| Maruga 27.12.2007 08:51 |
link Why? STOP VIOLENCE!!! |
| Gratzi 27.12.2007 08:53 |
link beat you to it! but as I said... damn! I still cannot believe this... :O |
| pittrek 27.12.2007 08:57 |
Huh ! Why doesn't it surprise me ? Some people should listen more of Freddie's music, e.g. "Stop All The Fighting" |
| Mr.Jingles 27.12.2007 09:22 |
Part of me is shocked, and part of me saw it coming. |
| Poo, again 27.12.2007 09:26 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Part of me is shocked, and part of me saw it coming. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.12.2007 10:49 |
Assassination is never justified. In this case, I must however add "live by the sword, die by the sword" to that. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 27.12.2007 11:44 |
*opens first filing cabinet and inserts Benazir Bhutto into "jeez,never saw this coming" category behind Anna Nicole Smith and in front of the space reserved for Amy Winehouse* *closes first filing cabinet* *opens second filing cabinet and prepares the space for President Musharaf in the "when-shit+fan=chaos" section* *leaves filing cabinet open*... |
| Micrówave 27.12.2007 11:57 |
I see all these countries coming out in support for Bhutto now. Perhaps they forgot about that last name for a few years. Remember, her father was hanged for murdering his political opponent. Ask Aaron Burr how his life went after "The Duel". Then she decides to run a campaign for the people and is a shoo-in. Not long after, the scandals started and she lost the people. Kinda like Jimmy Swaggart. So she is arrested (twice this year!) and decides to start up her political career again. And also, it didn't take much to get to her. That speaks volumes. They didn't investigate the previous assassination attempt on her life. They'll probably say she didn't get hit by a bullet at all! Heart attack? Concussion? Something. So was this a suicide? Some are calling her a Martyr. I'd like to think my Martyrs are a little smarter than that! |
| thomasquinn 32989 29.12.2007 06:55 |
The key point here, however, is not what Bhutto was (a corrupt power-addict, IMHO), but how she is perceived. Factionalism is running free in Pakistan the last few years, and Musharraf is completely incapable of handling it. This assassination has come at such a critical time, as to raise mutual distrust between various groups to danger-levels, in effect bringing Pakistan to the brink of a civil war. Any minor incident could now trigger that. Should a civil war occur, a very major threat is posed: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Should these fall in the hands of any of a number of radical insurgent groups (call them "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda" if you wish; neither exists as anything more than a collective term for hardly related extremist cells), there are very real chances of them being used... |
| Poo, again 29.12.2007 12:02 |
It was I who killed Benazir Bhutto. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 29.12.2007 13:20 |
If you wanna know, there is an article saying that she wasn't killed by the attackers. She was killed by a skull fracture caused by the wave of the bomb while she was trying to duck. link Idon't know whether to believe this. |
| Lady Nyx 29.12.2007 14:09 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: The key point here, however, is not what Bhutto was (a corrupt power-addict, IMHO), but how she is perceived. Factionalism is running free in Pakistan the last few years, and Musharraf is completely incapable of handling it. This assassination has come at such a critical time, as to raise mutual distrust between various groups to danger-levels, in effect bringing Pakistan to the brink of a civil war. Any minor incident could now trigger that. Should a civil war occur, a very major threat is posed: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Should these fall in the hands of any of a number of radical insurgent groups (call them "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda" if you wish; neither exists as anything more than a collective term for hardly related extremist cells), there are very real chances of them being used...ugh what a frightening thought! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.12.2007 05:37 |
I've only just recently heard about this, as I was traveling all day when this happend and thus pretty out of touch with reality. But I'm not surprised. It all ended far too well after the tensions between her and Musharaf a few months back. And how she died isn't relevent to any conversation...the point is she is dead. Whether it was the bomb itself or the injuries sustained trying to escape the bomb is a moot point. This indeed creates a dangerous situation. Call her what you will, but there are now a mass of people willing to fight in her memory against whoever they deem responsible (most likely the government will be the recipient of blame). Musharaf, as stated before, hasn't been able to control the dangerous factions that are present in the country. I see civil war looming on the horizon... |
