PDA

View Full Version : Benazir Bhutto killed in bomb attack


Arnab
December 27, 2007, 08:32 AM
Reports Reuters just now.

sandpiper
December 27, 2007, 08:39 AM
Omg ! very very tragic day for Pakistan. (and its democracy)

(inna lillahe wainna ilayhe raajewoon)

Moshin
December 27, 2007, 08:49 AM
i cant believe this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mohiul
December 27, 2007, 08:53 AM
Inna lillahe oa inna ilaihe raje'un. May Allah rest her in peace and (May Allah) never let happen this sort of tragic incident in any part of the world.

Murad
December 27, 2007, 08:59 AM
Omg ! very very tragic day for Pakistan. (and its democracy)
her father was also killed.
(inna lillahe wainna ilayhe raajewoon)

Her father was hanged like 30 years before.

Imtiazk
December 27, 2007, 09:02 AM
I know this is not the right forum but I just saw this.

Bengaliprince176
December 27, 2007, 09:03 AM
this is sad....she was a hope for many for a peaceful and stable Pakistan...may she rest in peace...shes a brave woman, she came to her homeland knowing she was under attack RIP

Moshin
December 27, 2007, 09:06 AM
Benazir Bhutto was killed by gunshot wounds to the neck and chest as she was leaving a rally of the Pakistan People's Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_People%27s_Party) in Rawalpindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawalpindi), Pakistan. The assassin then blew himself up, killing about 20 people. The attack occurred just after Ms. Bhutto left the rally, where she was giving a campaign address to party supporters in the run-up to the January 2008 parliamentary elections.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-58>[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#_note-58)</SUP>

sandpiper
December 27, 2007, 09:06 AM
you are right. he was executed in 1979.
Her father was hanged like 30 years before.

Navarene
December 27, 2007, 09:06 AM
These kind of incidents are inevitable under the rule of autocratic regime. I feel for pakistani mass people.

Murad
December 27, 2007, 09:06 AM
this will create civil war in pakistan. maybe it started already.

only the innocent people will suffer.:(

Moshin
December 27, 2007, 09:08 AM
the whole of pakistan will be in turmoil starting from today
i doubt the elections will be held this year!

reverse_swing
December 27, 2007, 09:13 AM
She had been shot in the head according to Ary-One TV.The bomber repeatedly tried to get close to Bhutto's party and began shooting before blowing himself up.

sandpiper
December 27, 2007, 09:16 AM
She was suppoesed to be the strongest candidate for future prime minister. But this government failed to provide her enough security.

sunnyctg
December 27, 2007, 09:19 AM
hmm...pak will be in chaos..again...for a long time. Sad news for pak. Altho that still doesnt make bhutto a good person. she still is a currupted minister who smuggled a hell lot of money from her country. but still not a nice way to die ofcourse. This suiside business is becoming more and more populer in pak, too much extreemists live there.

In a strange way pak is like in the same position as bd. No good leaders to lead the country. Then again we have CTG who saved our country from becoming a mess like pak. anyway Best of luck to them..

shaad
December 27, 2007, 09:19 AM
She had been shot in the head according to Ary-One TV.

Neck and chest, actually.

Not good news, but not really surprising either. Given how corrupt her past administrations were (her husband was known as Mr. Ten Percent, I believe), I fail to see how she would have improved the situation for the average Pakistani. In many ways, she was a pawn being used by the West and her own ambition.

Still, no one deserves to die like that.

Moshin
December 27, 2007, 09:21 AM
She was suppoesed to be the strongest candidate for future prime minister. But this government failed to provide her enough security.
Musharaff should be punished for not providing the best security to her,
we saw the previous assination attempt in October, which killed over
120 people, because of the lack of security measures for her, and this time
the assisinators have been successful this time.

sandpiper
December 27, 2007, 09:22 AM
according to BBC, she was shot by the gunman(suicide attacker) in the head and chest and died on her way to hospital. (the blast took place just around 5:00 pm in Rawalpindi)
Neck and chest, actually.

Xavier
December 27, 2007, 09:31 AM
What about the CIA? They are often the "hidden hand" behind troubles in most of the world countries... I hope there will not be further troubles for Pakistan, anyway.

One World
December 27, 2007, 09:37 AM
This shocking debacle occurred when for sub-continent's sake democracy needed to be established in Pakistan and for SAARC region's sake the balance of regional hegemony which has been highly tilted as Pakistan's deteriorating supremacy under Mosha regime and their excessive interest in Afghan affairs, a politically stable Pak has been heavily required.

Sohel
December 27, 2007, 10:16 AM
Not good news, but not really surprising either. Given how corrupt her past administrations were (her husband was known as Mr. Ten Percent, I believe), I fail to see how she would have improved the situation for the average Pakistani. In many ways, she was a pawn being used by the West and her own ambition.

Still, no one deserves to die like that.

My thoughts and sentiments exactly. The Pakistani military institutions have managed do destroy 50% of country by undermining the civil institutions there over the years, corrupt politicians and civil servants had their way with about 30%, now the Wahabi militants are going to do the rest.

My prayers are for the Pakistani people.

Rifat
December 27, 2007, 10:21 AM
OH OUR ALLAH! why does stupid things always happen in Pakistan?

DJ Sahastra
December 27, 2007, 10:28 AM
That's sad. May her soul rest in peace.

Her fate was sealed the day she decided to take on Musharraf (and with that, the Army, the ISI and the Jehadists).

West had pushed upon Musharraf to help her throw a facade of democracy by inviting her to Pakistan. However, the politician in her saw the mood and sentiment across the country following the humiliation heaped upon the Supreme court judges and decided to take Musharraf heads on.

That eventually sealed her fate.

Benazir forgot the golden adage - you can't live in water and fight with a crocodile unless you are a shark.

Kabir
December 27, 2007, 10:32 AM
A couple of days ago I was watching TV, where a news report was showing Benazir speaking openly in some meeting. I was telling myself that knowing Pakistan, she could be killed any time.

I'm more sad for the innocent lives that have been lost than her life...she was going to be killed one day or the other anyway...given her and her family's political profile.

Tigers_eye
December 27, 2007, 10:34 AM
May her soul rest in peace. I feel for the Pakistani people.

ialbd
December 27, 2007, 10:51 AM
Innali...... rajewun....

it was just matter of time, everyone in pakistan is virtually seating on a bomb. Its so unfortunate....

PoorFan
December 27, 2007, 11:04 AM
What a sad news for Pakistan people. Reminds me the words somewhere I read that this country wont last another 10 years, it will become in 3 pieces! Now it seems becoming as reality, and political unrest in neighbor countries seems more inevitable. Only a day or so ago she accused Musharraf for failing against militants, perhaps her repeated stand against militants pulled the trigger.

May her and those innocent peoples soul rest in peace.

ammark
December 27, 2007, 11:42 AM
Its interesting that the way its been done exploits many problems they're facing.

- Jihadists have been blowing themselves up in a mosque on eid day, trying to kill their interior minister, and now this happens.
- On the other hand, Benazir was being extremely confrontational with the army.
- The CIA (the US Senate) was debating yesterday that the millions of $$ sent to Pakistan to prop up Musharraf was all going to waste.
- There is enough trouble from the Jihadis in the Frontier and Tribal Provinces who are against Musharraf who would want to destabilise him further.
- The ISI has historically had close links with the Jihadis and would probably have wanted to prop up the army by removing Bhutto.

Essentially its a very fused, and chaotic picture. Lots of parties can be seen to have benefited. In reality Musharraf is f***ed. Pakistan is f***ed. There are enough religious, political and regional divisions to drown it in sustained instability and violence. At the same time, Pakistan is one country no one can turn its back on, not the US, not India, nor China.

It breeds way too many problems, and will continue to breed problems whether outside countries get involved or not. Its in foreign powers' interests to mitigate the export of the instability from Pakistan.

Rabz
December 27, 2007, 11:44 AM
Inna.....Rajiun.

A very sad but not surprising news. It was coming her way.
The way Pakistani politics was shaping up last few months, i guess it does not take much to figure out this was inevitable.

My condolences to her immideate family, esp her three young kids.

The socio-political dynamics of pakistan would change for sure, which in turn, will have an effect on the whole subcontinent, and hence, us.

ammark
December 27, 2007, 11:56 AM
The socio-political dynamics of pakistan would change for sure, which in turn, will have an effect on the whole subcontinent, and hence, us.

We werent very far from this quagmire ourselves. 2004 almost made it happen with that attempt on Hasina. Thank God, that Hasina lives on and is safe and sound in her cozy VVIP prison.

Secondly, I'm really glad that this CTG has been getting at HuJi and at the same time failed at implementing the -2 (exile) solution! Our work isnt done yet though. Judiciary, Election Commission, ACC, PSC, Regulatory Reforms Commission, Police Reform, Truth Commission, Human Rights Commission all need to be made a lot more independent and empowered from the ministries if we are to ensure that Bangladesh does not become the next Pakistan. We probably have a 6-7 year advantage to Pakistan on these matters. We havent had a dictatorship pulling strings since 1999 since then. Our 'elected dictatorships' is getting some bamboo from an unelected dictatorship that wants to set things right.

Bangladesh Zindabad
Joy Bangla
Bangladesh Chirojeebi hok

Kana-Baba
December 27, 2007, 12:06 PM
Pakistan is one big messed up country – I am not surprised at all.

al Furqaan
December 27, 2007, 01:11 PM
Pakistan is one big messed up country – I am not surprised at all.

well so is BD, and all other countries...its just that some are messed up over religious zealotry and others with secularist ideals.

its all the same. they all lie, cheat, steal, and kill innocent people in the name of their respective ideology.

they'll all be burning in the same hellfire.

al Furqaan
December 27, 2007, 01:18 PM
What about the CIA? They are often the "hidden hand" behind troubles in most of the world countries... I hope there will not be further troubles for Pakistan, anyway.

too conspiratorial...she was our "Man" in the region...no interest for us to kill her.

Beamer
December 27, 2007, 01:22 PM
Sad, but not totally unexpected.

Chaos, instability follows and those who want to go fishing in muddy water will no doubt exploit the situation.

This is a memo to our leaders and politicians. You can't go to bed with radicals under any circumstances to attain to power. Hopefully, we will learn from history. We have been guilty ( our major parties, BNP specifically ) in the past of nurturing, promoting and even protecting simmillar elements for election benefits. Nothing good ever will come out of it.

Shafin
December 27, 2007, 01:25 PM
Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Lillahi Rajiun.

