Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.

P

Patriot Games

Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.html

Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting
reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.

While awaiting formal confirmation of Bhutto's death in an attack on an
election rally, U.S. officials - who had labored to promote stability in the
nuclear-armed country that has been an anti-terrorism ally - huddled to
assess the impact of Bhutto's passing just two weeks before legislative
elections in the turbulent nation in which her party was expected to do
well.

"Certainly, we condemn the attack on this rally," said deputy State
Department spokesman Tom Casey. "It demonstrates that there are still those
in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance
democracy."

A U.S. official speaking on grounds of anonymity confirmed that Bhutto was
assassinated. No person or group has claimed responsibility for her death,
the official said.

In Crawford, Texas, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that
vacationing President Bush "has been informed about the situation in
Pakistan. He was told about it this morning during his regular briefing." He
said that Bush planned to appear before reporters outside his ranch house
here later Thursday morning to discuss the situation.

Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She
had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile Oct. 18. Her homecoming
parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than
140 people. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury.

The United States had been at the forefront of foreign powers trying to
arrange reconciliation between Bhutto and Musharraf, who under heavy U.S.
pressure resigned as army chief and earlier this month lifted a state of
emergency, in the hope it would put Pakistan back on the road to democracy.

Bhutto's return to the country after years in exile and the ability of her
party to contest free and fair elections had been a cornerstone of Bush's
policy in Pakistan, where U.S. officials had watched Musharraf's growing
authoritarianism with increasing unease.

Those concerns were compounded by the rising threat from al-Qaida and
Taliban extremists, particularly in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal
areas bordering Afghanistan despite the fact that Washington had pumped
nearly $10 billion in aid into the country since Musharraf became an
indispensible counter-terrorism ally after Sept. 11, 2001.

Irritated by the situation, Congress last week imposed new restrictions on
U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including tying $50 million in military aid to
State Department assurances that the country is making "concerted efforts"
to prevent terrorists from operating inside its borders.

Under the law, which provides a total of $300 million in aid to Pakistan and
was signed by President Bush on Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice also must guarantee Pakistan is implementing democratic reforms,
including releasing political prisoners and restoring an independent
judiciary.

The law also prevents any of the funds can be used for cash transfer
assistance to Pakistan, but that stipulation had already been adopted by the
administration.

Despite the congressional move, Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of
state for South and Central Asian affairs who had been instrumental in
engineering the Bhutto-Musharraf reconciliation, said he had little doubt
that the administration would get the money.
 
In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.html
>
> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
>
> Thursday, December 27, 2007
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting
> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.


The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).

Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.

Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb. Yeah,
it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one less
GRAY hair.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-A5BF38.22512627122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.html
>> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
>> Thursday, December 27, 2007
>> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
>> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
>> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting
>> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.

> The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).
> Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.
> Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb. Yeah,
> it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one less
> GRAY hair.


Bhutto was the only 'rock star' capable of herding all the cats in Pakistan.
So now we'll see a dozen versions of Bhutto-esque "democracy" none of which
is capable of getting critical mass.

What we don't know, nobody except the Bad Guys knows, is the degree to which
the security services, police and military have been infiltrated by Al
Qaeda-Taliban.

I suspect the infiltration is substantial and they could officially takeover
Pakistan this weekend if they wanted. But that would mean an immediate end
to foreign aid (billions) and bigtime world sanctions and pressure. They
seem content to run the country from behind the curtain.

Couple of years ago Muushy sent troops into the mountains. That was the
first time EVER IN HISTORY that had been done. And the rioting was huge.

Good News: The Surge and the events in Pakistan have taken LOTS of pressure
off Iraq and that has given us (US) room to maneuver and given the Iraqis
the experience of life without terrorists and insurgents - something they
apparently like since most of our anti-terrorist and anti-insurgent missions
over the past few months have been initiated by Iraqis ratting out the Bad
Guys to us.

Bad News: We're keeping the lid on Afghanistan with about 60,000 troops.
The Russians brought in 300,000 troops and lost. We (the West) are going to
lose either Pakistan or Afghanistan unless something weird and/or huge
happens, and soon.
 
In article <47751280$0$16644$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cognac756-A5BF38.22512627122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.h
> >> tml
> >> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
> >> Thursday, December 27, 2007
> >> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
> >> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
> >> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting
> >> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.

