbour. It's up there with China and is booming.

Oh and before Muslims invaded South Asia and Persia. They were, along side the Romans and the Chinese. The most advanced civilisations in the world. Islam comes into town and destroys the Byzantine, Persian and then eventually in 1947 parts of South Asia. That's what I think. You just gotta look at history and see how it has destroyed so much, much more than any other religion.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2007-12-28 04:06:11)

To know who did it you need to know who wins the most with her death.  AQ or the Taleban?  Nah.  She wasn't a menace for them.  Musharraf controls them better than she could.  Other candidates?  Nah.  Musharraf?  He certainly won a lot with her death.

rdx-fx wrote:

The point I was making;
The middle east's cultural and political development has, in many ways, stagnated for the last couple millenia.
The western world (to include Europe, British Isles, America, etc) has come a great ways forward in the last couple centuries.
My demarcation is not the founding of the USA, but rather the French and American revolutions - and subsequent rise of democratic governments.  Go back to the Magna Carta, if you like..  the point is the same.
The western world has advanced in culture and politics, while the middle east seems stuck in tribalism and religious blood feuds

The political development of the west and the privileged position we enjoy has come largely at the expense of people in the developing world. Britain grew rich off the exploitation of Africa, the Middle East and India. France grew rich off Africa and other colonies. Spain grew rich off South and Central America. North American settlers grew rich at the expense of the natives. Australian settlers grew rich at the expense of the Aborigines. The Dutch grew rich off Africa and south-east Asia. Not 65 years ago 'enlightened westerners' incinerated 6 million Jews. Europe tore itself apart twice in the last century and the Western-Soviet 'tribalism' threatened destruction of the whole world for a period of some 50 years. Islamic culture is not conducive to democratic rule. They may develop along a different governmental model from western models and so be it - it's their decision. The bloodletting we have been through in the last several hundred years are what the developing is going through or has yet to go through. The problem with a lot of these countries is that former colonial powers have imposed bullshit borders on fictitious countries containing a myriad of different 'tribes'. Iraq is the shining example: why on earth would one put a border around three creeds/ethnicities - it's a recipe for disaster. They have to get their civil wars out of the way and we need to let it happen - although our interest in their oil and resources will obviously never let that happen mores the pity.

rdx-fx wrote:

You missed my point again.
I said the middle east, not islam.  The religious rationalizations of the region have much to do with the frequency of suicide bombers.  There are too many ill-educated young men there who are asked to set aside their humanity, and place their faith in a cause.  They are told to stop thinking in human terms, and put their faith in Allah.  Blind religious fervor being abused by calculating men with worldly agendas.
It's just a plain fact that the middle east tends to freely mix religious rationalizations into their political/tribal/personal warfare. 
To rephrase;
There is too long of a cultural history of mixing religion with tribal blood feuds in the middle east.  To that mindset, bloodshed is seen as an affront that demands to be paid in more blood.
We're not burying Hillary Clinton here - they're burying Bhutto there.

The assassination is wholly separate and not associated with the religion of Islam. Killing innocent people is not compatible with Islam. Bhutto was a good muslim so how do you explain this. It's true that the fervour comes from the AQ madrassah's but they are not preaching Islam - they're just indocrinating youths to their own ends - you won't see Osama taking part in a suicide attack. Al Qaeda are as religiously motivated as pile of turd.

rdx-fx wrote:

Again, you missed my point.
I'm saying about the opposite of what you're assuming.
Look at how deeply the bloodshed in Northern Ireland has colored your perspective of the world.  You seem to frame all of the world's conflicts within the framework of Ireland vs England.  Seriously, I'm not trying to be an asshole - or make light of that mess, but look at the scars your average Irishman is born with because of that mess.
Westerners will fight when they feel the need to - but they also feel the cost of those wars more deeply.

Middle east, they throw away their lives on the promise of 72 virgins and martyrdom.  The mothers may wail and moan, but they still cash the Martyr Checks from the PLO with a smile.  it's perhaps 1% of the population that is so brainwashed - but it's the other 99% that looks on and cheers or just can't be bothered to do a damn thing about it.

What an insensitive comment - "cash the martyr checks with a smile" - you really have completely dehumanized them in your mind. It's pointless talking to you. Most mothers of the misguided ones rue the day their child is taken by AQ. Back to western 'civilisation' - WWI, WWII and Vietnam are but three examples of ruthless killing and wanton destruction over and above anything one finds in the developing world. WWI was completely and utterly needless: pure and simple tribalism at its worst. And that was only 90 odd years ago - with survivors in existence today. The 99% will take up arms or take action when they're good and ready. In fact they're doing it right now in Pakistan - torching government buildings and institutions across the country.

rdx-fx wrote:

My ignorant lazy American self isn't talking about WTF I've seen on TV.
I'm talking from having been there, done that.
I gives not a damn about some Al Jazeera staged photo op of wailing women.

You don't need to look at photo ops. You need to look at the general human reaction to any loss of human life - they're no different than us in that regard. To think otherwise is a little odd.

rdx-fx wrote:

To my eyes, too much of the middle east is a bunch of hypocritical tough-guys who lie as part of a normal conversation, treat their women generally like shit, and claim Allah as a reason for anything/everything..  and won't life a finger to improve their situation, but will spend hours and hours telling you exactly who's fault it is that their situation sucks.