One little interesting trivia:

*During the independence of Bangladesh, The elected leaders of Pakistan(and Bangladesh/East Pakistan), West Pakistan and India were Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi.

>Indira Died an abnormal death,assassinated in the hands of her Body Guards.She had two Sons.
>Sonjoy Gandhi,died in a plane crash,again an abnormal death.
>Rajiv Gandhi,killed in a suicide attack.

>Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was Hanged in 1979,he had two sons and two daughters.
>Shahnawaz was killed in France In 1980.
>Murtaza Bhutto was shot and killed during an altercation with the policein 1996.
>Benazir Bhutto was killed in 2007

>Sanam Bhutto Lives.

>Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assasinated in 1975
>Along with his son Sheikh Kamal
>Sheikh Jamal
>And Sheikh Rassel,all three of his sons.

>The remaining two descendants, Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana Lives.

So far,no death form these three leaders or their children have been normal.All but Sonjoy Gandhi were killed.

Are they Cursed?

Beamer
December 27, 2007, 01:27 PM
too conspiratorial...she was our "Man" in the region...no interest for us to kill her.

Do not count it out right away either. You need to create arguements for de-nuclearlizing Pakistan first. What better way to do it than creating massive unrest and instability. It was probably delivered by one of the splinter radical groups. The word "splinter" is important. There are radicals groups in Pakistan or elsewhere who actually takes command from worldly powers..

MarufH
December 27, 2007, 03:13 PM
In a strange way pak is like in the same position as bd. No good leaders to lead the country. Then again we have CTG who saved our country from becoming a mess like pak. anyway Best of luck to them..

I thank Allah everyday for the same reason!!!!

Nocturnal
December 27, 2007, 03:42 PM
sad and shocked :(
RIP BB

DJ Sahastra
December 27, 2007, 03:48 PM
People who throw up conspiracy theories and drag Al-Qaeda have absolutely no understanding of Pakistan or Al-Qaeda. Benazir Bhutto is not a victim of Al-Qaeda despite all their tall claims. In fact, Al Qaeda gives two-hoots about the likes of Benazirs and Sharifs.

Al-Qaeda, IMO, is merely trying to encash on the event and enhance it's reputation of being the giant-killer of the 'enemies of Islam' by whatever twisted logic it could convince itself that Benazir was an 'enemy'.

IMO, Benazir Bhutto is a victim of carefully planned state execution. People often look at ISI, Army, Islamic Jehadists and Musharraf as different entities - they are one entity hand-in-glove with each other. Musharraf and Army do the planning, ISI is responsibly for executing it covertly and poor people who blow themselves up in the name of "Jehad" are merely the pawns.

In case of Benazir, her assasination is more of the damage control by MIJA or Musharraf-ISI-Jehadists-Army combine. She was brought in for elections more as a face-mask for the western world. Musharraf had it all figured - Benazir as the PM, Musharraf as the President and the General and US as the big-fat cow ready to be milked. Where the plan went off-track was the extra-ordinary show of guts and principles by Supreme Court Justice who refused to bend over backwards for Musharraf. To Musharraf who is ues to people toeing his line, this was shocking and as much an expected thing in Pakistan as a speech from G W Bush where he knows what he is talking about. The unexpected brought unexpected retributions and Musharraf made the first tactical blunder of kicking them out. The lawyers in Pakistan showed some guts (another unexpected event) and soon the whole country was chanting Musharraf Hai-Hai.

Benazir was meant to be a decoy and a puppet PM. But Benazir, an astute politician and opportunist (which politican can claim he is not an opportunist) saw the public sentiments and turned her back on Musharraf. She no longer needed to appease him - she was already home and suddenly elevated to the role of Messiah about to deliver the goods for Pakistan. Musharraf, the messiah-maker was only too aware of the perils - he got the final death-threat when Benazir announced that she will not ratify his presidency. What it meant was, Musharraf's fate hung in balance and in Pakistan, that usually means seeing your neck hung by the rope.

Musharraf did what he had to do to save his life and for his own survival. Like any other dictator, he is in the phase of his career where he has daggers pointed at him from all-side - this also explains his soft position vis-a-vis Kashmir and his not-so-secret coyness with the Indian government.

To drag in Al-Qaeda here is like giving them way too much credit - extremists, terrorist - they are all involved but only at the behest of their Master who also happens to be their creator.

Benazir's assasination is only a collateral damage for the Pakistan's Musharraf 'headed' Military establishment. For Musharraf, it was the ultimate solution to all of the following problems:

1. Own Survival: Benazir's win which was supposed to only facilitate his long term hold and rule was fast turning into a noose hanging around the neck and about to be tightened anythime the lady decides to be less lenient. It was only a matter of time.

2. Political Compulsion: If credibility in the eyes of people hitting the trough was not enough, Benazir's rise and popularity had assumed dangerous proposition. What was expected as an outcome of the election was a confusion leading to a fractured mandate and public returning a hung verdict open to manipulations and doctoring. With events that proceeded to happen, it suddenly seemed like an unlikely proposition.

3. Financial: It was important to remind the west of "How much of a risk a Pakistan let loose to extremists (Read - unplacated home-grown terrorists) meant to the rest of the world" and how important it was to double the efforts to curb that extremism by doling out more of the green-bucks extracted from the hard-working people. What better way than to send that message wrapped in the body of their favourite mascot - the "Darling of the west" and the "Daughter of the east"!

4. International Image and Distraction: Things have been going horrifically wrong, both for Musharraf and his supporters in the white-house. Commonwealth had already threatened suspension based on Musharraf's credentials with democratic norms. Strategic and Military thinkers were talking more about how the establishment was siphoning money meant for helping in the war against terror. There were less and less usage of common phrases "Important ally in the war against terror" and more frequent whispers of "terrorist helping country". What better to bring the focus back to "Goddamn it, we have terrorists here and unless you pump in the billions (and look the other way while we increase our waistline feeding on it), we will have more and more of this sh!t". As the say, "T" word is one of the few words that can make White House open it's treasury chest with no-questions asked attitude.

5. Threat-Perception: You raise the bogey of terrorism and everything goes - no questions asked. Who knows this better than Musharraf. With the first sign of "extremist attack", the western world would be wetting its pants and talking about the "Need for Musharraf to Stay" and the "Stability is more important" than "Why is democracy being murdered". Back home, people would run a few riots and loot a few shops and would be allowed to do so until enough images are splashed around the world to show how "Pakistan is in danger of instability and hence a danger to the world". The Military then steps in with it's "Danda" and everything is nice and dandy for the next billions.

The saga continues.

In reality, comman man in Pakistan is no more extremist than India or Bangladesh - we share that legacy. What differentiates the three is the state-patronage and usage - or rather the checks and balances of a democracy.

In many ways, it is a shame - how much aid has Bangladesh, a Muslim majority country that has chosen to stay moderate and democratic, gotten from the Western world. And it's crime is simple - it didn't produce enough threats from extremists and terrorists to demand aids to counter them

Ganguly da
December 27, 2007, 03:53 PM
This is an inside job, and the Inside man is Musharaff, he's extremely clever and knows how to play from both sides....he's the one who started Kargil War and now he removed Bhutto, this is handy work of ISI...the spy terrorist agency of pakistan...go to hell musharaff

I also remember few comments here when the 1st attack occured as Bhutto stepped in pakistan, 139 died..and several members here were chanting death to Bhutto, well you got your wish....pakistan is progressing towards a disaster. Religious extremism + political corruption takes you nowhere.

Beamer
December 27, 2007, 04:10 PM
DJ

Good observations. May we call you B Raman?

DJ Sahastra
December 27, 2007, 04:22 PM
DJ

Good observations. May we call you B Raman?

Beamer,

Lets just say, "Law & Order" Mr. McCoy is my personal favourite.

In private though, i have often raised this question as to why, in the name of war on terror, does Pakistan get billions of dollars whereas a country that can serve as a better example (Bangladesh) if given the proper support, doesn't even get a few millions.

The answers are obvious - Pakistan is being rewarded for being the breeding ground of terrorists. You breed them, then you ask for aid to fight them - the business model is perfect!

Yameen
December 27, 2007, 04:23 PM
her death is death to democracy in pakistan, and Musharaff's policies are to be the blame for her death..a very sad day for pakistanis, may her soul rest in peace

Hatebreed
December 27, 2007, 04:24 PM
This is a very tragic news, but somehow I'm not shocked and knew it was going to happen. I can't say that I feel sorry for Pakistan's current state from a political standpoint, but I do feel bad that ultimately innocent people are suffering from this violence and corruption.

Rubu
December 27, 2007, 04:33 PM
she barely escaped the last attempt. she must have been a brave soul to carry on after that.

innalli innahi wa innal illahi rajeun.

DJ Sahastra
December 27, 2007, 04:44 PM
Look at Bhutto's own comments at the link below on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto/index.html

In Bhutto's own words:

I began to feel the net was being tightened around me when police security outside my home in Karachi was reduced, even as I was told that other assassination plots were in the offing.

<!--startclickprintexclude-->While the authorities speculated on whether a suicide bomber had been involved or two suicide bombers or perhaps a hand grenade or perhaps a car bomb, I reflected on my plight.
I decided not to be holed up in my home, a virtual prisoner. I went to my ancestral village of Larkana to pray at my father's grave. Everywhere, the people rallied around me in a frenzy of joy. I feel humbled by their love and trust.
Although it remains difficult to know for certain, I doubt that a suicide bomber was involved in the attack on me. I suspect, after talking to some of the injured, that the terrorists used a small child as a ploy to get to me. They were trying to hoist the child -- dressed in the colors of my party's flag -- onto my truck.
Failing to do so, they dropped the child near my vehicle. Some witnesses said the child had been rigged as a human bomb. I can't be sure. What followed was a massive explosion, killing scores immediately, tearing many bodies in half and sending blood, gore and flames up into the vehicle.
In less than a minute a second bomb -- reports later suggested a car bomb -- went off.
As I have reflected on the past two weeks, there are some things I wonder about:
• What was the car doing there?
• Why had the street lights been turned off?
• Was that intended to prevent my security from clearly seeing any approaching dangers?
• Is there any truth to the report that a high government official ordered the lights turned off "to prevent her getting so much television coverage"?
• Why would the leadership of the ruling party of Pakistan make a claim that my own party had committed the attack to gain sympathy?
• Why would the investigation be initially given to a police officer who was present when my husband was nearly tortured to death in 1999?
And, then, there is to me the most worrying: the adamant rejection by Islamabad of any assistance from the state-of-the art forensic teams of the FBI and Scotland Yard. There are precedents in Pakistan for such international assistance. Such teams were called in to investigate the mysterious and sudden death of Army Chief General Asif Nawaz and the Egyptian Embassy bombing in the '90s.
I had called in international experts when my brother Murtaza was killed in what I believed was a conspiracy to destabilize my government in 1996.
We can only wonder -- if there is nothing to hide -- why international investigators from the FBI and Scotland Yard are being prevented from assisting a Pakistan-led investigation?