> > The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).
> > Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.
> > Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb. Yeah,
> > it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one less
> > GRAY hair.

>
> Bhutto was the only 'rock star' capable of herding all the cats in Pakistan.
> So now we'll see a dozen versions of Bhutto-esque "democracy" none of which
> is capable of getting critical mass.
>
> What we don't know, nobody except the Bad Guys knows, is the degree to which
> the security services, police and military have been infiltrated by Al
> Qaeda-Taliban.


Of course. And it is extensive infiltration, as witnessed by Mushy's
actions and inactions these past six years.

Bhutto wasn't the answer to anything. Secular humanism has tried and
failed again and again in Pakistan. Bhutto wasn't a democratist, she was
a socialist.

She DESERVED her self-imposed exile--and she should have stayed away.

Secular humanism hasn't ever brought freedom to any corner of the world,
and it never will. It can't. And it never intended to do anything of the
sort.

What it brings is a sense of order and a modicum of prosperity.

That's not what's needed at this hour.

One of the things I must admit I'm in agreement with the jihadis.
>
> I suspect the infiltration is substantial and they could officially takeover
> Pakistan this weekend if they wanted. But that would mean an immediate end
> to foreign aid (billions) and bigtime world sanctions and pressure. They
> seem content to run the country from behind the curtain.
>
> Couple of years ago Muushy sent troops into the mountains. That was the
> first time EVER IN HISTORY that had been done. And the rioting was huge.
>
> Good News: The Surge and the events in Pakistan have taken LOTS of pressure
> off Iraq and that has given us (US) room to maneuver and given the Iraqis
> the experience of life without terrorists and insurgents - something they
> apparently like since most of our anti-terrorist and anti-insurgent missions
> over the past few months have been initiated by Iraqis ratting out the Bad
> Guys to us.
>
> Bad News: We're keeping the lid on Afghanistan with about 60,000 troops.
> The Russians brought in 300,000 troops and lost. We (the West) are going to
> lose either Pakistan or Afghanistan unless something weird and/or huge
> happens, and soon.


That "deal" I imagine was struck secretly between Tehran and Washington
might provide that "something weird."

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-470BB4.14014230122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <47751280$0$16644$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cognac756-A5BF38.22512627122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> >> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.h
>> >> tml
>> >> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
>> >> Thursday, December 27, 2007
>> >> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
>> >> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
>> >> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in
>> >> promoting
>> >> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.
>> > The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).
>> > Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.
>> > Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb. Yeah,
>> > it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one
>> > less
>> > GRAY hair.

>> Bhutto was the only 'rock star' capable of herding all the cats in
>> Pakistan.
>> So now we'll see a dozen versions of Bhutto-esque "democracy" none of
>> which
>> is capable of getting critical mass.
>> What we don't know, nobody except the Bad Guys knows, is the degree to
>> which
>> the security services, police and military have been infiltrated by Al
>> Qaeda-Taliban.

> Of course. And it is extensive infiltration, as witnessed by Mushy's
> actions and inactions these past six years.
> Bhutto wasn't the answer to anything. Secular humanism has tried and
> failed again and again in Pakistan. Bhutto wasn't a democratist, she was
> a socialist.
> She DESERVED her self-imposed exile--and she should have stayed away.
> Secular humanism hasn't ever brought freedom to any corner of the world,
> and it never will. It can't. And it never intended to do anything of the
> sort.
> What it brings is a sense of order and a modicum of prosperity.
> That's not what's needed at this hour.
> One of the things I must admit I'm in agreement with the jihadis.


Hahahah!! But your agreement is for entirely different reasons. The
Jihadists ALREADY run Pakistan. They prefer to do it behind the curtain
because to step forward incurs world condemnation and an instant end to free
money.

Too many Jihadists are too deeply infiltrated in Pakistan's infrastructure
for any change to occur. They need a revolution about as bad as Iran needs
one.

I don't see any non-messy non-violent out of their mess.

