Benazir Bhutto Killed in Bomb Blast

[neutrino]

I'd been seeing only the news of her getting injured while over a dozen people had been killed. Now, it seems, it's official.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

[momentum_waves]

What a shame. She was a hero in many ways.

RIP... (very sad)

[Moridin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html

[Astronuc]

Yeah - I just caught the headline.

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suicide bombing. (AP) "At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack.

[arildno]

As long as Muslims do not repudiate those elements within the Quran and the hadiths which give moral sanction to violent response to anyone not considered "Muslim enough", or being "insulting to the faith/Prophet", these types of actions will continue unabated, and spread its deadly consequences beyond the Dar-as-Salaam as well.

It is the moral duty of every Muslim to do that repudiation, in his heart and publicly in his sphere of influence.

[Curious3141]

As long as Muslims do not repudiate those elements within the Quran and the hadiths which give moral sanction to violent response to anyone not considered "Muslim enough", or being "insulting to the faith/Prophet", these types of actions will continue unabated, and spread its deadly consequences beyond the Dar-as-Salaam as well.

It is the moral duty of every Muslim to do that repudiation, in his heart and publicly in his sphere of influence.

This argument is slightly off-topic, because BB was likely killed for political expediency more than any sincere moral umbrage.

The problem with your stated hope is the Quran is taken as the inerrant word of (their) god, and strict adherence is required of a true, devout Muslim. Passive "slips" would probably be somewhat excusable, but a conscientious, declared repudiation? Think again.

Now, given that there are internal inconsistencies in the text of the Quran (as indeed with the bible and most other religious texts), I wonder how exactly Muslims can still hold the Quran to be the perfectly transmitted word of god, but that's an argument for another day.

[Moridin]

This argument is slightly off-topic, because BB was likely killed for political expediency more than any sincere moral umbrage.

Ah, the classical religious-violence-isn't-really-about-religion argument. What do you think triggered it? If you claim that it is by political motivation only, then please explain where the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers are? Or why the Swedish social democrats didn't blow up the right when the lost the last election?

The problem with your stated hope is the Quran is taken as the inerrant word of (their) god, and strict adherence is required of a true, devout Muslim. Passive "slips" would probably be somewhat excusable, but a conscientious, declared repudiation? Think again.

Indeed, there is only one possible way to resolve that. Reason and secularization.

[ahmadmz]

Religious reason or political or even both, this is just sad. It is sad to see things like this happening in my country. These people really need to stop blowing themselves up to kill other innocent people.

[Ivan Seeking]

This is terrible!

It is more than a little frustrating that she knew people were gunning for her but she still left herself open to attack. Did she intend to be a martyr? She wasn't stupid so I have to wonder...

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is more than a little frustrating that she knew people were gunning for her but she still left herself open to attack. Did she intend to be a martyr? She wasn't stupid so I have to wonder...

During interviews she confirmed she knew he life was always in grave danger since returing, but felt her mission and the desire to improve her home country made the risk worthwhile. So I suppose deep down she did intend to be a martyr and knew it was just a matter of time. Whether is will have done any good is yet to be seen.

[arildno]

This argument is slightly off-topic, because BB was likely killed for political expediency more than any sincere moral umbrage.

The problem with your stated hope is the Quran is taken as the inerrant word of (their) god, and strict adherence is required of a true, devout Muslim. Passive "slips" would probably be somewhat excusable, but a conscientious, declared repudiation?
Indeed.So, that just means they have the moral responsibility to stop being that.

Of course, it is not only Muslims who have the moral responsibility. We all have that duty.

Similarly, all of us have the moral duty to repudiate the repellent maxims of "Mein Kampf", the difference being that the vast majority of us already have done so, and that we don't find it in the slightest "insensitive" to say to Nazis that they have vile attitudes incompatible with the values of a free society.

[Moridin]

Similarly, all of us have the moral duty to repudiate the repellent maxims of "Mein Kampf", the difference being that the vast majority of us already have done so, and that we don't find it in the slightest "insensitive" to say to Nazis that they have vile attitudes incompatible with the values of a free society.