So now you're saying that the 1% of radicals you spoke of equate to 'too much of the middle east'. Contradictory? The west is equally guilty of hypocritical tough guy syndrome. Their women do suffer indignity in terms of western societal norms but then again women only received the vote in the west in the past hundred years. They have yet to have their emancipation movement. Again you seem to believe that every part of the world should be on the same development page which is rather naive. The Muslim world does tend to suffer from inaction and indifference - but what is that to you or I? They will when they truly feel compelled. Currently in Iraq rival Shia, Kurd and Sunni militias are fighting for their interests - other fractious muslim nations will eventually do the same and good luck to them. The House of Saud will eventually topple as will dictatorships in other Muslim countries, just like Mussolini, Hitler, Ceaucescu and the others fell.

rdx-fx wrote:

They need to face up to the hypocrisy of their culture;
* Put on a uniform, and fight like soldiers.
* stop sending brainwashed suicide bombers into civilian marketplaces
* Stop hiding behind civilians - then calling americans cowards
* Stop putting your military headquarters and supply caches in Mosques - then wailing when we blow them up.
* Stop making death threats at authors and cartoonists (Rushdie and those Norwegian(?) cartoonists) - then whining about anti-islamic prejudice
* Stop treating their women like dogs or cattle - then speaking on honor and manhood
* Stop beheading civilians and journalists - then crying foul when someone scuffs the cover of your Holy Book.
* Stop sending the rich sons of Islam to the west for educations - then damning our culture.
* Stop letting some old fart use your religion as an excuse to shed blood for greed, grudges, money, and power

That is again rather naive.

Put on a uniform and fight like soldiers? Why would they do that? Why would they expose themselves stupidly like that? The beauty (horror) of their tactic is guerrilla warfare 101 - make yourself indistinguishable from the locals and no matter how large or advanced the enemy you can never be defeated. What you're asking is wishful thinking to the maximum. The things you list are exactly the reasons why we can never beat them (and also of list of 'why bother trying?').

ATG wrote:

a muslim.

Islamaphobe.

Dr. Evil ....case closed

The alleged intercepted message.

Here is a translation of the transcript of the alleged telephone conversation from senior al-Qa'eda leader Baitullah Mehsud to another militant said to have been intercepted after the assassination.

Maulvi Sahib (MS): Asalaam Aleikum (Peace be with you)

Baitullah Mehsud (BM): Waleikum Asalam (And also with you)

MS: Chief, how are you?

BM: I am fine.

MS: Congratulations, I just got back during the night.

BM: Congratulations to you, were they our men?

MS: Yes they were ours.

BM: Who were they?

MS: There was Saeed, there was Bilal from Badar and Ikramullah.

BM: The three of them did it?

MS: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.

BM: Then congratulations.

MS: Where are you? I want to meet you.

BM: I am at Makeen (town in South Waziristan tribal region), come over, I am at Anwar Shah's house.

MS: OK, I'll come.

BM: Don't inform their house for the time being.

MS: OK.

BM: It was a tremendous effort. They were really brave boys who killed her.

MS: Mashallah (Thank God). When I come I will give you all the details.

BM: I will wait for you. Congratulations, once again congratulations.

MS: Congratulations to you.

BM: Anything I can do for you?

MS: Thank you very much.

BM: Asalaam Aleikum.

MS: Waaleikum Asalaam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … pak228.xml

did you know that the head of suicide bomber who detonates a vest usually remains intact and untouched not too far from the site of where he or she may have detonated

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

did you know that the head of suicide bomber who detonates a vest usually remains intact and untouched not too far from the site of where he or she may have detonated

It said half the face was blown off. Can you imagine having to put the face back together? I have a little experience.
  <-- Guilty

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

half a head is better than no head at all

I've got to admit that occasionally I think "well, I disagree with Cameron Poe but the guy is at least generally rational" and so I listen to what you have to say to at least get some understanding of the other side of an argument, and potentially to either challenge myself to change my way of thinking, or to reinforce my own beliefs, but when I hear you espouse the virtues of hiding amongst, and therefore endangering, innocent women and children, and hear you follow that up with decrying that someone else has "dehumanized" those who train children to commit suicide in the act of murder, I just lose all respect for anything you have to say.

Nobody else has to "dehumanize" anyone who straps explosives on to a 13 year old and sends him into a crowded market to kill/main/wound whoever might be around. They've done that themselves. They AREN'T human. They're biologically the same as the rest of us, but morally, intellectually, and spiritually they're pieces of shit. you are either trying to get a rise out of everyone, or you've completely lost touch with reality. Generally even though I disagree with you I just have the understanding that people on different sides of an issue can be honest, well-intentioned, decent people with different points of view, but if you think anybody is "dehumanizing" those fuckwads you're more than on the other side of the issue, you're on the other side of sanity.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

To know who did it you need to know who wins the most with her death.  AQ or the Taleban?  Nah.  She wasn't a menace for them.  Musharraf controls them better than she could.  Other candidates?  Nah.  Musharraf?  He certainly won a lot with her death.

Based on what's going on over there right now...Musharaf didn't gain anything other than more asspain from the populace.

She was hardcore about the NW tribal region and cracking down on extremism, the Taliban and AQ. That was a significant part of her platform. So...yeah. Those parties gained a lot more with her death than anyone else did.

Did anyone hear or read about the (rather passionate) speech she gave right before her assassination. She was talking about the need to fight terrorism, the need to fight AQ.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/h … l#section1