| Micrówave 31.12.2007 10:45 |
HistoryGirl wrote: And how she died isn't relevent to any conversation...the point is she is dead.Well, I didn't think so, until the facts started coming out. And then changing, and changing. Yes, she's dead, but now we have factions fighting over who's responsible, what happened, pretty much utter chaos. This son, who is taking over his Mom's position, will either be killed or silently disolve his party. This was a successful governmental overthrow of the highest nature, plain and simple. Another display of a minority faction successfully controlling the will of the people. The U.S. (and other countries) would be wise to get out now. Iran & Pakistan should be able to wipe each other out for the next 500 years or so. |
| Mr.Jingles 31.12.2007 11:51 |
Gotta love the Google ads... BHUTTO RINGTONES! Some people really love cashing in the dead with style. |
| brENsKi 31.12.2007 12:06 |
people are dead. full stop. the why's and wherefores are now completely irrelevant. the only thing that matters is the simple equation - Pakistan has nuclear power, therefore Pakistan + Nuclear Power = Iran with knobs on |
| Lisser 31.12.2007 12:18 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: people are dead. full stop. the why's and wherefores are now completely irrelevant. the only thing that matters is the simple equation - Pakistan has nuclear power, therefore Pakistan + Nuclear Power = Iran with knobs onYep..sadly. If Pakistan has them I'm afraid they are going to be used and soon. I'm still hoping they do not really have them and are bluffing. |
| Micrówave 31.12.2007 14:02 |
Lisser wrote: If Pakistan has them I'm afraid they are going to be used and soon. I'm still hoping they do not really have them and are bluffing.They've had 'em for nearly twenty years. Just like India. Sorry to worry you. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 31.12.2007 14:39 |
I was away for the holiday when this happened. I turned on the news for the weather just as the commentator said, "Benazir Bhutto is dead." The first thing I said was, "they killed her." There was no question this was going to happen. She knew it and so did the rest of the world. How it happened - as a result of a bullet, shrapnel or blast from a bomb - is irrelevant. She was clearly with the West and spoke out against extremists. She was not a fan of Musharraf nor was he of her. She was murdered as expected and now Musharraf is in an even more difficult spot. I'm not a Musharraf groupie or anything, but I think it's fair to say he's been walking a fine line as it is with the combination of moderates and extremists in his country. That line is even finer now. I've no idea what the answer might be, but as others have expressed here, I'm also afraid of the civil war possibility (probability?) and most importantly, the security of those weapons. Just a few years ago, Y2K was the thing to fear. Who knows what the stroke of midnight will bring us this new year. The world we're living in is certainly a frightening place. |
| Holly2003 31.12.2007 14:49 |
Settle down American chumleys. The world has always been a scary place, it's just that after 9/11 you can now find some of these places on the map. |
| Music Man 31.12.2007 15:23 |
Holly2003 wrote: Settle down American chumleys. The world has always been a scary place, it's just that after 9/11 you can now find some of these places on the map.Yes, it's well documented that 9/11/2001 was the first time atlases had been updated for at least a hundred years... |
| Lisser 31.12.2007 16:25 |
Here's a blonde question...how do we/the world know who's got nuclear weapons and who does not? Do the countries that have them show the world they have them? How is it determined who really has them and who "threatens" they have them? |
| brENsKi 31.12.2007 16:27 |
Holly2003 wrote: Settle down American chumleys. The world has always been a scary place, it's just that after 9/11 you can now find some of these places on the map.you need to grow up and stop patronizing and generalizing. i am NOT american, neither is Casper or several other of the commentators on this thread. the perceived view of Pakistan (in here) is a fairly accurate and (certainly) realistic one. They were at war with India, and there is a mutual fear and hatred these two nations share for each other. This was further exacerbated when India felt the need to protect her borders from Pakistan by taking the nuclear option. Pakistan and India see this as a mutual deterrent. Unfortunately, THAT was long before Al fucking Quaeda and several "less moderate" factions became the morale guidance for Muslims. Pakistan is perhaps the second most dangerous country on the planet (after Korea).... as i said before "Iran with knobs on"... now "Holly2003", please go away and do some intelligent research BEFORE you insult and patronize rational-thinking people. you have two options - 1. Bow to those with better knowledge of the subject than yourself, or - 2. Don't comment about things you know f-all about |