But surely, it would be a major generalization to claim that all Nazis follows "Mein Kampf"? Surely, you should judge Nazism and the Nazis by the center, rather than the extremist fringe? Isn't such a generalization intolerant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :rolleyes:

[arildno]

But surely, it would be a major generalization to claim that all Nazis follows "Mein Kampf"? Surely, you should judge Nazism and the Nazis by the center, rather than the extremist fringe? Isn't such a generalization intolerant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :rolleyes:
Yeah, I forgot.

How bad of me..

[binzing]

Quote:
This argument is slightly off-topic, because BB was likely killed for political expediency more than any sincere moral umbrage.
Ah, the classical religious-violence-isn't-really-about-religion argument. What do you think triggered it? If you claim that it is by political motivation only, then please explain where the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers are? Or why the Swedish social democrats didn't blow up the right when the lost the last election?

Quote:
The problem with your stated hope is the Quran is taken as the inerrant word of (their) god, and strict adherence is required of a true, devout Muslim. Passive "slips" would probably be somewhat excusable, but a conscientious, declared repudiation? Think again.
Indeed, there is only one possible way to resolve that. Reason and secularization.

Umm...probably because she is a female candidate running a campaign based around bringing democracy to a country that has been in turmoil for years! I don't mean to be an ***, but that was one of the worst respones I've see out of you (Moridin) on this forum.

[Moridin]

Umm...probably because she is a female candidate running a campaign based around bringing democracy to a country that has been in turmoil for years! I don't mean to be an ***, but that was one of the worst respones I've see out of you (Moridin) on this forum.

Why would that motivate an act of terror? Because the country has been in turmoil for years? What caused those turmoils? Want to take a guess? :uhh:

[BobG]

I take it most see no chance Musharraf had anything to do with Bhutto's assassination? He postponed the elections once and only removed emergency rule under some intense pressure. Musharraf would seem to have the most to gain.

Or else the current events prove Musharraf was right all along and that he shouldn't have bent under international pressure.

Right now, I think it would be hard to draw any conclusions from Bhutto's murder.

[mheslep]

I'd been seeing only the news of her getting injured while over a dozen people had been killed. Now, it seems, it's official.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

Tragic. What a brave woman.

[gravenewworld]

Tragic. What a brave woman.

Yeah a brave woman who lived a life of corruption.


Why don't the news sources present it like it really is? Bhutto is absolutely NO martyr.

[mheslep]

Yeah a brave woman who lived a life of corruption.I certainly am not well read on her days as head of state, but I had the take that she was more like a U.S. Grant in that she allowed through ineptness or inattention corruption to run rampant, but she herself was not chiefly motivated by mere money and power. No?

[Astronuc]

Well, whether or not they did it - Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the assassination.

Al Qaeda takes credit for Bhutto assassination
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/al_qaeda_takes_credi.php
By Bill RoggioDecember 27, 2007 12:26 PM
Al Qaeda's central command is taking credit for today's successful assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A senior al Qaeda military leader in Afghanistan has contacted Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani journalist for the Asia Times and Adnkronos International with close connections to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and bragged about killing Bhutto.

"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen," Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told Mr. Shazad. The attack was reportedly ordered at the highest levels of al Qaeda.

"It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October," Mr. Shazad also reported. "Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto."

Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto assassinated
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/pakistan_benazir_bhu.php

[gravenewworld]

I certainly am not well read on her days as head of state, but I had the take that she was more like a U.S. Grant in that she allowed through ineptness or inattention corruption to run rampant, but she herself was not chiefly motivated by mere money and power. No?


Bhutto is/was accused of stealing $1.5 billion in form of government kickbacks and contracts. Bhutto is actually much more popular in the west than at home. She is remembered for having some of the worst human rights violations in Pakistan's history while being PM. She also did not allow media freedom--the same exact thing she criticized Musharraf for. These are just a few of the long list of things I can think of off the top of my head.

[edward]

According to the corruption charges against Bhutto, she would have fit right into the American political scene, right down to the six month suspended sentence.