>> I suspect the infiltration is substantial and they could officially
>> takeover
>> Pakistan this weekend if they wanted. But that would mean an immediate
>> end
>> to foreign aid (billions) and bigtime world sanctions and pressure. They
>> seem content to run the country from behind the curtain.
>> Couple of years ago Muushy sent troops into the mountains. That was the
>> first time EVER IN HISTORY that had been done. And the rioting was huge.
>> Good News: The Surge and the events in Pakistan have taken LOTS of
>> pressure
>> off Iraq and that has given us (US) room to maneuver and given the Iraqis
>> the experience of life without terrorists and insurgents - something they
>> apparently like since most of our anti-terrorist and anti-insurgent
>> missions
>> over the past few months have been initiated by Iraqis ratting out the
>> Bad
>> Guys to us.
>> Bad News: We're keeping the lid on Afghanistan with about 60,000 troops.
>> The Russians brought in 300,000 troops and lost. We (the West) are going
>> to
>> lose either Pakistan or Afghanistan unless something weird and/or huge
>> happens, and soon.

> That "deal" I imagine was struck secretly between Tehran and Washington
> might provide that "something weird."


I dunno...

I wonder what the topic of conversation is in India these days..... ;)
 
In article <47781d8f$0$7201$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cognac756-470BB4.14014230122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <47751280$0$16644$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
> >> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cognac756-A5BF38.22512627122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> >> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/6002
> >> >> 7.h
> >> >> tml
> >> >> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
> >> >> Thursday, December 27, 2007
> >> >> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
> >> >> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
> >> >> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in
> >> >> promoting
> >> >> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.
> >> > The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).
> >> > Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.
> >> > Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb. Yeah,
> >> > it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one
> >> > less
> >> > GRAY hair.
> >> Bhutto was the only 'rock star' capable of herding all the cats in
> >> Pakistan.
> >> So now we'll see a dozen versions of Bhutto-esque "democracy" none of
> >> which
> >> is capable of getting critical mass.
> >> What we don't know, nobody except the Bad Guys knows, is the degree to
> >> which
> >> the security services, police and military have been infiltrated by Al
> >> Qaeda-Taliban.

> > Of course. And it is extensive infiltration, as witnessed by Mushy's
> > actions and inactions these past six years.
> > Bhutto wasn't the answer to anything. Secular humanism has tried and
> > failed again and again in Pakistan. Bhutto wasn't a democratist, she was
> > a socialist.
> > She DESERVED her self-imposed exile--and she should have stayed away.
> > Secular humanism hasn't ever brought freedom to any corner of the world,
> > and it never will. It can't. And it never intended to do anything of the
> > sort.
> > What it brings is a sense of order and a modicum of prosperity.
> > That's not what's needed at this hour.
> > One of the things I must admit I'm in agreement with the jihadis.

>
> Hahahah!! But your agreement is for entirely different reasons. The
> Jihadists ALREADY run Pakistan. They prefer to do it behind the curtain
> because to step forward incurs world condemnation and an instant end to free
> money.
>
> Too many Jihadists are too deeply infiltrated in Pakistan's infrastructure
> for any change to occur. They need a revolution about as bad as Iran needs
> one.


It will take an Islamic cleric to step forward.

No secular humanist is gonna do it. That's completely the wrong thing to
hope for--and it's the wrong thing for the US to back.

You wanna bloodless revolution, you need a religious leader to step
forward.

Bin Laden isn't a cleric. Al-Zawahiri isn't a cleric. That's their main
weakness.

Jihad, to most uluma (men of letters, Islamic clerics), is the
collective duty of the community as a whole (fard kifaya). But the
jihadis see jihad as the forgotten pillar of Islam; bin Laden claims it
to be the pillar second only to profession of faith. To him, using the
inspirational writings of Sayyid Qutb, jihad is a personal duty
(fard'ayn).

Which it's not.

Uluma overwhelmingly agree; Islam overwhelmingly agrees. Jihad, as it is
practiced today, especially by jihadi suicide bombers who willingly kill
innocents and fellow muslims, is NOT galvanizing the Arab public.

At all.

In fact, it is just the opposite. You just don't hear about it, 'cause
that would justify the War on Terror. And we can't have THAT.

This concept of jihad is all easily argued by actual "men of letters"
and Islamic clerics.

"In Yemen three years ago, Islamic scholars challenged a group of
defiant al-Qaeda prisoners to a theological debate. "If you convince us
that your ideas are justified by the Koran, then we will join you in
the struggle," the scholars told the terrorists. "But if we succeed in
convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence."