| Holly2003 31.12.2007 17:49 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Queenzone's definitely the place to be for deep political debate. I don't know where I'd be without it...Holly2003 wrote: Settle down American chumleys. The world has always been a scary place, it's just that after 9/11 you can now find some of these places on the map.you need to grow up and stop patronizing and generalizing. i am NOT american, neither is Casper or several other of the commentators on this thread. the perceived view of Pakistan (in here) is a fairly accurate and (certainly) realistic one. They were at war with India, and there is a mutual fear and hatred these two nations share for each other. This was further exacerbated when India felt the need to protect her borders from Pakistan by taking the nuclear option. Pakistan and India see this as a mutual deterrent. Unfortunately, THAT was long before Al fucking Quaeda and several "less moderate" factions became the morale guidance for Muslims. Pakistan is perhaps the second most dangerous country on the planet (after Korea).... as i said before "Iran with knobs on"... now "Holly2003", please go away and do some intelligent research BEFORE you insult and patronize rational-thinking people. you have two options - 1. Bow to those with better knowledge of the subject than yourself, or - 2. Don't comment about things you know f-all about |
| Griffin 31.12.2007 18:31 |
kindly direct your comments at Dick Cheney, Holly 2003 -- or did you win a Nobel Peace Prize recently? I hear an 'American chumley' actually has sweat equity on that |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.12.2007 19:01 |
Holly2003 wrote: Settle down American chumleys. The world has always been a scary place, it's just that after 9/11 you can now find some of these places on the map.Dare I say this sounds like some 'typically Northern Irish' comment? I would, except that it would bring myself down to your level of generalizing. As an American who is currently in Great Britain, it is interesting to see the perspective. Yes, the world has always been and will always be a scary place. Yes, I will generally agree that most Americans are woefully ignorant of world events (that is because, in their POV, America is the center o the universe). However, your argument is crap. 9-11 has nothing to do with this. The woman was assasinated, leaving power to her son (questionable whether he even wants it) and her husband (who has known shady dealings and other charges of corruption in the past). Thank you Brenski for your comments on the situation....but may I also add as factors the fuel the fire between these two nuclear superpowers 1) Major religious differneces- Pakistan is Muslim, while the majority of India is Hindu 2) The Kashmir region- Conflict over the area of Kashmir between the two countries. If you truly want a debate Holly2003, might I sugguest a less patronizing tone? Also, if you even want to stand a chance at winning the debate, it might help if you avoid generalizations at all cost; say nothing you can't back up with fact. |
| Music Man 31.12.2007 20:23 |
Politics apparently is not one of Holly's fortes. |
| brENsKi 01.01.2008 06:22 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Politics apparently is not one of Holly's fortes.and the ironic thing is that where Holly comes from...you would think a basic knowledge of political conflict would be the staple of almost ever (Northern) Irish citizen. Pehaps this particular "islander" has had his head buried in the sand for twenty years... |
| YourValentine 01.01.2008 06:22 |
Lisser wrote: Here's a blonde question...how do we/the world know who's got nuclear weapons and who does not? Do the countries that have them show the world they have them? How is it determined who really has them and who "threatens" they have them?They announced it. Countries who never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can build as many nuclear wepaons as they want because they are sovereign countries and do what they want. Only countries who are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - for example Iran and Germany - have promised not to build nuclear weapons and have accepted international control by the member states. While Germany has established a spotless reputation over the centuries, so nobody needs to come and look, the Iran has a history of starting World Wars and to attack harmless neighbours - that's why the world community has to go there and to harrass them and to threaten with economic isolation and war... |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 01.01.2008 15:07 |