Antora
December 27, 2007, 05:17 PM
this is very sad ...

DJ Sahastra
December 27, 2007, 07:12 PM
It is official.

CNN/Fox News reported that Benazir had sent an email a few days back saying she feared for her life and if anything happened to her, Musharraf should be held responsible.

Just saw it live.

Sovik
December 27, 2007, 07:50 PM
may her soul rest in peace

Dhurr
December 27, 2007, 09:19 PM
My thoughts and sentiments exactly. The Pakistani military institutions have managed do destroy 50% of country by undermining the civil institutions there over the years, corrupt politicians and civil servants had their way with about 30%, now the Wahabi militants are going to do the rest.

My prayers are for the Pakistani people.

Offtopic:

Now Bangladesh is headed that way. The military is in power. The corrupt civil administration has not been prosecuted for their decades of corruption, and the Islamic militants have always been there in Bangladesh. The likes of JI and JMB still have strong holds on Bangladesh.

sunny747
December 27, 2007, 11:18 PM
Pakistan is in mess......probably 3 million bangladeshi had cursed them during 1971 and hense they are suffereing.......
well for pakistan, next target is Musharraf himself. note it down.

i don't know history that well but heard her father Julifikher ali bhutto was pain to Bangladesh during that time.

Pundit
December 28, 2007, 12:34 AM
Central Asian people are violent and kniving...especially the big three: Pakistan..Afganistan...Iran.

Afganistanis are the most violent, Iranians are the most kniving..and Pakistan is somewhere in the middle.

Just go to sleep. Things like this happen....

nobody
December 28, 2007, 01:31 AM
DJ, Good observation and may be the closest to the truth which we would never know

Arnab
December 28, 2007, 01:33 AM
Central Asian people are violent and kniving.

conniving.

sunny747
December 28, 2007, 03:41 AM
Central Asian people are violent and kniving...especially the big three: Pakistan..Afganistan...Iran.

Afganistanis are the most violent, Iranians are the most kniving..and Pakistan is somewhere in the middle.

Just go to sleep. Things like this happen....
i totally agree with you.

Alien
December 28, 2007, 07:39 AM
I read the news in my phone this morning on the way to work. It was shocking and sad but end of the day I realised it's about time. Just hours after she arrived, 150 or so people was killed because of her parading around. While she moves around in armoured motorcade, her own supporters are are left exposed. If she had any feeling for the welfare of her people, then she should have heeded the security warnings of assassination attempt on her life and put on hold her political ambition. More importantly she would have cancelled these parades and rallies.

Musharraf cant go around protecting someone who invites suicide bombers like flies on honey. Especially when it's hundreds of people in question. End of the day, people will just mourn her, not the 150 people that died a month ago or the 16 people that died with her last night.

I don't know how much corrupt she has been, but I do know that because she is dead, several more people will be living to see another day because there will be no more of her parades and rallies.

I know this is not the time or place to criticise her, but had that's just how I feel. Someone who can be so reckless can't go and run a country. Nonetheless, no one deserves to die like this.

Alien
December 28, 2007, 07:41 AM
One more thing, million thanks to Allah that we broke off from that country so we can at least sit back and say "that's their headache".

Alien
December 28, 2007, 07:45 AM
her death is death to democracy in pakistan, and Musharaff's policies are to be the blame for her death..a very sad day for pakistanis, may her soul rest in peace

Not a big supporter of Musharraf, but he has other things to worry about than providing her security. She was warned 1st time round and she ignored it and got 150 people blown to bits. This time she took another 16 with her. Or more who knows.

Bengaliprince176
December 28, 2007, 07:46 AM
ive alredi commented on this yesterday...but for sum reason i still feel a deep sadness for Bhutto despite not heard about her until a few months back, she was a liberal educated woman, much like my generation could be labelled, having studied in UK...its such a sad end, whoeveer mentionbed about central asian countries, u are prolly rite, but still there are many people in Pakistan who will try to get out of this mess, best of luck to them

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 09:50 AM
Actually, the only thing that I say "bravo" to her is because, this may have been the ONLY time that she showed some sense of love for her country. It was an open secret that people wanted to kill her...and the message came loud and clear the day she came. Still, she stayed in the country...may be deep inside she believed that in tight security nothing can happen to her. But the fact of the matter is, her days were numbered the day she wanted to come back to Pakistan.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I'm more sorry for the innocent lives lost than the loss of her life. She did a courageous thing by coming back, but with that, she took 170+ lives.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 11:15 AM
she has just come from from exile to her home country....why did she have to die so suddenly and quickly???????? god bless her and her family.....

DJ Sahastra
December 28, 2007, 11:27 AM
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I'm more sorry for the innocent lives lost than the loss of her life. She did a courageous thing by coming back, but with that, she took 170+ lives.

What twisted logic is this! Sad and pathetic to say the least.

The last i heard, it was some suicide bomber who killed those 170+ people, not Benazir.

And the last i know, it is the responsibility of the government to either
1) Provide adequate secuirity arrangements to it's prominent leaders or
2) Restrict the leader from public appearance citing helplessness to provide or ensure adequate security.

If lives were lost, the responsibility is on the government responsible for the security arrangements and the terrorists responsible for the arson, not the victim for reaching out to people.

I have no like for any Pakistani leader or Pakistan, but this is stretching it too far. The lady needs to be commended for her extraordinary courage to each out to the people even in tyough times. That's what makes for a tough leader - and that's why they often end up being victims.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 11:31 AM
kabir is a strong opiniated and a pessimistic man....hope this explains the logic behind his recent comment about bhutto dj sahastra

DJ Sahastra
December 28, 2007, 11:37 AM
Not a big supporter of Musharraf, but he has other things to worry about than providing her security. She was warned 1st time round and she ignored it and got 150 people blown to bits. This time she took another 16 with her. Or more who knows.

This is another sad and pathetic comment with a pervetrted logic.

Instead of putting the blame on those suicide bombers/terrorist organisations or state executioners (at no point do i see even a passing condemnation for them), we suddenly see people blaming the victim.

It is like saying "Hey, it's not the fault of those kids that shot you - Afterall, you were driving through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. And it is also not their fault that they shot your friends too - afterall you were walking through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. It's all your fault".

Sometimes, it makes one wonder what times are we living in.

On a side note, I wonder what could be more important in priority than ensuring that anyone who stands for the democratic and constitutional norms be offered adequate and relevant security, not the least if that person is also a former PM and a potential PM and someone hated by extremist organisations.

DJ Sahastra
December 28, 2007, 11:41 AM
kabir is a strong opiniated and a pessimistic man....hope this explains the logic behind his recent comment about bhutto dj sahastra

Parisa,

Kabir is a nice man and entitled to his logics and opinion. At the same time, if we have disagreements on those logics or opinions, i think we should let that be known. You'll agree with me that afterall, that is the essence of any discussion forum.

IMO, his comments about Bhutto are in extremely poor taste.

Bengaliprince176
December 28, 2007, 11:42 AM
DJ yaar calm down theres always 2 sides to every coin. remember she was filed with corruption charges, so she isnt all that innocent, please name me a completely clean polititican, their will be haters and supporters of everyone, though i feel some comments are a little extreme for a woman who has been shot so recently...

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 11:44 AM
Parisa,

Kabir is a nice man and entitled to his logics and opinion. At the same time, if we have disagreements on those logics or opinions, i think we should let that be known. You'll agree with me that afterall, that is the essence of any discussion forum.

IMO, his comments about Bhutto are in extremely poor taste.

well i said what i said coz he dislikes me.....but yeah the whole point of a discussion is to express views....

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 11:46 AM
DJ yaar calm down theres always 2 sides to every coin. remember she was filed with corruption charges, so she isnt all that innocent, please name me a completely clean polititican, their will be haters and supporters of everyone, though i feel some comments are a little extreme for a woman who has been shot so recently...

true bengaliprince...we should show some sympathy atleast to a person who died just yesterday......

DJ Sahastra
December 28, 2007, 11:57 AM
well i said what i said coz he dislikes me.....but yeah the whole point of a discussion is to express views....

Parisa,

From whatever little i know of you, you seem like a nice sweet poster, more like antora given the fascinations for BD players (fascination in a difefrent way, that is :-|), and i am sure Kabir has no reasons to dislike you.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 12:18 PM
What twisted logic is this! Sad and pathetic to say the least.

The last i heard, it was some suicide bomber who killed those 170+ people, not Benazir.

And the last i know, it is the responsibility of the government to either
1) Provide adequate secuirity arrangements to it's prominent leaders or
2) Restrict the leader from public appearance citing helplessness to provide or ensure adequate security.

If lives were lost, the responsibility is on the government responsible for the security arrangements and the terrorists responsible for the arson, not the victim for reaching out to people.

I have no like for any Pakistani leader or Pakistan, but this is stretching it too far. The lady needs to be commended for her extraordinary courage to each out to the people even in tyough times. That's what makes for a tough leader - and that's why they often end up being victims.


DJ, I don't blame you...but you are probably taking my post a little twisted.

Yes, it's the government's responsibility to provide security, and they should get all the blames for that. But my comment was not really based on what she did...rather, the outcome of it.

I think you're thinking that I blamed her for those 170+ lives. May be you're partly right. She came from exile forcefully...and she knew that there would be political unrest if she came. I'm not blaming her for the unrest, but she could have played her cards a little differently.

Before you're disgusted with my comments, I guess you should think about it closely. I'm not blaming a dead woman for killing 170+ people, but stating my feelings about how these 170+ innocent lives may have been saved had she done things differently.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 12:23 PM
kabir is a strong opiniated and a pessimistic man....hope this explains the logic behind his recent comment about bhutto dj sahastra

No, I don't think I'm a pessimistic man. If I was pessimistic, I wouldn't have spent 70 hours a week in my early university years to earn my living and school tuition...I would've given up a long time back. And by the mercy of the Almighty, I'm about to complete my Masters as well...couldn't have done it without being more positive than many people in this forum.

well i said what i said coz he dislikes me.....but yeah the whole point of a discussion is to express views....