"The scholars won the debate, the prisoners renounced violence, were
released and were given help to find jobs. Some have since offered
advice to Yemeni security services - a tip from one led to the death of
al-Qaeda's top leader in the country."

--- http://www.rand.org/commentary/062605SDUT.html
>
> I don't see any non-messy non-violent out of their mess.


You know a little about the Amish, right? The hardest thing for the
Amish is keeping their members. When they get to be teens, and they're
going to public schools, they lose the kids.

Cigarettes, cars, mini skirts, makeup, belly rings, Christine Aguilera.

The kids are gone in no time.

Pretty soon they take their Levis, belly rings, sunglasses and halter
tops to school, hidden in the back of the buggy. Soon as they get there,
they change.

Now, Amish just whip their kids when they catch them at it. And, of
course, that just drives them away faster and farther. But the Amish
can't FORCE anyone to do anything. No guns = no power. And the Amish
refuse guns.

That's the main difference between the Islamists and Amish.

What if an Amish leader stepped forward and said "Hey, Christine
Aguilera ain't so bad--she's a painted harlot, yes but I kinda liked the
lyrics and it had a great beat--I'd give it a 97, Dick."

Hense, this is where the Mennonites come from--Mennonites drive cars,
and they listen to the radio, etc. I think they even VOTE.

> >> I suspect the infiltration is substantial and they could officially
> >> takeover
> >> Pakistan this weekend if they wanted. But that would mean an immediate
> >> end
> >> to foreign aid (billions) and bigtime world sanctions and pressure. They
> >> seem content to run the country from behind the curtain.
> >> Couple of years ago Muushy sent troops into the mountains. That was the
> >> first time EVER IN HISTORY that had been done. And the rioting was huge.
> >> Good News: The Surge and the events in Pakistan have taken LOTS of
> >> pressure
> >> off Iraq and that has given us (US) room to maneuver and given the Iraqis
> >> the experience of life without terrorists and insurgents - something they
> >> apparently like since most of our anti-terrorist and anti-insurgent
> >> missions
> >> over the past few months have been initiated by Iraqis ratting out the
> >> Bad
> >> Guys to us.
> >> Bad News: We're keeping the lid on Afghanistan with about 60,000 troops.
> >> The Russians brought in 300,000 troops and lost. We (the West) are going
> >> to
> >> lose either Pakistan or Afghanistan unless something weird and/or huge
> >> happens, and soon.

> > That "deal" I imagine was struck secretly between Tehran and Washington
> > might provide that "something weird."

>
> I dunno...
>
> I wonder what the topic of conversation is in India these days..... ;)


The Indians have their own problems.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
 
While Bhutto's assassination was a terrible thing, I have to admit that when she went
back to Pakistan for the purpose of again running for office my first thought was she
would most likely get herself killed. She must have known that too so it's possible
she accepted herself as a martyr for her country. Almost immediately upon her return
a suicide bomber struck her motorcade and killed 140 people. Now this, and people
are dying by the hundreds because of her death. In hindsight what good did her
return do for the people of Pakistan but bring them chaos and death?

According to an L.A. Times article, "her double stint as prime minister was at best a
mixed bag, dragged down by allegations of massive corruption and criticism of her
lavish lifestyle."

The United States, IMO (admittedly not worth much), has nothing to apologize for in
trying to promote peace between the two parties and bring stability to the country,
unless they knew it was just another hopeless attempt to bring peace in an area of
the world that seems to thrive on hostilities and bloodshed....AAC


