Benazir Bhutto dies

As most of you already know that Benazir Bhutto has been killed. now the question we should be asking ourselves, IS if this country is going into melt down should we be worried about their nuclear arsenal.
 
LeEnfield said:
As most of you already know that Benazir Bhutto has been killed. now the question we should be asking ourselves, IS if this country is going into melt down should we be worried about their nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...


No - Their military has always been in control of that country.
 
Pale Rider said:
No - Their military has always been in control of that country.
Click to expand...

Not as much as you think. Al Qaeda has gathered sympathy within the Army as well. Just a few months ago 50 men on the Afghan border switched sides and did a joint broadcast with al Qaeda saying they refused to fire on fellow Muslims. There is alot more sympathy for Al-Qaeda amongst the rank and file than there is for Hindus, Christians and Jews.

Oh BTW, I just read today on CNN that due to the recent events our 'WAR-PRESIDENT' has decided to make Pakistan the top priority in 2008. Why he chose his last year as President (as opposed to say 3 years ago when the SHTF in that area is an interesting question).

I felt so much better now after I heard that, don't you all?
 
LeEnfield said:
As most of you already know that Benazir Bhutto has been killed. now the question we should be asking ourselves, IS if this country is going into melt down should we be worried about their nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...


Hard to say as I think even the craziest understand the repercussions of letting their nukes fall into the wrong hands we had the same issues with the break up of the former Soviet Union and that seems to have passed without major incident.

As for Bhutto's assassination I have little doubt that al Qaeda will get the blame and no doubt claim responsibility but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Musharraf's fingerprints are all over this.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Not as much as you think. Al Qaeda has gathered sympathy within the Army as well. Just a few months ago 50 men on the Afghan border switched sides and did a joint broadcast with al Qaeda saying they refused to fire on fellow Muslims. There is alot more sympathy for Al-Qaeda amongst the rank and file than there is for Hindus, Christians and Jews.

Oh BTW, I just read today on CNN that due to the recent events our 'WAR-PRESIDENT' has decided to make Pakistan the top priority in 2008. Why he chose his last year as President (as opposed to say 3 years ago when the SHTF in that area is an interesting question).

I felt so much better now after I heard that, don't you all?
Click to expand...

Agreed - there is alot of corruption and burning the candle at both ends so to speak, my comment was pretty much directed at the safe guarding of their nuke arsenal.
 
MontyB said:
As for Bhutto's assassination I have little doubt that al Qaeda will get the blame and no doubt claim responsibility but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Musharraf's fingerprints are all over this.
Click to expand...


It seems that many are prepared to point the finger of blame at Musharraf for everything that happens in Pakistan. So far his moves have all been the right ones, this proved by events. Surely the culprits are the Islamists or/and their friends. Bhutto had just expressed her willingness to join the struggle on the Pakistan/Afghanistan borders, I understand.


Musharraf would have nothing to gain in wishing Benezir dead. I repeat what I posted on the day of the assassination. An important short window of opportunity arises for Bhutto's party. If they stick up their replacement candidate immediately and publically and go ahead with the election they are likely to sweep into power. But they must act NOW, they have already lost days.


--------------------------------------
Give me liberty or give me death.
 
Actually it's not quite 2000 years. Christianity is older than Islam.
And they didn't spread to half the world in a very nice way either. With the advancement of communications and more lethal weapons (things they have embraced while rejecting a crapload of others) it's only a matter of time before we feel the FULL force at the home front.
They seemed so advanced back in the days though.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Actually it's not quite 2000 years. Christianity is older than Islam.
And they didn't spread to half the world in a very nice way either. With the advancement of communications and more lethal weapons (things they have embraced while rejecting a crapload of others) it's only a matter of time before we feel the FULL force at the home front.
They seemed so advanced back in the days though.
Click to expand...

Hehe and Christianity wasn't all peace, love and moonbeams either, just take a look at the Spanish conquest of South America or the "conversion" incentives of Charlemagne's era.

The simple fact of the matter is that religion in one form or another has been responsible for a sizable number of the world great atrocities.

As for the capacity of the Muslim world to tackle the west I really don't see the threat if the best of them (militarily) can't coordinate themselves to beat a nation of 1/10th their size (Israel) I hardly see them storming through downtown Europe or the USA anytime soon.
 
MontyB said:
As for the capacity of the Muslim world to tackle the west I really don't see the threat if the best of them (militarily) can't coordinate themselves to beat a nation of 1/10th their size (Israel) I hardly see them storming through downtown Europe or the USA anytime soon.
Click to expand...