You're damn right. I don't like attention seekers. And on that note, I shall request you to pass comments about me. I dislike that a little less than I dislike you.

and i am sure Kabir has no reasons to dislike you.

You're wrong here my friend.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:23 PM
Just in, News from Sky News, according to them she wasn't assasinated but she accidentaly hit the sun roof top where she was waving to the crowds and died! http://news.sky.com/skynews/home

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 12:25 PM
Just in, News from Sky News, according them she wasn't assasinated but she accidentaly hit the sun roof top where she was waving to the crowds and died! http://news.sky.com/skynews/home

well i hope that happened but for some reason i still feel like she was assisanated...

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 12:27 PM
well kabir carry on disliking me....don't ever participate in my threads....and just watch me being me.....coz i can assure you that i'm gonna be here for a while.....so u can dislike me for a long time.....

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:28 PM
well i hope that happened but for some reason i still feel like she was assisanated...
we would think the same, because they all blamed on al-Qaeda and the guy
who shot her as so they speak of, blew him self, so i dont know what to believe:confused:

cricman
December 28, 2007, 12:31 PM
You don't crack your skull after hitting your head on a sun roof! Plus I wouldn't believe the spokesman for Pakistan's Interior Ministry at the moment.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 12:31 PM
well kabir carry on disliking me....don't ever participate in my threads....and just watch me being me.....coz i can assure you that i'm gonna be here for a while.....so u can dislike me for a long time.....

1. I don't participate in YOUR thread. I just respond to others' comments.

2. Be here...enjoy your stay. It's open to everyone. Just don't come on my way. You'll regret it.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 12:35 PM
You don't crack your skull after hitting your head on a sun roof! Plus I wouldn't believe the spokesman for Pakistan's Interior Ministry at the moment.

If it's the report from the govt of Pakistan, I wouldn't even consider imagining it as true...it's just to save their faces that they will say such things.

I don't know how anyone can hit the sunroof and hurt their neck and chest.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 12:36 PM
1. I don't participate in YOUR thread. I just respond to others' comments.

2. Be here...enjoy your stay. It's open to everyone. Just don't come on my way. You'll regret it.

i will come ur way if i feel the need to do so.i definitely won't regret it because i don't regret doing anything good.i haven't done anything bad to you apart from calling you a name because u were very ignorant that day saying islam is not bangladesh's state religion.i thought what he's gonns say next is that bangla is not bangladesh's state language.so i got kind of agitated and said what i said.but u lost a new friend here.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:37 PM
You don't crack your skull after hitting your head on a sun roof! Plus I wouldn't believe the spokesman for Pakistan's Interior Ministry at the moment. Correction, she didnt hit herself on her skull, you may have seen the reports that have said she has been shot in the neck and the chest, so there are twists in this investigation. The postmorton shown that there were no such bullets that had affected her body anywhere, and I have to say the burial preperation took place very fast and quick after her sudden death, which I find is wrong because, a full inquiry should have taken place to investigate the death of Benazir Bhutto to view if she was actually been assassinated or not, but I do understand that this had to take place because of the Islamic traditions.

DJ Sahastra
December 28, 2007, 12:40 PM
Kabir,

"She could've done it this way" is always a good afterthought - and very human.

The only thing is - those things don't apply when you have dedicated mercenaries (state sponsored or group-sponsored or self-motivated) after you. 170+ died - maybe if she had taken some other more "could've done so approach", 1700 or 17000 may have died.

Directly, Indirectly, Conversely - anyway you blame her for the tragedy, you are perverting the truth and the nature of the crime.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:49 PM
You cannot blame Benazir Bhutto for all the violence that has taken place throughout Pakistan ever since her arrival, because the reason why she has come is to bring back democracy to Pakistan from all the troubles that have faced the Pakistani's in the last few years, it is all to blame Musharaff, because in the first place violence has been erupted because the people are fed up with his military rule in the country, espicially the fact that he is the main head of the army, where the leader wear's the uniform, this is what Bhutto has said to her friend through an email, where she has said she blames Musharaff for all the problems that have faced Pakistan in the past and present, and she has brought herself back into Pakistan, because of all the controversey surrounding on Musharaff, so the person to blame is Musharaff for policital crisis in Pakistan, and Musharaff is to be blamed for her death!

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 12:50 PM
You cannot blame Benazir Bhutto for all the violence that has taken place throughout Pakistan ever since her arrival, because the reason why she has come is to bring back democracy to Pakistan from all the troubles that have faced the Pakistani's in the last few years, it is all to blame Musharaff, because in the first place violence has been erupted because the people are fed up with his military rule in the country, espicially the fact that he is the main head of the army, where the leader wear's the uniform, this is what Bhutto has said to her friend through an email, where she has said she blames Musharaff for all the problems that have faced Pakistan in the past and present, and she has brought herself back into Pakistan, because of all the controversy surrounding on Mushraff, so the person to blame is Mushraff for policital crisis in Pakistan, and Musharaff is to be blamed for her death!

mushraff should have been assasinated instead.

ammark
December 28, 2007, 12:53 PM
Parisa,

This is a moderator request for you to tone down your words. You may NOT write posts that attack a fellow poster and not his post. If anything you have contributed to a flame war based on your perceptions about a fellow member. We will not tolerate this in these forums. We would welcome constructive posts critiquing his content instead. Its high time you developed the maturity to condemn, not condone the assassination of anyone.

Ammar
- as mod

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:56 PM
mushraff should have been assasinated instead.
He would've been assassinated a few months back, if he had the guts to show himself in public to all the people, this has shown Benazir Bhutto that she is a very brave woman, who is willing to fight all the concequences that are faced in Pakistan the threat of her being killed by the Taleban, al-Qaeda and so on, and she was just trying to help Pakistan to being a democratic and free country again.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 12:58 PM
why did i just get a warning message from the moderator? moshin said the same thing as me.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 12:58 PM
i just replied back to your post in a moderate way, thats all im saying.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 01:01 PM
i just said he is to be blamed that's all, my personal opinion of this topic.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 01:02 PM
Kabir,

"She could've done it this way" is always a good afterthought - and very human.

The only thing is - those things don't apply when you have dedicated mercenaries (state sponsored or group-sponsored or self-motivated) after you. 170+ died - maybe if she had taken some other more "could've done so approach", 1700 or 17000 may have died.

Directly, Indirectly, Conversely - anyway you blame her for the tragedy, you are perverting the truth and the nature of the crime.

DJ,

All right...I shall keep your suggestions for later. But for now, you should probably try and understand that Benazir's return did stir things up many folds. And in that regard, some responsibility did go her way to take actions and calm things down if possible. In my opinion, she hasn't done that. May be she intended to...but I didn't notice anything of that sort in her actions.

Yes, many more may have died if she had done things differently...but then, she could've shown her intent to make things cool.

I honor her as an assassinated ex-prime minister of a country. And that's about it.

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 01:02 PM
i just said he is to be blamed that's all, my personal opinion of this topic.

i said the same thing....u said he should have been assasinated a few months back and i said he should have been assasinated instead.we said the same thing but only i got a warning message.

Kabir
December 28, 2007, 01:05 PM
He would've been assassinated a few months back, if he had the guts to show himself in public to all the people, this has shown Benazir Bhutto that she is a very brave woman, who is willing to fight all the concequences that are faced in Pakistan the threat of her being killed by the Taleban, al-Qaeda and so on, and she was just trying to help Pakistan to being a democratic and free country again.

I think this is what I've been trying to say for so long. It's just about appearing in public that I've been trying to talk about. The rest is fine...just her public appearances killed her.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 01:06 PM
Another thing Kabir,
Musharaff hasnt provided her with the best of security for her, so much could've have been done for the safety of all the people surrounding her in October and yesterday. If you look at who is at the root of all this crisis, Musharaff has started it with his Military Rule, which has forced her to take action, meaning to return to the country and restore what the people really want.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 01:09 PM
i said the same thing....u said he should have been assasinated a few months back and i said he should have been assasinated instead.we said the same thing but only i got a warning message.
But I said, 'would've been' meaning there was a 'high possibility of him being killed'
by the people and not 'calling for it'.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 01:14 PM
I think this is what I've been trying to say for so long. It's just about appearing in public that I've been trying to talk about. The rest is fine...just her public appearances killed her.
Yes the lack of appearances by her is extremely high, she knew there is high possibility of her being killed, but she wasnt't afraid of the fact of being killed, which has led to her death, which she said she is willing to take that risk. Which I think is quite reasonable if you are fighting for the right of your people in the country.

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:11 PM
This thread has turned into so many arguments - Why?

Parisa
December 28, 2007, 02:12 PM
This thread has turned into so many arguments - Why?

most threads these days turn into arguments....

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:17 PM
most threads these days turn into arguments....
So much pain, death and conflicts - why?:(
--{did u get tha message PriMe}

Nocturnal
December 28, 2007, 02:19 PM
So much pain, death and conflicts - why?:(

moshin- argument is good IMO, you can see/think in other way (not yours)- but as long as it's civil and no personal attack, stay in touch with BC you will learn stuff from here- trust me! :)

Moshin
December 28, 2007, 02:22 PM
moshin- argument is good IMO, you can see/think in other way (not yours)- but as long as it's civil and no personal attack, stay in touch with BC you will learn stuff from here- trust me! :)
I was concerned on the 'world of today of violence' leading to these discussion : thanks i am already learning:D

al Furqaan
December 28, 2007, 05:04 PM
What twisted logic is this! Sad and pathetic to say the least.

The last i heard, it was some suicide bomber who killed those 170+ people, not Benazir.

And the last i know, it is the responsibility of the government to either
1) Provide adequate secuirity arrangements to it's prominent leaders or
2) Restrict the leader from public appearance citing helplessness to provide or ensure adequate security.

If lives were lost, the responsibility is on the government responsible for the security arrangements and the terrorists responsible for the arson, not the victim for reaching out to people.

I have no like for any Pakistani leader or Pakistan, but this is stretching it too far. The lady needs to be commended for her extraordinary courage to each out to the people even in tyough times. That's what makes for a tough leader - and that's why they often end up being victims.

DJ, the world knows the type of personality and character than Benazir was...I will refrain from explicitly stating that as I do not want to malign someone who is no longer here to defend herself.

That being said, she was warned to not parade about karachi because someone could have orchestrated such an attack and possibly killed scores of people. she did it anyway because false balls is worth the lives of commeners in every nation.

guess what 140 people were sacrificed just weeks ago. thats 7 score people!

