Bhutto Assasinated by Suicide Attack

[POLYGON]

My bets are on Nawaz Sherrif the former president, he was about to make an alliance with Bhutto, thus now all votes of Bhutto's supporters are his, so he has a great benefit in her murder yet he's not even a suspect, all eyes are on Musharaf and Al Qaida

 

[Prime Junta]

Funny, that's the first idea that occurred to me too.

Bhutto's corruption may also factor into it (she had a lot of money salted away in various tax havens that she did not come by entirely honestly), as well as the fact that she was a shi'ite. I kinda doubt we'll ever know for certain.

 

[chamr]

It doesn't really matter exactly who did it. In fact, there's probably at least 2 or 3 factions involved enough to have had foreknowledge if not a direct role in the operation itself.

The point is that, even with her history of corruption, Bhutto represented the option for some form of democracy, as flawed as it is in Pakistan. Now it seems more than ever it will be business as usual, which is bad for just about everyone but the extremists which, of course, includes elements within the ISI.

 

[magerette]

I don't know about Bhutto personally, but the elections certainly represent a democratic option, and they are certainly one of the main things that have been sabotaged by this attack and Bhutto's removal from the picture.

Does this mean that democracy itself is the target of this worldwide devolution to terrorism? Sometimes it seems that way to my limited brain. Of course, there is also the personal angle--in other words, an attack based on the private motivations of an individual/small group--and that's often resulted in assassination, since it requires little in the way of resources.

@chamr: about it directly benefiting Al-Queda, etc--that's what I meant by "ultimately only benefits those looking to profit from the disorder"--whether they did it or not, they will certainly benefit from a) the attention, and b) the fear and chaos instilled by the attack. Though of course, over time I think attacks like this tend to mobilize the opposition as well.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't know about Bhutto personally, but the elections certainly represent a democratic option, and they are certainly one of the main things that have been sabotaged by this attack and Bhutto's removal from the picture.

Certainly.

Does this mean that democracy itself is the target of this worldwide devolution to terrorism? Sometimes it seems that way to my limited brain.

That would depend on your definition of democracy, and which terrorism we're talking about.

For example, Islamist groups aren't at all opposed in principle to free elections -- in fact, in many countries, they're the ones most likely to win such elections (like Hamas did in the Palestinian territories). OTOH the kind of political system they have in mind is democratic at best in an extremely limited sense of the word.

OTOH terrorism like what we've been seeing in Lebanon is directly targeted at the democratic elements in a partially democratic political system. But it doesn't have anything much to do with Al Qaeda.

Globally, we're seeing a whole bunch of different trends, some democratizing, some the opposite. China is seeing its authoritarian system slowly erode under pressure of globalization and globalized trade. Under EU influence, central Europe has democratized, the trends are, on the whole, positive in the Balkans and in Turkey. There are some encouraging trends in Africa as well, as some of the old dictatorships are crumbling and being replaced by less completely corrupt systems. Madagascar and Kenya, for example. And in the Arab world, we have some pretty encouraging developments in a few Gulf countries like Qatar and the Emirates.

On the other hand, most of the other Arab countries have been slowly rotting where they stand; after a brief spring of hope in Syria it's gone back to a Hafez al-Assad style police state, Egypt is basically waiting for Mubarak to croak, Libya has been admitted back to the ranks of the not completely deranged countries but Qaddafi is as much of a loon as he ever was (with some style, though, I have to say), and Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco don't appear to be going anywhere fast.

Russia went from near-anarchy to a more or less stable semi-authoritarian system. American democracy is doing fine on the state level, but in something very close to a crisis on the federal level. The EU is (still) struggling to define itself; by and large the member countries are doing about as well (or badly) as they ever were, but democracy doesn't really work well on the union level. There's also a fair bit of disenchantment with it, especially among the "older" EU members who love to blame Brussels and the euro for everything from the price of bananas to the way cheese just doesn't taste the same as it used to.

Finally, I don't really think there's been a "worldwide devolution to terrorism." Terrorism is as old as warfare, and I believe that if we'd actually count the number and gravity of attacks, we'd find that nothing much has changed there compared to just about any period you'd like to compare against. What has changed is media response: the West has lost its sense of immortality, and consequently follows terrorism all over the world much more closely than before, and acts like Benazir Bhutto's assassination resonate much more deeply and widely.

@chamr: about it directly benefiting Al-Queda, etc--that's what I meant by "ultimately only benefits those looking to profit from the disorder"--whether they did it or not, they will certainly benefit from a) the attention, and b) the fear and chaos instilled by the attack. Though of course, over time I think attacks like this tend to mobilize the opposition as well.

We'll find out soon enough if it was Al Qaeda. They will claim responsibility for it if they did do it. OTOH if some previously unheard-of Islamist group claims responsibility, it's virtually a confirmation it was the ISI, or some faction within it.

 

[Prime Junta]

The point is that, even with her history of corruption, Bhutto represented the option for some form of democracy, as flawed as it is in Pakistan. Now it seems more than ever it will be business as usual, which is bad for just about everyone but the extremists which, of course, includes elements within the ISI.