YourValentine wrote:you nearly put me in hospital with this!Lisser wrote: Here's a blonde question...how do we/the world know who's got nuclear weapons and who does not? Do the countries that have them show the world they have them? How is it determined who really has them and who "threatens" they have them?They announced it. Countries who never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can build as many nuclear wepaons as they want because they are sovereign countries and do what they want. Only countries who are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - for example Iran and Germany - have promised not to build nuclear weapons and have accepted international control by the member states. While Germany has established a spotless reputation over the centuries, so nobody needs to come and look, the Iran has a history of starting World Wars and to attack harmless neighbours - that's why the world community has to go there and to harrass them and to threaten with economic isolation and war... i laughed so much i gave myself a coughing fit and nearly choked on my cornflakes.. ps you're gonna need surgery to get your tongue out of your cheek if you keep it in there any longer lol |
| Music Man 01.01.2008 16:02 |
As long as Germany has the autobahn network and the Nurburgring, I couldn't care less how many nukes they have (or don't have). |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2008 20:26 |
Lisser wrote: Here's a blonde question...how do we/the world know who's got nuclear weapons and who does not? Do the countries that have them show the world they have them? How is it determined who really has them and who "threatens" they have them?If that's a blonde question, then the whole world is blonde. The sickening part of humanity if that nukes are in possession of sick bastards world leaders who could use them anytime they want, and they're just waiting for a reason to create mass paranoia and justify the mass killing of innocent people. No wonder why scientists pulled out of the Manhattan project. Truth is that the humanity doesn't have the brains to handle such weapon, and we never will. I guess that's one of the things I learned from 'Dr. Strangelove'. Now back to the whole Bhutto assassination subject, shit has really hit the fan now that video proves that Bhutto was killed by a gunman followed by the suicide bomber explosion. Unlike the government version that indicates that Bhutto died from head injuries caused by the explosion. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.01.2008 09:20 |
looks as if the elections have been postponed for 6 weeks now... |
| brENsKi 02.01.2008 14:38 |
JoxerTheNewYearPirate wrote: looks as if the elections have been postponed for 6 weeks now...just long enough to get enough rounds for their AK47s, and realign their warheads in an Indian direcion |
| Gratzi 02.01.2008 16:01 |
Charming 'publicity stunt' coming from Mr. Musharraf: Scotland Yard is sending a team of specialists to clear up the confusion surrounding Bhutto's death, NB - at his request. (Basically they're trying to answer the question, how did she die? What bloody difference does it make?) This, plus postponing the legislative elections hopefully will get him a decent number of votes. Of course the PPP went ballistic when they heard about this, trying to take advantage of Bhutto's martyr-ish death. Would this had worked? we'll never know.. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.01.2008 20:42 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:were the warheads ever pointing in any other direction?JoxerTheNewYearPirate wrote: looks as if the elections have been postponed for 6 weeks now...just long enough to get enough rounds for their AK47s, and realign their warheads in an Indian direcion seems as if the assassin[s] have got their wish.complete disarray and total lack of stability and order now reigns in the region with what looks like worse to follow once the elections [if you can call the vote rigging that will happen "elections"] have accured.the country is heading for complete meltdown and the whole world knows it. on another note: how can the son of Bhutto become the new party leader? i know we in the UK have a prime minister that wasnt elected by the voters to be prime minister but at least he is a member of parliament.to my limited knowledge on Pakistan politics the son isnt/wasnt involved in her party in any form.. any reason why he should be allowed to run the country if [and thats a big IF] he's elected? |
| Micrówave 03.01.2008 11:21 |
YourValentine wrote: While Germany has established a spotless reputation over the centuries, so nobody needs to come and lookWell, there was that ONE thing!!! Or were those just outrageously large furnaces? Lisser wrote: how do we/the world know who's got nuclear weapons and who does not?link Here's another interesting event: The Vela Incident (sometimes known as the South Atlantic Flash) was an as-yet unidentified flash of light detected by a United States Vela satellite on September 22, 1979. It has been speculated that the flash was the result of a nuclear weapons test; however, recently declassified information about the event concludes that it was "probably not from a nuclear explosion." |