BB was an educated person, she bears much of the blame for what happened that day; the attacker bears 100% of the blame but BB bears nearly as much or equally so because she is supposed to know better - she was educated! what else do you expect from uneducated suicidalists?

al Furqaan
December 28, 2007, 05:09 PM
It is like saying "Hey, it's not the fault of those kids that shot you - Afterall, you were driving through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. And it is also not their fault that they shot your friends too - afterall you were walking through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. It's all your fault".

Sometimes, it makes one wonder what times are we living in.

thats exactly what its like.

if i go gujurat and wearing a t-shirt that says "i am a muslim, and screw the BJP" and then i get my arse stomped on? who would i blame, the hindu rioters or my own stupidity?

i would be especially blameworthy if i was educated, because we know the rioters are not?

you absolutely blame the idiot who goes to that neighborhood, while simaltaneously blaming the kids in the neighborhood. punishment (and blame) must fit the crime.

nobody
December 29, 2007, 01:08 AM
you do not have to belive Pak govt. But they have released video and the xrays. You can contest the X-ray but regarding the video I think those were from independent source. the source of my news is the live telecast of pak govt. press conf. on TV. BTW an interesting article by Robert Frisk (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece) on this issue

Electrequiem
December 29, 2007, 01:15 AM
Latest "news" say she died not from the bullet wounds or the shrapnels, but from fracturing a skull upon colliding with a lever of the sunroof as she tried to scurry back into the car. This comes from the Pakistani Government.

How convenient...she doesn't get the martyr status if that holds true.

Alien
December 29, 2007, 07:30 AM
What twisted logic is this! Sad and pathetic to say the least.

The last i heard, it was some suicide bomber who killed those 170+ people, not Benazir.

And the last i know, it is the responsibility of the government to either
1) Provide adequate secuirity arrangements to it's prominent leaders or
2) Restrict the leader from public appearance citing helplessness to provide or ensure adequate security.

If lives were lost, the responsibility is on the government responsible for the security arrangements and the terrorists responsible for the arson, not the victim for reaching out to people.

I have no like for any Pakistani leader or Pakistan, but this is stretching it too far. The lady needs to be commended for her extraordinary courage to each out to the people even in tyough times. That's what makes for a tough leader - and that's why they often end up being victims.

DJ, it is not the government's responsibility to arrange Benazir's parades for her. What government can do is warn her not to parade like that and not exposed herself. She ignored it and 150 people took brunt of that.

Put yourself in Musharraf's shoes for once. Imagine her comeing back and all her PPP supporters in their thousands surrounding her vehicle and her on top of all of them in a massive truck ignoring all the warnings of assasination attempts. How are you supposed to protect her? Cancel her rally? Then you would accuse him of crushing her democratic rights.

Kisu korle dosh, na korleo dosh. Moha musibot.

Parisa
December 29, 2007, 07:34 AM
shoby shobar pichone legeche akhon.....mathata ektu thanda koro/koren bhaishaaab....just relax, take a deep breath, eat curry coz new year's in 2 days.....:-*

Alien
December 29, 2007, 07:40 AM
This is another sad and pathetic comment with a pervetrted logic.

Instead of putting the blame on those suicide bombers/terrorist organisations or state executioners (at no point do i see even a passing condemnation for them), we suddenly see people blaming the victim.



Firstly let me say this, just because someone says something here that doesn't conform to your opinion doesn't mean it's automatically classified as "twisted" and "illogical".

Secondly. what good is it putting a long thread criticising terrorists? Everyone knows they are to blame, nothing new about that. Will Bin Laden log in to BC and read your post and change his ways? They are criminals with criminal tactics. It's what precautions we take to protect ourselves against them and unfortunately Bhutto refused to take any and got herself killed. Along with 170 others.

Thirdly, As a potential PM and former PM and someone who so much cares for the democracy of the nation, she should have the ounce of brain to make sure that her people are safe and sound. By organising these dumb rallies she made 1 things clear:

She doesnt care about the welfare of people so long they can act as human shields. Assuming the first incident was a sheer recklessness of her part. Then she does an exact copycat parade on top of a truck with a army of supporter below. Give me one good reason why terrorist won't target her again. And tell me why and how, Musharraf is going to protect her if she ignores all the security warnings and never learns lessons of the past.
Especially when the past is weeks back. 150 killed is not a joke.

At least the terrorists did their homework and this time took a gun. Least they get the person not just the voters around her. Terrorists or not, they got more brains than her.



It is like saying "Hey, it's not the fault of those kids that shot you - Afterall, you were driving through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. And it is also not their fault that they shot your friends too - afterall you were walking through the neighbourhood where some kids don't like you. It's all your fault".

A very dumb comparison.

On a side note, I wonder what could be more important in priority than ensuring that anyone who stands for the democratic and constitutional norms be offered adequate and relevant security, not the least if that person is also a former PM and a potential PM and someone hated by extremist organisations.

Musharraf himself is a man hated by terrorists. He has been targeted many times aswell. All 4 of them, Musharraf, Nawaz Sherif, Imran Khan and Bhutto got issues with terrorists. But none pokes their head out exposed as much as Bhutto.

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 08:56 AM
Video footage of her death:
<OBJECT height=355 width=425>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tYCaCR1ueI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 09:20 AM
By looking at that video, there are two things that arrive to my mind
1. Why is Benazir Bhutto appearing like that in public?
2. Why isnt there enough security for Benazir Bhutto?
3. Were the security guards in favour of her death? (they ducked, what r they?)

All these aspects of her death is questioning me whether her appearance in the public
was a good thing or a bad thing, 1. Appearing in public will gain more trust, but die or
2. Not appearing in public, and live but lose the votes? I have no idea which is right.

Parisa
December 29, 2007, 09:24 AM
good questions.....will we ever know the answers?

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 09:27 AM
good questions.....will we ever know the answers?
Well, I would myself go for number 2, because its simple just stay in the car
and wait till you get home or somewhere, its not that hard is it?

Parisa
December 29, 2007, 09:29 AM
Well, I would myself go for number 2, because its simple just stay in the car
and wait till you get home or somewhere, its not that hard is it?

well it was her decision to stand up and wave at the crowd.....not much the security could do about that.....but they shouldn't have let the people get so close to the vehicle....

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 09:34 AM
This probably has shown everyone she doesnt care if she dies,
she is doing it for the right of herself.

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 04:39 PM
<OBJECT height=280 width=497>
New Video Footage
<embed src="http://video.news.sky.com/sky-news/app/flash/SkyvideoWrapper.swf?playerType=embedded&type=sky_production&videoSourceID=1298673&flashVideoUrl=feeds/skynews/latest/flash/pakistan_p19780.flv" type='application/x-shockwave-flash' allowFullScreen='true' allowScriptAccess='always' width='497' height='280'></embed></OBJECT>

Moshin
December 29, 2007, 04:54 PM
The government is now planning to take the body out and examine
what really happened on the 27th, I think this is a stupid move by the govt,
I just dont understand why they buried her the next day, and now they want
to take her out, unbelievable

bdchamp20
December 29, 2007, 07:19 PM
Very tragic incident...I believed she was the woman to bring Pakistan out of terrorism and all the other troubles.

Parisa
December 29, 2007, 07:22 PM
Very tragic incident...I believed she was the woman to bring Pakistan out of terrorism and all the other troubles.

she was the woman with the link between usa and pakistan....now thats a very dangerous link....

Electrequiem
December 29, 2007, 08:35 PM
Here's Irshad Manji's take on her death ...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/pakistan.commentary/index.html

DJ Sahastra
December 30, 2007, 01:29 PM
Alien,

Ina democracy, a leader HAS TO reach out to the masses and the masses to the leader. There is nothing dumb about it. If Benazir wouldn't have started reaching out to the masses, people of Pakistan would've stayed indifferent to the whole "democracy" and "election" thing. Unlike the self-appointed president Musharraf who doesn't need to interact with the masses, likes of Benazir, Imran, Nawaz have to.

Terror cannot be allowed to subjugate democratic process - the moment that is allowed to happen, the battle is lost.

In case of Benazir, she was victim of inadequate security. There was no recklessness on her part - simple truth is Musharraf didn't want her to organize rallies as that would undermine his authority. He tried to force her to keep away from rallies by inadequate security and he made her pay the price (his own complicity in the act is not ruled out yet).

"All 4 of them, Musharraf, Nawaz Sherif, Imran Khan and Bhutto got issues with terrorists. But none pokes their head out exposed as much as Bhutto."

Not true agein. They just weren't as popular as Benazir, that's all. Musharraf needs no rallies - he's a loathed man. Imran still attends open rallies and was also beaten up recently.

Despite all the security arrangements, Benazir could've still been killed - as have been leaders world over. The fiasco of security arrangements despite her appeal/comment/protest only points to the complicity of the state.

Finally, the moment you start blaming Benazir for the death of those 170 or so people, you are perverting the truth no matter what way you peel it, slice it, dice it.

al Furqaan
December 30, 2007, 02:20 PM
Finally, the moment you start blaming Benazir for the death of those 170 or so people, you are perverting the truth no matter what way you peel it, slice it, dice it.

DJ, the homicide bomber bears 100% per cent responsibility for the deaths. but that doesn't mean that benazir is not accountable. she knowingly made a public entrance back to pakistan. she is not stupid. i don't understand what part of "if you make a public entrance, al qaeda might attack killing you and hundreds of people around you" she didn't understand.

just because benazir is a democrat or a better option for india does not mean that she is immaculate and can do no wrong. she was power hungry and was about to sell her nation's sovereignty for the office of prime minister while retaining the estimated 10 billion USD she stole from her people. she is nothing better than khaleda zia or sheikh hasina and might even be worse.

if democracy yields a leader who steal 10 billion dollars from a nation and its people and carelessly use 170 lives to make a political point, then to hell with that democracy. any system which doesn't do anything for the people, i don't give two hoots about it.

DJ Sahastra
December 30, 2007, 02:54 PM
just because benazir is a democrat or a better option for india does not mean that she is immaculate and can do no wrong. she was power hungry and was about to sell her nation's sovereignty for the office of prime minister while retaining the estimated 10 billion USD she stole from her people. she is nothing better than khaleda zia or sheikh hasina and might even be worse.

if democracy yields a leader who steal 10 billion dollars from a nation and its people and carelessly use 170 lives to make a political point, then to hell with that democracy. any system which doesn't do anything for the people, i don't give two hoots about it.

Al Furqaan,

That last part of yours explains your previous posts and your contempt to an extent that you have started justifying Bhutto's assasination, if in not so many words.