It don't work that way. Look at how the remnants of Iraq has tied down the most powerful nation on earth.

And as for Islam having held half the world for 2000 years (quote Monty B), well it has been not much longer than 1000 actually, and at least it wasn't OUR half, which is what they are coming for now, if they are given the chance.


-----------------------------------
Give me liberty of give me death
 
But Del Boy, it's only tying us down because we feel like staying there. The US could pack up and leave if it felt like it and leave Iraq to tear itself up.
 
major liability said:
But Del Boy, it's only tying us down because we feel like staying there. The US could pack up and leave if it felt like it and leave Iraq to tear itself up.
Click to expand...

There is that but there is also the argument that the reason you are tied down there is because of some incredibly bad calls immediately after the war ended ie complete disbanding the Iraqi army, removing all of its political infrastructure without actually having a replacement set ready to step in thus allowing the lawlessness to take hold.

the_13th_redneck said:
Actually it's not quite 2000 years. Christianity is older than Islam.
Click to expand...

True but not by a whole lot, lets face it Christianity never really took a foot hold in Europe until the late Roman period (300-500AD) and it wasn't strong then, northern Europe never really adopted Christianity until the end of the Viking age by contrast the moors were in Spain in 711AD and much of North Africa was Muslim around 690AD so there is at best only a couple of hundred years difference in their popularity.
 
Last edited:
Christianity doesn't even rule have the world, only 1/3 of the world (approx. 2.1 billion followers) and Islam is second with about 1.5 billion believers. Muslims are so splintered right now that Hinduism has a better chance of "taking over the world" and most Christian governments are secular and protect the rights of all religions within their borders. That's the real future right there. Governments that protect the rights of all religions and not just a select few. Back to topic...

Anybody else find the official story from Pakistan odd? "Shot twice, once in chest, once in throat, several lacerations from shrapnel wounds, died of cracked skull upon falling into vehicle." Shouldn't the blood loss kill a person long before the swelling from a cracked skull? Furthermore, doesn't a cracked skull cause death because of a buildup of fluids causing pressure on the brain? Isn't that fluid made up of mostly blood? How long until people start to remember that Bhutto is wanted for embezzlement in four countries in Europe and that she was removed from office under charges of corruption ad embezzlement? As for private security, what the **** good would they have done? She was surrounded by supporters (and apparently two gunmen, one of whom set off a bomb strapped to his person) with no way to ensure nobody was armed and was in a very exposed position shouting to her supporters. If someone had wanted to kill her it wouldn't have been that hard and obviously someone did want to kill her and it wasn't that hard. My money's on Al Qaeda, I think Bhutto being elected would have made it even easier for Al Qaeda to move in and out of Pakistan, but she is a woman and Al Qaeda has proven they value their (twisted) beliefs more than their stability, security and future, they would go after a prominent Muslim woman. I don't see much of a positive for Musharref in killing Bhutto her victory was a long shot but killing her makes her a martyr, even if it is only temporary, and whoever her party puts forward is going to get a massive sympathy boost now. Al Qaeda's the only people with motive and a means to me, granted lost of people had the means, but none others had a motive strong enough to warrant the assassination.
 
MontyB said:
There is that but there is also the argument that the reason you are tied down there is because of some incredibly bad calls immediately after the war ended ie complete disbanding the Iraqi army, removing all of its political infrastructure without actually having a replacement set ready to step in thus allowing the lawlessness to take hold.

............................

I completely agree with this point, and from the first day my exasperation has not abated. The Iraqi army was there ,able and ready and in complete control of the population. Sadam and his henchman were dealt with. The army and the civil service could have been sieved gradually.


BTW - regarding the religions, the Moors certainly controlled Europe etc., but the christians and Jews were heavily represented, though under heavy taxation. As it happens, my family stems from that the time of the Moors, and figured prominantly, I have a family name of Moorish derivation. In many places christianity was well established long before the Romans arrived in, for example, Britain and Ireland. It has to said that Christianity is certainly 6/700 years older. Great international councils had sat and decreed long before Mohammed appeared. His ideology is a young whipper-snapper in comparison , but I am not looking for a fight over it!



MAJOR - when I talked of us being held in Iraq, I agree with you, that they have our attention. What I meant was that the form of warfare against us by Islam would be the same attempt to burn the ground beneath our feet from within. The lunatics with nukes is another matter of course.


DAMIEN - I have no argument with your take on the situation generally and in Pakistan. I could buy that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top