Brian Whitaker
Friday August 8, 2003
The Guardian


Details emerged yesterday of how a £117,000 diamond necklace led to the former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband being convicted of money laundering by a Swiss court last week.
The pair were given suspended jail sentences of six months each and ordered to repay about £8m to the Pakistani government.

Although Ms Bhutto continues to deny the charges and says she intends to appeal, the Swiss investigating magistrate found that during her second term as prime minister she enriched herself or her husband with kickbacks from a government contract with two Swiss companies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1014512,00.html

[jcsd]

I think people are being far to oversimplistic about what is a very complex poltical situation. There's four main elements vying for power in Pakistan currently (Bhutto's PPP, Musharraf's PML-Q, Sharif's PML-N and the Islamic militants).

Whilst the militants are the prime suspects for Bhutto's murder, it's not inconceivable that it could've been orchestrated by one of Bhutto's more secular opponents (poltical violnce and assasination is common in the region even in the more stable India). It's also worth noting that all the poltical parties profess to being guided by Islamic principles and all the actors are practicing Muslims, so a characterization of the situation as 'Muslims versus reason' nobody in Pakistan would agree with.

As for the corruption charges it is very difficult to judge how true they are given that the political situation

[Gokul43201]

Umm...probably because she is a female candidate running a campaign based around bringing democracy to a country that has been in turmoil for years! And what is your point?

You don't think her being a woman in a position of power offends deep seated Islamic beliefs? You don't think her desire to weaken the power of Sharia law makes most deeply religious Pakistanis hate her for this?

Tragic. What a brave woman.She was brave alright. But many people will not feel a whole lot of tragedy for the person that was the Taliban's strongest supporter in the mid-90's, a person that diverted over a billion dollars of state money into her personal swissbank accounts and been charged with corruption and money laundering in over a half dozen different countries.

References:

See Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, by Steve Coll, pp. 290 - 295 (the book is searchable at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product))

The Bhutto Millions; A Background Check Far From Ordinary (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2D61E30F93AA35752C0A96E9582 60)

Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption in Pakistan (http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm)

Bhutto sentenced in Switzerland - ordered to return $11 million to Pak Govt (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1D61F3EF935A3575BC0A9659C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Poland gives Pak papers on $ 2-million Bhutto bribe (http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990507/ige07029.html)



BobG, after recent unrest in Pakistan over Musharraf's spat with Chief Justice Chaudhry, I believe Musharraf was looking forward to building an alliance with Bhutto. That's the only way I can explain the amnesty he extended to her but not to Nawaz Sharif. I'd previously have thought that Musharraf would have been the one with most to gain from her death, but now I'm very skeptical of that idea.

Corruption amnesty may release millions for Bhutto (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2652808.ece)

Pakistan's Government has cleared the way for Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister, and her husband, to reclaim hundreds of millions of pounds frozen in Swiss bank accounts, according to senior anticorruption officials.

They say the prospect has been raised by a deal between Ms Bhutto and Pakistan’s military leader, President Musharraf, that will allow her to return home from exile this week.

[dst]

I think people are being far to oversimplistic about what is a very complex poltical situation. There's four main elements vying for power in Pakistan currently (Bhutto's PPP, Musharraf's PML-Q, Sharif's PML-N and the Islamic militants).

Whilst the militants are the prime suspects for Bhutto's murder, it's not inconceivable that it could've been orchestrated by one of Bhutto's more secular opponents (poltical violnce and assasination is common in the region even in the more stable India). It's also worth noting that all the poltical parties profess to being guided by Islamic principles and all the actors are practicing Muslims, so a characterization of the situation as 'Muslims versus reason' nobody in Pakistan would agree with.

As for the corruption charges it is very difficult to judge how true they are given that the political situation



You're quite correct. When I was in the area (not Pakistan but nearby), it was absolutely shocking how many politicians were assassinated. There isn't exactly a shortage of people in the Bengal region, but the newspapers are just full of death - keep in mind I mostly read the locals. There is only one reason this stands out, because the dead is of very high profile. Many less well-known politicians in the region tend to meet a sticky end regardless.

You don't think her being a woman in a position of power offends deep seated Islamic beliefs? You don't think her desire to weaken the power of Sharia law makes most deeply religious Pakistanis hate her for this?