And you are far-away from reality on the first part. The reality is, Indian govt, for last couple of years, is way too happy with Musharraf and would continue to stay happy with him. Musharraf has sent more than "peaceful overtones" and has subdued the "Kashmir" stance to an extent that Kashmir has now turned into a non-issue. And Benazir's earlier stint as the PM of Pakistan had brought a leash of terrorist attacks and violence all around in J&K. Visit any Indian strategic forums and you'll be able to see how much Bhutto was loathed.

Do i like Bhutto - absolutely not. Neither do i like Nawaz Sharif or any Pakistani leader. When it comes to India, their policies are the same and a democratic govt. in Pakistan is much more of a threat to India than an autocratic govt. We have seen more mischiefs and nuisances during Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto's rule than during any of pakistan's dictators. Personally, i am all for a military ruled Pakistan - Indian govt will have no problem snubbing them or even rubbing their nose in dirt while expecting little or no backlash from the international community given the 'rogue' perception of the dictatorship. Why do you think Musharraf's rule has been so headache-free for India.

To the second part, democracy has nothing to do with the discussion. The argument over democracy and corruption has nothing to do with assasination and suicide attacks.

Moshin
December 30, 2007, 03:15 PM
The dynasty of the Bhutto regime still carries on, as her son is appointed,
a move which i think is the wrong decision for the party. The violence will
certainly continue, as for the same for poverty and corruption will rise,
looks like the dynasty is here to stay forever in South Asia, India has drifted
away from it, will Bangladesh and Pakistan drift away from it... I doubt it.

al Furqaan
December 30, 2007, 03:28 PM
Al Furqaan,

That last part of yours explains your previous posts and your contempt to an extent that you have started justifying Bhutto's assasination, if in not so many words.


al Furqaan has not justified Bhutto's assassination either implicitly or explicitly. what al Furqaan has done is shown that Bhutto is, whether in whole or in part, responsible for the deaths of scores of people on October 18, 2007.

responsibilty for deaths of scores of people does not = justification of assassination of one Benazir Bhutto.

however, you have explicitly justified the deaths of scores of people, not just one or 20 people mind you, as a means to an end of achieving some political point or winning what you refer to as a political/ideological "battle."

Ina democracy, a leader HAS TO reach out to the masses and the masses to the leader. There is nothing dumb about it. If Benazir wouldn't have started reaching out to the masses, people of Pakistan would've stayed indifferent to the whole "democracy" and "election" thing. Unlike the self-appointed president Musharraf who doesn't need to interact with the masses, likes of Benazir, Imran, Nawaz have to.

Terror cannot be allowed to subjugate democratic process - the moment that is allowed to happen, the battle is lost. perhaps i have mistaken this statement. but it appears to hint that in the struggle for a certain ideal, people will die, and even if we know they will die, we should continue with the struggle.

sounds remincient of a certain bearded saudi-born fanatic rumored to be hiding in the Pakistani mountains in the NWFP to me...


And you are far-away from reality on the first part. The reality is, Indian govt, for last couple of years, is way too happy with Musharraf and would continue to stay happy with him. Musharraf has sent more than "peaceful overtones" and has subdued the "Kashmir" stance to an extent that Kashmir has now turned into a non-issue. OK, if the kashmir issue is resolved, then how come there is so much hostility between Pakistan and India? If the issue is not resolved, and Musharraf has handed it kashmir over, then perhaps India was the aggressor in the conflict, right?

If Musharraf is such a non-confrontational guy (and mind you the Kashmir issue is the BIG one, if not the only one), then why do ALL indians clamor for democracy in Pakistan and vent against Musharraf and his terrorism. you can't have it both ways.

And Benazir's earlier stint as the PM of Pakistan had brought a leash of terrorist attacks and violence all around in J&K. Visit any Indian strategic forums and you'll be able to see how much Bhutto was loathed.
I've read the ICF forum, and all I gathered there was that musharraf was behind it. proving the philo-musharraf theory wrong.

When it comes to India, their policies are the same and a democratic govt. in Pakistan is much more of a threat to India than an autocratic govt. 1) if true this proves that indians hate pakistanis just as much pakistanis hate indians, thereby producing a moral equivalency.

2) their policies are the same? all this time you've been saying that musharraf and dictators' polcies are good and bhutto and nawaz's are bad. please make up your mind.

Why do you think Musharraf's rule has been so headache-free for India.so the mumbai train bombings last year, the parliament attack in 02, the bombings across india this year were all welcome events in india?

if they weren't a "headache" why do the indian people and govt always point the finger to Musharraf and the country he leads? surely, they must be lying...and if they lie about this, how can we trust anything they say?

seems to me, musharraf by being both a key ally in the war on terror and the leader of a rogue state can get away with more than a democratically elected leader.

you forget that democratically elected leaders have to behave responsibly with respect to international matters especially when dealing with more powerful nations.
To the second part, democracy has nothing to do with the discussion. The argument over democracy and corruption has nothing to do with assasination and suicide attacks. democracy has everything to do with it. regardless, you mentioned that 170 people died for democracy and that the moment that stops "the battle is lost."

Moshin
December 30, 2007, 03:50 PM
Benazir Bhutto is not responsible for the deaths of all the 120 people, because it's simple, she did not cause the bomb to explode or anything related to that matter. It's the choice of the people who have made thier decisions in order to attend and support her rally or party. Did the people have the acknowledgement that they will die today, yes they did. They all knew the fact that, she will be in danger from the attacks facing her, and the danger of them being attacked with her. So she is not to be blamed for the deaths of the people.

YOU have to ratify the situation that was present during that time in the country, the political situation was in crisis, if the country wasn't in crisis, will the people who were present in the rally have lived today, of course. The people who are responsible are the people who are the main part of the problem, these include Musharaff, the al-Qaeda or the Taleban. If Musharaff was a leader, who had the brains of being a good leader and not a puppet, then the country could have been stable. If al-Qaeda didnt oppose women as leaders of an Islamic Republic, then that bomb would not have taken place.

DJ Sahastra
December 30, 2007, 09:03 PM
al Furqaan has not justified Bhutto's assassination either implicitly or explicitly. what al Furqaan has done is shown that Bhutto is, whether in whole or in part, responsible for the deaths of scores of people on October 18, 2007.

responsibilty for deaths of scores of people does not = justification of assassination of one Benazir Bhutto.

The tone of your post seems to be on the lines`"She asked for it and deserved it". I'll leave it at that.

perhaps i have mistaken this statement. but it appears to hint that in the struggle for a certain ideal, people will die, and even if we know they will die, we should continue with the struggle.

sounds remincient of a certain bearded saudi-born fanatic rumored to be hiding in the Pakistani mountains in the NWFP to me...

For any massive change, people have always laid heir lives - knowingly or unknowinly and awares or unawares. Laying down one's life for a cause is not the same as killing other innocents. Comparing them with "certain bearded saudi-born fanatic" who calls upon his followers to kill innocents is another perverted logic.

OK, if the kashmir issue is resolved, then how come there is so much hostility between Pakistan and India? If the issue is not resolved, and Musharraf has handed it kashmir over, then perhaps India was the aggressor in the conflict, right?

If Musharraf is such a non-confrontational guy (and mind you the Kashmir issue is the BIG one, if not the only one), then why do ALL indians clamor for democracy in Pakistan and vent against Musharraf and his terrorism. you can't have it both ways.

I said "peaceful overtones". It doesn't mean a policy change on part of Pakistan nor does it mean Musharraf has turned to a saint overnite. Rest all "if" don't apply since the "if" is based on faulty inference.

1) if true this proves that indians hate pakistanis just as much pakistanis hate indians, thereby producing a moral equivalency.

This inference of yours based on my statement "When it comes to India, their policies are the same and a democratic govt. in Pakistan is much more of a threat to India than an autocratic govt." defies any and all logics.

2) their policies are the same? all this time you've been saying that musharraf and dictators' polcies are good and bhutto and nawaz's are bad. please make up your mind.

With due respect, you need to work on your inference. I never said "musharraf and dictators' polcies are good and bhutto and nawaz's are bad". I said "When it comes to India, their policies are the same". Where the difference between the dictator and democratic setup lies is in what kind of "Danda" is shown, covertly or openly. It is difficult to show the same "danda" to an elected democracy than to a rogue state and the same affects the stance by the heads of those state.

so the mumbai train bombings last year, the parliament attack in 02, the bombings across india this year were all welcome events in india?

if they weren't a "headache" why do the indian people and govt always point the finger to Musharraf and the country he leads? surely, they must be lying...and if they lie about this, how can we trust anything they say?

seems to me, musharraf by being both a key ally in the war on terror and the leader of a rogue state can get away with more than a democratically elected leader.

you forget that democratically elected leaders have to behave responsibly with respect to international matters especially when dealing with more powerful nations.

Headache free was in term of he stance, not in terms of event. The regular browbeat over "Kashmir" in UN and elsewhere is almost over except for token readouts.

democracy has everything to do with it. regardless, you mentioned that 170 people died for democracy and that the moment that stops "the battle is lost."

Democracy had nothing to do with the suicide attacks. Assasinations and suicide attacks were supposedly carried out because Benazir was supposed to be a puppet of the enemies (read USA) and not because she was striving for democracy. Lets not mix one thing ith another.

Or more simply (since you draw strangest of inferences):
1. Bhutto and her followers laid down their lives while striving for democracy.
2. The suicide threats to Bhutto were supposedly for being an on side of the imperialist US.

I use "supposedly" only because i think this ws more of a state-sponsored political execution with the help of islamists.

sunny747
December 31, 2007, 01:24 AM
i'm getting worried for bhuttos son.....his innocent face .......i hope he will live long...

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 07:52 AM
al Furqaan, Bhutto did not deserved to die, because she was spreading the word of democracy to the people, and she was killed, because the al-Qaeda saw her as a very westernized and secular type of politician. The west thought of her, that both Musharaff and her will make a great team into cracking down terrorism in the country, and I think al-Qaeda saw her as a threat for them, and the fact she is a woman, who she was likely to become the Prime Minister of a Islamic Republic, on top of that she had western point of views, therefore the al-Qaeda has many reasons why she had to be killed, she was a threat, and she did not deserve to be killed, because what is wrong with bringing democracy back, and what is wrong with demolishing terrorism, nothing.

Shafin
December 31, 2007, 09:56 AM
Thank You Suicide Bomber! No one is talking about my 1.5 Billion anymore! (http://www.chowk.com/articles/12829)

Benazir, Zardari, Juctice Nizam Ahmed and Nadeem Ahmed. (http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=51275)

Benazir was not exactly a saint. IMHO,Justice has been served in respect to the second link I posted above.