On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:30:37 -0500, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/60027.html
>
>Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
>
>Thursday, December 27, 2007
>
>WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
>implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
>assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting
>reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.
>
>While awaiting formal confirmation of Bhutto's death in an attack on an
>election rally, U.S. officials - who had labored to promote stability in the
>nuclear-armed country that has been an anti-terrorism ally - huddled to
>assess the impact of Bhutto's passing just two weeks before legislative
>elections in the turbulent nation in which her party was expected to do
>well.
>
>"Certainly, we condemn the attack on this rally," said deputy State
>Department spokesman Tom Casey. "It demonstrates that there are still those
>in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance
>democracy."
>
>A U.S. official speaking on grounds of anonymity confirmed that Bhutto was
>assassinated. No person or group has claimed responsibility for her death,
>the official said.
>
>In Crawford, Texas, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that
>vacationing President Bush "has been informed about the situation in
>Pakistan. He was told about it this morning during his regular briefing." He
>said that Bush planned to appear before reporters outside his ranch house
>here later Thursday morning to discuss the situation.
>
>Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She
>had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile Oct. 18. Her homecoming
>parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than
>140 people. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury.
>
>The United States had been at the forefront of foreign powers trying to
>arrange reconciliation between Bhutto and Musharraf, who under heavy U.S.
>pressure resigned as army chief and earlier this month lifted a state of
>emergency, in the hope it would put Pakistan back on the road to democracy.
>
>Bhutto's return to the country after years in exile and the ability of her
>party to contest free and fair elections had been a cornerstone of Bush's
>policy in Pakistan, where U.S. officials had watched Musharraf's growing
>authoritarianism with increasing unease.
>
>Those concerns were compounded by the rising threat from al-Qaida and
>Taliban extremists, particularly in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal
>areas bordering Afghanistan despite the fact that Washington had pumped
>nearly $10 billion in aid into the country since Musharraf became an
>indispensible counter-terrorism ally after Sept. 11, 2001.
>
>Irritated by the situation, Congress last week imposed new restrictions on
>U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including tying $50 million in military aid to
>State Department assurances that the country is making "concerted efforts"
>to prevent terrorists from operating inside its borders.
>
>Under the law, which provides a total of $300 million in aid to Pakistan and
>was signed by President Bush on Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza
>Rice also must guarantee Pakistan is implementing democratic reforms,
>including releasing political prisoners and restoring an independent
>judiciary.
>
>The law also prevents any of the funds can be used for cash transfer
>assistance to Pakistan, but that stipulation had already been adopted by the
>administration.
>
>Despite the congressional move, Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of
>state for South and Central Asian affairs who had been instrumental in
>engineering the Bhutto-Musharraf reconciliation, said he had little doubt
>that the administration would get the money.
 
AnAmericanCitizen wrote:

> The United States, IMO (admittedly not worth much), has nothing to
> apologize for in trying to promote peace between the two parties and
> bring stability to the country, unless they knew it was just another
> hopeless attempt to bring peace in an area of the world that seems
> to thrive on hostilities and bloodshed....AAC
>




How much of those hostilities and bloodshed is due to direct and
indirect US interference (past, present and likely future) in the
region?

There's no apology big enough for the criminal enterprise currently
running the US. All three branches of government are garbage.
 
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:19:14 -0600, in alt.politics, in thread Re:
Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S. , Jeff Morgan
<nope@novalid.address>, wrote

>AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>
>> The United States, IMO (admittedly not worth much), has nothing to
>> apologize for in trying to promote peace between the two parties and
>> bring stability to the country, unless they knew it was just another
>> hopeless attempt to bring peace in an area of the world that seems
>> to thrive on hostilities and bloodshed....AAC
>>

>
>
>
>How much of those hostilities and bloodshed is due to direct and
>indirect US interference (past, present and likely future) in the
>region?
>


Practically none.

Your dog won't hunt.

FACE


>There's no apology big enough for the criminal enterprise currently
>running the US. All three branches of government are garbage.
>