That's quite true. I'm pretty sure that under current conditions, BB would have been the least evil choice available. Now, what does *that* remind me of?

 

[dteowner]

I thought I heard on the news yesterday that al-Qaeda had already claimed responsibility. Was that report premature?

 

[YellowWing]

I dont know if i heard it right or not? on CNN??

But i thought i heard that al-Qaeda dosent kill women its agianst their standards of religion which is a shock to hear that statement

"its all right to wipe them to the point of death but to kill its a no.no"Right

 

[Prime Junta]

I thought I heard on the news yesterday that al-Qaeda had already claimed responsibility. Was that report premature?

Well, I haven't heard it.

What I did hear was that a Pakistani government spokesman claimed that their intelligence agencies intercepted a call from a militant leader to another militant leader, congratulating him for the assassination. Perhaps that's the source of the story?

However, given the source, I would take that that with a very big grain of salt.

I did a quick search of CNN and BBC, and didn't find any news to this effect. I did find a CIA agent accusing Al Qaeda about it, as well as a quite a few articles that took it as a given that Islamic integrists were to blame. For example, time.com's "Pakistan has accused a radical group and a Taliban leader. Did they act alone, with al-Qaeda or with the government?"

This is the kind of thing that drives me up the wall about reporting nowadays. Note the structure: "Pakistan has accused..." (i.e., "we're just reporting the accusation") followed by "Did they act alone?" (i.e., "we're assuming it's true without saying so.")

The same kind of thing happens with every major, sudden bit of news -- mad scrambling and very little caution and fact-checking. Meaning, it could very well be that "a radical group" and "a Taliban leader" may turn out to be the culprits, but there is no way we can know that yet, and not admitting to the uncertainty is terrible journalism.

 

[Prime Junta]

But i thought i heard that al-Qaeda dosent kill women its agianst their standards of religion which is a shock to hear that statement

AFAIK this is nonsense as well.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah, tell that to all the women involved in the Twin Towers massacre!!

 

[Remus]

I thought i seen these before - when something big happened suddenly all kind of reports emerging and pointing finger at particular obvious party without substantial proofs.

 

[chamr]

This is the kind of thing that drives me up the wall about reporting nowadays. Note the structure: "Pakistan has accused..." (i.e., "we're just reporting the accusation") followed by "Did they act alone?" (i.e., "we're assuming it's true without saying so.")

The same kind of thing happens with every major, sudden bit of news -- mad scrambling and very little caution and fact-checking. Meaning, it could very well be that "a radical group" and "a Taliban leader" may turn out to be the culprits, but there is no way we can know that yet, and not admitting to the uncertainty is terrible journalism.

I'm with you there. To add to my depression about the state of the world, the decline of journalism since the corporate takeovers has been startling, to say the least. As you say, accusation and hearsay are reported almost as fact, and then rarely is the score settled in a meaningful way when the facts are truly established if the story doesn't have enough legs to draw eyeballs that draw advertising dollars at that point. Add to that the watering down of the news with fluff and mayhem pieces that contribute little or nothing to our understanding and knowledge of the world around us, and it is grim days indeed. I still remember my profound shock and disbelief at seeing a prominent headline on the front page of CNN.com about Motley Crue's lead singer getting married and thinking, "Are you f***ing kidding me!?!?!?!?"

 

[Prime Junta]

Yeah, tell that to all the women involved in the Twin Towers massacre!!

It's a bit more complicated than that, actually. Islamists are quite picky about individual targets. Specifically, they have to find Qur'anic justification for every attack. If it's an individual, they have to show that the target is an apostate or an enemy of Islam. If it's a larger target, they have to make the case that it's an enemy asset. When random people get killed in either type of attack, they follow Arnaud Amalric's maxim "Kill them all! God will recognize his own."

I dislike people getting all high and mighty about this, since we behave exactly the same way in war; the only difference is that they brag about it and we lie about it.

Oh, women? I don't know if they have some kind of fatwa that forbids specifically targeting women. Someone might, but I'd be a bit surprised if it's some kind of general principle.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm with you there. To add to my depression about the state of the world, the decline of journalism since the corporate takeovers has been startling, to say the least. As you say, accusation and hearsay are reported almost as fact, and then rarely is the score settled in a meaningful way when the facts are truly established if the story doesn't have enough legs to draw eyeballs that draw advertising dollars at that point. Add to that the watering down of the news with fluff and mayhem pieces that contribute little or nothing to our understanding and knowledge of the world around us, and it is grim days indeed. I still remember my profound shock and disbelief at seeing a prominent headline on the front page of CNN.com about Motley Crue's lead singer getting married and thinking, "Are you f***ing kidding me!?!?!?!?"

I think the really dangerous thing about this is that it makes complex things look simple, and reduces shades of gray to black and white. With this kind of drumbeat, you'll eventually develop a picture where a bunch of really bad guys are doing really bad things to the rest of us, represented by a bunch of really good guys; ergo, if you manage to "get" the really bad guys, the problem gets solved.