And... google for Sanam Bhutto,Benazirs younger sister,I did when I tried to do a bit of research on their family.In between results 1-5,You'll find err... interesting news on Benazirs lifestyle.

And did you know that Benazir had personal lobbyist firms on the USA?

Benazir Did not come back to democratize the country,She came back to rape the country..Newaz came back to rape the country. Benazir hoped to rape her with USA as accomplice,Newaz hoped to do the same with the sympathy of the religious minded.

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 10:07 AM
Benazir Did not come back to democratize the country,She came back to rape the country..Newaz came back to rape the country. Benazir hoped to rape her with USA as accomplice,Newaz hoped to do the same with the sympathy of the religious minded.
Now what you have just said there, is completely unjustified reasons to say why she has come back to the country, and you should be ashamed of yourself for taking up from a stupid news report like that.

Shafin
December 31, 2007, 10:25 AM
Now what you have just said there, is completely unjustified reasons to say why she has come back to the country, and you should be ashamed of yourself for taking up from a stupid news report like that.
Rather than being vague,please explain what you mean by stupid news thread.

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 10:41 AM
Well, first of all the heading sounds quite stupid and unproffesional
and at the end says stuff in Hindi, an English reader might not even understand:

Abb mayray doosray bazoo pay woh shamsheer hay joo
Iss say pehlay bhi mayra nisf badan kaat chuki

Ussi bandooq ki naalli hay mayri simt kay joo,
Iss say pehllay mayri sheh-rag ka lahoo chaat chuki

Shafin
December 31, 2007, 11:08 AM
Well, first of all the heading sounds quite stupid and unproffesional
and at the end says stuff in Hindi, an English reader might not even understand:

Abb mayray doosray bazoo pay woh shamsheer hay joo
Iss say pehlay bhi mayra nisf badan kaat chuki

Ussi bandooq ki naalli hay mayri simt kay joo,
Iss say pehllay mayri sheh-rag ka lahoo chaat chuki
That non-English stuff is not even 2% of the whole article,and now I suspect you have not even read it before passing on a comment.Please Judge an article by its content,not by where it is published,or what is the headline of it.

You want professionally written reports confirming the previous links? Here we go.
http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsDec2004/cover3dec2004.htm
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/details-of-benazirs-15-billion-dollars-assets-on-web_1001635.html

Want more?

And you should look a bit more at yourself before asking other people to be ashamed of themselves. Dont let the words fly out indiscriminately.

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 11:14 AM
The problem was the last paragraph of your post was really offensive.
That is why I felt that you have not really looked up to it closely.

Shafin
December 31, 2007, 11:41 AM
The problem was the last paragraph of your post was really offensive.
That is why I felt that you have not really looked up to it closely.
again,you have judged a post not by its content,but by your conceptions of it...thats a dangerous game to play.

And what I said,It's rude,but true,and really,these people dont deserve a cute language.

al Furqaan
December 31, 2007, 03:11 PM
The tone of your post seems to be on the lines`"She asked for it and deserved it". I'll leave it at that.

fair enough. but i'd thats what you say as well though...so we agree here, just we're looking at it from maybe opposite sides.


For any massive change, people have always laid heir lives - knowingly or unknowinly and awares or unawares. Laying down one's life for a cause is not the same as killing other innocents. Comparing them with "certain bearded saudi-born fanatic" who calls upon his followers to kill innocents is another perverted logic.

no. everyone fights for ideals...hitler fought for an ideal, bush fights for an ideal, malcolm x fought for ideal, etc. it might not be my ideal, but its that person's ideal. so they all fight for ideals. and innocent bystanders get killed by all ideals, hence if its merely "collateral damage" for one ideal it is that for all ideals and if its "malicious targetting of innoncents" by another ideal it is the same for all other ideals, whether i agree with that ideal or not. personally i choose the later, proving my objectivity on the issue.

dead people are equally dead whether the killed for or against bhutto (or any other ideologue) and until you admit that fact, there is nothing to say except that we have a difference of perception of reality.


I said "peaceful overtones". It doesn't mean a policy change on part of Pakistan nor does it mean Musharraf has turned to a saint overnite. Rest all "if" don't apply since the "if" is based on faulty inference.

what good is a peaceful overtone if doesn't change the stance? the stance is all that matters.

With due respect, you need to work on your inference. I never said "musharraf and dictators' polcies are good and bhutto and nawaz's are bad". I said "When it comes to India, their policies are the same". Where the difference between the dictator and democratic setup lies is in what kind of "Danda" is shown, covertly or openly. It is difficult to show the same "danda" to an elected democracy than to a rogue state and the same affects the stance by the heads of those state.

OK so the stances are different between a rogue leader and a legit leader. if the stance is different their policies must necessarily be different too. which would mean one policy must be better than the other. the better policy would be "good" and the other "bad" even if not so on absolute terms.

Headache free was in term of he stance, not in terms of event. The regular browbeat over "Kashmir" in UN and elsewhere is almost over except for token readouts.


again the policy stance of leader directly influences his actions (events). you wouldn't musharraf sponsering terrorists in kashmir and elsewhere with a love-dovey stance.

Or more simply (since you draw strangest of inferences):
1. Bhutto and her followers laid down their lives while striving for democracy.
2. The suicide threats to Bhutto were supposedly for being an on side of the imperialist US.

I use "supposedly" only because i think this ws more of a state-sponsored political execution with the help of islamists.

you finally got it! that is correct.

Electrequiem
December 31, 2007, 03:27 PM
Thank You Suicide Bomber! No one is talking about my 1.5 Billion anymore! (http://www.chowk.com/articles/12829)

Benazir, Zardari, Juctice Nizam Ahmed and Nadeem Ahmed. (http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=51275)

Benazir was not exactly a saint. IMHO,Justice has been served in respect to the second link I posted above.

And... google for Sanam Bhutto,Benazirs younger sister,I did when I tried to do a bit of research on their family.In between results 1-5,You'll find err... interesting news on Benazirs lifestyle.

And did you know that Benazir had personal lobbyist firms on the USA?

Benazir Did not come back to democratize the country,She came back to rape the country..Newaz came back to rape the country. Benazir hoped to rape her with USA as accomplice,Newaz hoped to do the same with the sympathy of the religious minded.

Shafin bhai ... kudos for digging up those articles. In a heated debate, when I introduced these facts, I was verbally assaulted by many people for "insulting noble Benazir (RIP)" ... maybe she has, in death, become the leader she wanted to be in here life: widely and blindly accepted as the embodiment of righteousness and democracy.

al Furqaan
December 31, 2007, 03:53 PM
it is not befitting to speak ill of the deceased...however sometimes it becomes necessary in discussions about public figures. we all speak ill of mujib, zia, etc but not because we are slandering defenseless people but exposing the misdeeds.

Electrequiem
December 31, 2007, 04:08 PM
it is not befitting to speak ill of the deceased...however sometimes it becomes necessary in discussions about public figures. we all speak ill of mujib, zia, etc but not because we are slandering defenseless people but exposing the misdeeds.

Exactly.

And just to be clear, I am not criticizing Benazir the PERSON (I do not have the prerogative, anyway), but Benazir the POLITICIAN. Criticism, both while living and posthumous, is a burden that all politicians are destined to carry.

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 04:28 PM
I did not realise there were two sides of a politician, I have learned somthing today thankyou Electrequiem.

Electrequiem
December 31, 2007, 04:43 PM
I did not realise there were two sides of a politician, I have learned somthing today thankyou Electrequiem.

...Although that's not the lesson I wanted to impart from my post, I am nevertheless happy to teach you something, Moshin. You are heartily welcome.

Moshin
December 31, 2007, 05:19 PM
...Although that's not the lesson I wanted to impart from my post, I am nevertheless happy to teach you something, Moshin. You are heartily welcome.
Well tamzid, I would like to learn many things in this world, but the topic is up to you, and happy to learn anything you are studying at the moment:D.

Alien
December 31, 2007, 08:17 PM
Alien,

Ina democracy, a leader HAS TO reach out to the masses and the masses to the leader. There is nothing dumb about it. If Benazir wouldn't have started reaching out to the masses, people of Pakistan would've stayed indifferent to the whole "democracy" and "election" thing. Unlike the self-appointed president Musharraf who doesn't need to interact with the masses, likes of Benazir, Imran, Nawaz have to.

Terror cannot be allowed to subjugate democratic process - the moment that is allowed to happen, the battle is lost.

In case of Benazir, she was victim of inadequate security. There was no recklessness on her part - simple truth is Musharraf didn't want her to organize rallies as that would undermine his authority. He tried to force her to keep away from rallies by inadequate security and he made her pay the price (his own complicity in the act is not ruled out yet).

"All 4 of them, Musharraf, Nawaz Sherif, Imran Khan and Bhutto got issues with terrorists. But none pokes their head out exposed as much as Bhutto."

Not true agein. They just weren't as popular as Benazir, that's all. Musharraf needs no rallies - he's a loathed man. Imran still attends open rallies and was also beaten up recently.

Despite all the security arrangements, Benazir could've still been killed - as have been leaders world over. The fiasco of security arrangements despite her appeal/comment/protest only points to the complicity of the state.

Finally, the moment you start blaming Benazir for the death of those 170 or so people, you are perverting the truth no matter what way you peel it, slice it, dice it.

DJ, your ideal form of democracy doesn't apply to nations like Pakistan. Terrorists are killers with no specific target. They do what they do best, kill people and that's what they did on 27 Dec.

Play with fire you'll get burned sooner or later. You can blame the fire but what's the point? It does what it always does, burn. It was also your fault to be so reckless. I can start a long thread condemning the terrorists, but whats to be gained from that? You can't change their mentality, and above all you can't win against them. Specially when their network is so huge and global.

In country like Australia or New Zealand which is more democratic than any of our sub continental nations, I never saw Kevin Rudd in a massive rally with thousands blocking every single roads in the city. Same with Helen Clark.

All that crap only happens in poor third world countries like ours. Pakistan is no stranger to suicide bombers. Gathering like the ones she organised are bound to attract suicide bombers like flies to honey. Is reaching out to the masses worth the lives of 150 people?

I don't know about you but those 150 people's lives are more valuable than Bhutto's reach to the masses or whatever. Maybe thats not the same for you.

Alien
January 1, 2008, 12:53 AM
Ina democracy, a leader HAS TO reach out to the masses and the masses to the leader.