Standard BDS
 
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-504D24.19084931122007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <47781d8f$0$7201$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cognac756-470BB4.14014230122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <47751280$0$16644$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> >> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:cognac756-A5BF38.22512627122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> > In article <4773ef4e$0$15419$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> >> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bhutto_Death_Poses_Dile/2007/12/27/6002
>> >> >> 7.h
>> >> >> tml
>> >> >> Bhutto Death Poses Dilemma for U.S.
>> >> >> Thursday, December 27, 2007
>> >> >> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the
>> >> >> implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's
>> >> >> assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in
>> >> >> promoting
>> >> >> reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.
>> >> > The same thing happened with Bakr al-Hakim (August 2003).
>> >> > Al-Hakim was a real loss. I'm not so sure about Bhutto.
>> >> > Like a balding man (Gallagher) finding a gray hair in his comb.
>> >> > Yeah,
>> >> > it's one less hair, and that's bad--but on the other hand, it's one
>> >> > less
>> >> > GRAY hair.
>> >> Bhutto was the only 'rock star' capable of herding all the cats in
>> >> Pakistan.
>> >> So now we'll see a dozen versions of Bhutto-esque "democracy" none of
>> >> which
>> >> is capable of getting critical mass.
>> >> What we don't know, nobody except the Bad Guys knows, is the degree to
>> >> which
>> >> the security services, police and military have been infiltrated by Al
>> >> Qaeda-Taliban.
>> > Of course. And it is extensive infiltration, as witnessed by Mushy's
>> > actions and inactions these past six years.
>> > Bhutto wasn't the answer to anything. Secular humanism has tried and
>> > failed again and again in Pakistan. Bhutto wasn't a democratist, she
>> > was
>> > a socialist.
>> > She DESERVED her self-imposed exile--and she should have stayed away.
>> > Secular humanism hasn't ever brought freedom to any corner of the
>> > world,
>> > and it never will. It can't. And it never intended to do anything of
>> > the
>> > sort.
>> > What it brings is a sense of order and a modicum of prosperity.
>> > That's not what's needed at this hour.
>> > One of the things I must admit I'm in agreement with the jihadis.

>> Hahahah!! But your agreement is for entirely different reasons. The
>> Jihadists ALREADY run Pakistan. They prefer to do it behind the curtain
>> because to step forward incurs world condemnation and an instant end to
>> free
>> money.
>> Too many Jihadists are too deeply infiltrated in Pakistan's
>> infrastructure
>> for any change to occur. They need a revolution about as bad as Iran
>> needs
>> one.

> It will take an Islamic cleric to step forward.
> No secular humanist is gonna do it. That's completely the wrong thing to
> hope for--and it's the wrong thing for the US to back.
> You wanna bloodless revolution, you need a religious leader to step
> forward.
> Bin Laden isn't a cleric. Al-Zawahiri isn't a cleric. That's their main
> weakness.
> Jihad, to most uluma (men of letters, Islamic clerics), is the
> collective duty of the community as a whole (fard kifaya). But the
> jihadis see jihad as the forgotten pillar of Islam; bin Laden claims it
> to be the pillar second only to profession of faith. To him, using the
> inspirational writings of Sayyid Qutb, jihad is a personal duty
> (fard'ayn).
> Which it's not.
> Uluma overwhelmingly agree; Islam overwhelmingly agrees. Jihad, as it is
> practiced today, especially by jihadi suicide bombers who willingly kill
> innocents and fellow muslims, is NOT galvanizing the Arab public.
> At all.
> In fact, it is just the opposite. You just don't hear about it, 'cause
> that would justify the War on Terror. And we can't have THAT.
> This concept of jihad is all easily argued by actual "men of letters"
> and Islamic clerics.
> "In Yemen three years ago, Islamic scholars challenged a group of
> defiant al-Qaeda prisoners to a theological debate. "If you convince us
> that your ideas are justified by the Koran, then we will join you in
> the struggle," the scholars told the terrorists. "But if we succeed in
> convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence."
> "The scholars won the debate, the prisoners renounced violence, were
> released and were given help to find jobs. Some have since offered
> advice to Yemeni security services - a tip from one led to the death of
> al-Qaeda's top leader in the country."
> --- http://www.rand.org/commentary/062605SDUT.html
>> I don't see any non-messy non-violent out of their mess.

> You know a little about the Amish, right? The hardest thing for the
> Amish is keeping their members. When they get to be teens, and they're
> going to public schools, they lose the kids.
> Cigarettes, cars, mini skirts, makeup, belly rings, Christine Aguilera.
> The kids are gone in no time.
> Pretty soon they take their Levis, belly rings, sunglasses and halter
> tops to school, hidden in the back of the buggy. Soon as they get there,
> they change.
> Now, Amish just whip their kids when they catch them at it. And, of
> course, that just drives them away faster and farther. But the Amish
> can't FORCE anyone to do anything. No guns = no power. And the Amish
> refuse guns.
> That's the main difference between the Islamists and Amish.
> What if an Amish leader stepped forward and said "Hey, Christine
> Aguilera ain't so bad--she's a painted harlot, yes but I kinda liked the
> lyrics and it had a great beat--I'd give it a 97, Dick."
> Hense, this is where the Mennonites come from--Mennonites drive cars,
> and they listen to the radio, etc. I think they even VOTE.