Naturally, we have to use *some* level of simplification to make any sense of the world at all, but past a certain point, the simplified version loses touch with reality so badly that it starts to produce completely lousy predictions -- and policies. It's totally our fault -- the media are just serving us what we want to eat, and we want to eat cheap fast food.

 

[Prime Junta]

I found the source of the Al Qaeda responsibility claim. Adnkronos International and Asia Times Online reported that they received phone calls from an individual who claimed to be Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, the commander of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Normally Al Qaeda claims responsibility by sending what amounts to press releases to a variety of media as well as posting statements on Islamist websites some days after the attack. IOW I think it's most likely that this is a hoax.

 

[chamr]

I think the really dangerous thing about this is that it makes complex things look simple, and reduces shades of gray to black and white. With this kind of drumbeat, you'll eventually develop a picture where a bunch of really bad guys are doing really bad things to the rest of us, represented by a bunch of really good guys; ergo, if you manage to "get" the really bad guys, the problem gets solved.

And thus one of the greatest (if not the greatest) triumph of Rovian politics. While simply playing to the human need to oversimplify that's been around since the advent of mythology and religion, I don't think anyone has been as successful in modern times as that bastard has in making this such a dominant and winning "mind share" strategy. Yuck.

It's totally our fault -- the media are just serving us what we want to eat, and we want to eat cheap fast food.

Can't agree with this. While I believe "we" have 100% ownership in the realm of politics and who "we" elect, I think journalism needs to be held to a higher standard. The excuse of "giving the people what they want" doesn't hold water with me. Anyone who has the gumption to call themselves a true journalist should understand that they are duty-bound to give the people what they need, which isn't always what they want. To fall back on the "what they want" excuse is to abdicate your responsibility as a journalist and admit to being nothing more than a shill.

 

[Prime Junta]

Can't agree with this. While I believe "we" have 100% ownership in the realm of politics and who "we" elect, I think journalism needs to be held to a higher standard. The excuse of "giving the people what they want" doesn't hold water with me. Anyone who has the gumption to call themselves a true journalist should understand that they are duty-bound to give the people what they need, which isn't always what they want. To fall back on the "what they want" excuse is to abdicate your responsibility as a journalist and admit to being nothing more than a shill.

The trouble is that media operate in the marketplace. You can't force people to consume what they don't want to consume. If people don't want quality journalism, they won't buy it, and anyone offering it will go bust. Quality journalism doesn't come cheap.

The bigger question is, *why* doesn't the market want quality journalism? And which market are we talking about? In my experience, the standards of British TV and print journalism are pretty high compared to, say, American or Russian TV, and French print journalism is really good at its best.

 

[chamr]

The trouble is that media operate in the marketplace. You can't force people to consume what they don't want to consume. If people don't want quality journalism, they won't buy it, and anyone offering it will go bust. Quality journalism doesn't come cheap.

True, this is the crux of the problem. At least in the US, this was brought about, in part, by the de-regulation of media empires and the loss of independence of local affiliates. This created a homogenization of media that lead to more and more influence of the profit margin over the quality of journalistic programming. However, even if we reverted to pre-de-regulation days, I don't think that would be enough to solve the problem, namely the ever-increasing pressure for media in general, beyond journalism, to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to sell advertising slots. In contrast, but without being truly knowledgeable, I'd guess the quality of the BBC is due, in part, to it's subsidization by the government.

I'd like to say that the problem, at least in the US, could be solved by better educating our population and encouraging, as a society, the old ways of curiosity in the outside world and reward for being well-rounded as an individual rather than our current culture that is obsessed with self and rewards selfishness, but obviously that is a much larger problem to solve.

 

[POLYGON]

It's a bit more complicated than that, actually. Islamists are quite picky about individual targets. Specifically, they have to find Qur'anic justification for every attack. If it's an individual, they have to show that the target is an apostate or an enemy of Islam. If it's a larger target, they have to make the case that it's an enemy asset. When random people get killed in either type of attack, they follow Arnaud Amalric's maxim "Kill them all! God will recognize his own."

I dislike people getting all high and mighty about this, since we behave exactly the same way in war; the only difference is that they brag about it and we lie about it.

Oh, women? I don't know if they have some kind of fatwa that forbids specifically targeting women. Someone might, but I'd be a bit surprised if it's some kind of general principle.

As a muslim I must say that Islam forbids targetting any non-fighting non-muslim in a war(women included clearly)....if not in a war even non-muslim soldiers cannot be targetted...yet if in a war muslims can kill non fighting people if the main goal was a greater cause like when prophet Mohammed (PBUH) hit Al Taef with culprits, his goal was to open the castle yet in the process people were killed....but that only in the case of war...
That take us to the way of thinking of Al Qaeda, they consider themselves in a war with the US and the whole west in fact thus they justify the killing of people in the hit of the twin towers by claiming that the main goal was not to kill people but to "shake" the US economy.