Just wondering what kind of democracy are we talking about here? Just read that her 19 year old son is going to take over the party and God forbid, if he does win, we will have a 19 year old hijra leading a nuclear armed nation.

It's nepotism at it's best guised in the shape of democracy. Democracy is where I get to chose my leader. Not have my pick from the same basket.

It is absurd beyond imagination.

al Furqaan
January 1, 2008, 06:56 AM
Just wondering what kind of democracy are we talking about here? Just read that her 19 year old son is going to take over the party and God forbid, if he does win, we will have a 19 year old hijra leading a nuclear armed nation.

It's nepotism at it's best guised in the shape of democracy. Democracy is where I get to chose my leader. Not have my pick from the same basket.

It is absurd beyond imagination.

DJ wasn't referring to the PAK situation as a whole, but more that BB had to publicly gather those people etc. and thereby produce a situation where scores of people are vulnerable to an attack.

after thinking about it, i'll admit that DJ was right on that regard. a leader, who makes real change (especially positive) cannot avoid public gatherings and all public gatherings are vulnerable to attack in a state like pakistan.

interestingly enough our debate has turned to other issues as these things normally do.

BD-Shardul
January 2, 2008, 04:46 AM
People do not like peaceful life. Because greed of power and money make them blind. Benazir, Newaz came to Pakistan for that reason. Democracy is a lebel, a joke. And one of them got what she deserved.

Moshin
January 2, 2008, 09:38 AM
People do not like peaceful life. Because greed of power and money make them blind. Benazir, Newaz came to Pakistan for that reason. Democracy is a lebel, a joke. And one of them got what she deserved.
Democracy is not a joke at all, it's what every country needs for stability for the way of living, and if we have dont have any democracy, we have no reason to live in a country.

BD-Shardul
January 2, 2008, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Democracy is not a joke at all, it's what every country needs for stability for the way of living, and if we have dont have any democracy, we have no reason to live in a country.

I didn't mean that. If you have honest leaders or educated leaders like USA have, democracy is just fine. But when leaders talk about democracy for their personal purpose (I mean hijer akher gochano), then it becomes a joke.

Moshin
January 2, 2008, 02:44 PM
I didn't mean that. If you have honest leaders or educated leaders like USA have, democracy is just fine. But when leaders talk about democracy for their personal purpose (I mean hijer akher gochano), then it becomes a joke.
Well take for example Khaleda Zia, she is very educated and can upspring democracy in Bangladesh can't she? Bangladesh did have democracy back then, ever since the arrival of the caretaker government, there's no democracy. But when these types of leaders end up in jail, then we all see it as stupid don't we.

Kabir
January 2, 2008, 03:16 PM
Well take for example Khaleda Zia, she is very educated and can upspring democracy in Bangladesh can't she? Bangladesh did have democracy back then, ever since the arrival of the caretaker government, there's no democracy. But when these types of leaders end up in jail, then we all see it as stupid don't we.


A little bit of facts here, Moshin.

1. Bangladesh was democratic for a span of a few years here and there when there was no "Poribartontro" going on there.

2. Saying that Khaleda is a very educated person is taking it too far.

3. Bangladesh's democracy (if it meets the definition of democracy, that is) is the weakest form of democracy. It's familycracy, with an added flavor of corruptocracy.

Shafin
January 2, 2008, 04:58 PM
Democracy is not a joke at all, it's what every country needs for stability for the way of living, and if we have dont have any democracy, we have no reason to live in a country.

Democracy is not needed for stability.Isn't China stable?
It is meant to give people a sense of choices.

Electrequiem
January 2, 2008, 05:17 PM
Democracy is not something you can just "enforce" and expect to work like a charm. For democracy, or ANY type of governance, to work in a particular country, that country must have what political scientists call a history of a similar "political culture." Some countries are molded for democracy and anything but = chaos, and some countries are the total antithesis. So many South American nations have experimented with US's form of democracy, and the result were utter failures.The closest analogy I can provide: think of systems of governance (democracy, communism, etc) as seeds of a variety of plants. Some will only grow in humid tropical climates, others in grasslands.

That's why, democracy is not the key to stability. It works for some countries, not all. Why do you think the US spreading "democracy" is ushering so much chaos?

BD-Shardul
January 3, 2008, 12:21 AM
Well take for example Khaleda Zia, she is very educated and can upspring democracy in Bangladesh can't she? Bangladesh did have democracy back then, ever since the arrival of the caretaker government, there's no democracy. But when these types of leaders end up in jail, then we all see it as stupid don't we.

deleted

Murad
January 3, 2008, 12:33 AM
Well take for example Khaleda Zia, she is very educated and can upspring democracy in Bangladesh can't she? Bangladesh did have democracy back then, ever since the arrival of the caretaker government, there's no democracy. But when these types of leaders end up in jail, then we all see it as stupid don't we.

She isn't very educated. She didn't study further after passing the HSC exam. May be she got fake degrees later on as her husband was Ziaur Rahman. Sheikh hasina is the most educated. She has genuine degrees with some fake PhD.

Bancan
January 3, 2008, 12:38 AM
AFAIK or heard she only studied till grade 8

Special 1
January 3, 2008, 10:32 AM
Democracy is not needed for stability.Isn't China stable?
It is meant to give people a sense of choices.

Depends on what you mean by stability. 35million people died under mao, during thre great leap forward. NO such thing occured in india which was pooorer that china.

In fact there have beeen no famines that ever occcured in any democracy in the world. To me food security is an essential part of any sort of stability.

Special 1
January 3, 2008, 10:35 AM
She isn't very educated. She didn't study further after passing the HSC exam. May be she got fake degrees later on as her husband was Ziaur Rahman. Sheikh hasina is the most educated. She has genuine degrees with some fake PhD.

haha. very funny,
Khaleda 8 pass.
Hasina managed to complete her masters, but had her difficulties. She passed her SSC only because mujib ordered the boards to grant 10 marks to everyone so that she could pass.

Kabir
January 3, 2008, 11:58 AM
She isn't very educated. She didn't study further after passing the HSC exam. May be she got fake degrees later on as her husband was Ziaur Rahman. Sheikh hasina is the most educated. She has genuine degrees with some fake PhD.

I don't know about their real educational qualifications, but I do know that the Phds that Hasina has are honorary Phds...some people can buy it, some people earn it. In her case, I would assume it was bought.

tonoy
January 3, 2008, 01:44 PM
wow bought phds and i waste my time completing these damn lab assignments :(

DJ Sahastra
January 3, 2008, 02:19 PM
Many seem to imply that autocracy is the answer to all the problems as democracy has failed in our part of the region (to an extent, failure of true democracy is indeed a valid argument).

What they fail to see is, all the problems are not because of democracy but inspite of it.

1. Corruption - Autocracy breeds much more corruption - just look at Myanmar or any autocratic state.
2. Extremism - Look at extremism in Pakistan whenever it was under autocracy (Zia, Musharraf etc.)
3. Development - In autocratic states, everyone stays poor, if that's a consolation.

Many non-democracies have flourished. But if you look at their examples, you'll find that they didn't flourish because of autocracy but inspite of it and they owe it to either some valuable natural resources in extreme excess or very strong leaders with good visions.

Alien
January 4, 2008, 02:44 AM
Many seem to imply that autocracy is the answer to all the problems as democracy has failed in our part of the region (to an extent, failure of true democracy is indeed a valid argument).

What they fail to see is, all the problems are not because of democracy but inspite of it.

1. Corruption - Autocracy breeds much more corruption - just look at Myanmar or any autocratic state.
2. Extremism - Look at extremism in Pakistan whenever it was under autocracy (Zia, Musharraf etc.)
3. Development - In autocratic states, everyone stays poor, if that's a consolation.

Many non-democracies have flourished. But if you look at their examples, you'll find that they didn't flourish because of autocracy but inspite of it and they owe it to either some valuable natural resources in extreme excess or very strong leaders with good visions.

No one disagrees that bad effects of autocratic government. But you have to see that Bhutto as a politician was kleptocratic and nepotistic and all that in the guise of democracy. They aren't mine accusation but proven fact. The fact that she died under a dictators regime and that she was assassinated makes her "look" like a saint and if anyone read the western newspaper, they make her a saint for "freedom and democracy" killed by bearded fanatics under a dictators nose.

Not a single one of them mentioned the corruption under her regime.

Democracy can be easily abused if people running it are corrupt. Unfortunately for country like Pakistan, it suffers under democracy AND autocracy and all kinds of "cracies" it went through.

HereWeGo
January 4, 2008, 04:05 AM
Khaleda Zia is Educated!!!!??!?!?! WOW ( i guess whoever wrote this also believes that she was born on 15th of August)
neways Hasina's phD was also a joke to say the least. Doesn't help her image at all.

Back to the topic...i do hope Bangladesh does not have to incur the same political fate at Pakistan. Islamic extremism is a real threat facing this nation just like Pakistan (thank god we don boder with Afghans).

Although we have been successful in getting ourselves seperated from pakistan but our politicians went on to follow the footstep of pakistanis. Bangladesh as a nation has witnessed many coups (just like Pakistan). Our leaders have been corrupt just like the Pakistani leaders. Our leaders faced assassinations in the past by their successors (!!!) same as pakistan (Bhutto by Zia-ul-haq) . I just hope that no leaders in Bangladesh has to face the same fate as Bhutto did.

I was never a big admirer of bhutto's. Zulfiqar Ali quoted about Bangladesh " Suwor ke bache Jahannam me jaye" (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51I1WWXH0Gc ). And Benazir bhutto was considered corrupt( along with his husband). However I do admire the fact that she was ready to fight against the real theat of talibans that is facing Pakistan. So her death is a big loss.

Finally i shall repeat the fact that I only hope bangladesh does not incur the same fate as Pakistan.

nsd3
January 4, 2008, 08:45 AM
Mohsin Bhai koi gelen?? Dub marlen naki?

nobody
January 5, 2008, 02:23 AM
Now USA is opposing any investigation under UN supervision. Did US sacrified Bhuttu to create unrest in Pakistan and justify action to gain control of Pakistan nuclear arsenal

Alien
January 5, 2008, 06:54 AM
Now USA is opposing any investigation under UN supervision. Did US sacrified Bhuttu to create unrest in Pakistan and justify action to gain control of Pakistan nuclear arsenal

Thats the symptoms of over-consumption of conspiracy tablets.

Alien
January 5, 2008, 06:55 AM
Mohsin Bhai koi gelen?? Dub marlen naki?

Onno threadey Sharia are secularism niya alap kortase. Ektu porei chole ashbe.