EXCELLENT! Excellent brief analysis! You're right of course. There seems
to be NO CHANCE for an Islamic cleric (I mean just ONE guy) to lead BUT that
is the missing element.

Most of the existing terrorists will still have to be killed or captured and
then over time with some moderate leadership this could turn around.

I hope people are remembering that PakMeStan is the MOTHERLAND of the
Taliban. The equivalent of Nazi Germany's Berlin. It began there and will
have to end there.
 
"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m44jn31vlnv67bhp237vpihqi4of56qhpv@4ax.com...
> While Bhutto's assassination was a terrible thing, I have to admit that
> when she went
> back to Pakistan for the purpose of again running for office my first
> thought was she
> would most likely get herself killed. She must have known that too so
> it's possible
> she accepted herself as a martyr for her country. Almost immediately upon
> her return
> a suicide bomber struck her motorcade and killed 140 people. Now this,
> and people
> are dying by the hundreds because of her death. In hindsight what good
> did her
> return do for the people of Pakistan but bring them chaos and death?


Remains to be seen if the good she did (rally the people) can be carried
forward by her son, who is now going to pick up where she left off.

> According to an L.A. Times article, "her double stint as prime minister
> was at best a
> mixed bag, dragged down by allegations of massive corruption and criticism
> of her
> lavish lifestyle."


The MSM is (again) letting us down. Corruption in that part of the world is
very different than here in the US. What we call corrupt is normal accepted
(and expected) behavior over there. If you do anything without negotiating
you're held in suspicion and usually in contempt.

> The United States, IMO (admittedly not worth much), has nothing to
> apologize for in
> trying to promote peace between the two parties and bring stability to the
> country,
> unless they knew it was just another hopeless attempt to bring peace in an
> area of
> the world that seems to thrive on hostilities and bloodshed....AAC


Of course we have nothing to apologise for! Pakistan's ISI (same as our
CIA) invented the Taliban as a way of controlling the utterly backward
tribal population of Afghanistan. It started out merely as an experiment.
And now that experiment has hugely backfired.
 
"Jeff Morgan" <nope@novalid.address> wrote in message
news:13nj8otc958i023@corp.supernews.com...
> AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>> The United States, IMO (admittedly not worth much), has nothing to
>> apologize for in trying to promote peace between the two parties and
>> bring stability to the country, unless they knew it was just another
>> hopeless attempt to bring peace in an area of the world that seems
>> to thrive on hostilities and bloodshed....AAC

> How much of those hostilities and bloodshed is due to direct and
> indirect US interference (past, present and likely future) in the
> region?


None.

> There's no apology big enough for the criminal enterprise currently
> running the US. All three branches of government are garbage.


And what piece of **** country are you posting from?
 
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:53:49 -0500, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:m44jn31vlnv67bhp237vpihqi4of56qhpv@4ax.com...


>> In hindsight what good did her return do for the people of Pakistan but bring them chaos and death?



>Remains to be seen if the good she did (rally the people) can be carried forward by her son, who is now going
>to pick up where she left off.


What is it with these people? The son doesn't think they will also try to and
probably succeed in killing him also....AAC
 
"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:shfmn31h4h8bueoj7mbom40e8ii72gctrg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:53:49 -0500, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com>
> wrote:
>>"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:m44jn31vlnv67bhp237vpihqi4of56qhpv@4ax.com...
>>> In hindsight what good did her return do for the people of Pakistan but
>>> bring them chaos and death?

>>Remains to be seen if the good she did (rally the people) can be carried
>>forward by her son, >>who is now going to pick up where she left off.

> What is it with these people? The son doesn't think they will also try to
> and
> probably succeed in killing him also....AAC


Well... Let's pretend he's filled with patriotism and love for his country
and is willing to sacrifice even his very life to bring freedom, liberty and
justice for all to his beloved country.

To be honest there is some truth to that. And I'm sure he's got a truckload
of payback he'd like to deliver to someone somewhere.

But realistically he has no other job skills. If you think about it all he
has to do is smile, wave and talk (and duck) and he could end up running a
nuclear-armed semi-prosperous country.

But the odds are soooooooooo long....
 
Back
Top