I find your statement deeply ignorant. In neighbouring Bangladesh, they had Sheikh Hasina for PM at one point, and before that, Khaleda Zia - both women and both remained firmly attached to their body parts throughout their terms. In any case, such an event isn't surprising because the whole region has a history of extreme violence, it's only that there is now a very unstable nuclear-armed country around now.

[Gokul43201]

I find your statement deeply ignorant. In neighbouring Bangladesh, they had Sheikh Hasina for PM at one point, and before that, Khaleda Zia - both women and both remained firmly attached to their body parts throughout their terms. How does that contradict anything I said about Bhutto and Islamism? Also, in neighboring Bangladesh, author Taslima Nasreen had to flee to India when her Government exiled her and Islamic leaders called for a Fatwa. Even today, in India, she faces a constant threat to her life from Muslims angry with her writing. And in India, the Congress party (led by a woman, Sonia Gandhi) won the last parliamentary election, but that doesn't mean there isn't widespread sexism in India.

But why talk about Bangladesh and India? Bhutto has twice served as PM of Pakistan. She (her party) won parliamentary elections in '88, and '93 so there's no denying that a lot of people liked her. But that doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't despise her purely for the reason that she was a woman in power (though I doubt there was a strong majority either way). Moreover, she was never once able to implement a single one of the reforms on womens' rights that she promised during campaigns - they were just too unpopular, and pushing them was too risky, politically.

[binzing]

Oh, and to correct the title of the thread. She was shot, the assasin just "disposed" of himself to take along a bunch of civilians. Oh, and Moridin and Gokul, yes the whole "woman in power" thing was surely a factor, I was just stating that you look to causes beyond that of strictly religious base.

[EnumaElish]

I strongly suggest viewing the movie Charlie's War (currently in theaters).

Better yet, read the book (http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Wilsons-War-Extraordinary-Congress/dp/0802141242/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198813949&sr=8-1).

[Pelt]

Oh, and to correct the title of the thread. She was shot, the assasin just "disposed" of himself to take along a bunch of civilians. Oh, and Moridin and Gokul, yes the whole "woman in power" thing was surely a factor, I was just stating that you look to causes beyond that of strictly religious base.

What other motivations for a suicide attack Bhutto do you have in mind?

[Moridin]

Oh, and to correct the title of the thread. She was shot, the assasin just "disposed" of himself to take along a bunch of civilians. Oh, and Moridin and Gokul, yes the whole "woman in power" thing was surely a factor, I was just stating that you look to causes beyond that of strictly religious base.

What is the reason for the irrational fear of women in power? You guessed it.

[mheslep]

he was shot, the assasin just "disposed" of himself to take along a bunch of civilians. Its not yet known whether the shooter and the bomber were the same person or not.

[arildno]

I think people are being far to oversimplistic about what is a very complex poltical situation. There's four main elements vying for power in Pakistan currently (Bhutto's PPP, Musharraf's PML-Q, Sharif's PML-N and the Islamic militants).

Whilst the militants are the prime suspects for Bhutto's murder, it's not inconceivable that it could've been orchestrated by one of Bhutto's more secular opponents (poltical violnce and assasination is common in the region even in the more stable India). It's also worth noting that all the poltical parties profess to being guided by Islamic principles and all the actors are practicing Muslims, so a characterization of the situation as 'Muslims versus reason' nobody in Pakistan would agree with.

As for the corruption charges it is very difficult to judge how true they are given that the political situation

And whenever have Muslims lived in peaceful co-existence with each other?
Do you know about the violent Shia-Sunni connflicts?
That of the violent Kharijite sects back in the 8th century?
That of the Ishmaelite Nizaris (Assassins) from the 11-13th?

Or, from the 18th century, that of the Wahhabis?

Throughout Islamic history, various sects have cheerfully murdered each other for not being Islamic enough.

[dst]

How does that contradict anything I said about Bhutto and Islamism? Also, in neighboring Bangladesh, author Taslima Nasreen had to flee to India when her Government exiled her and Islamic leaders called for a Fatwa. Even today, in India, she faces a constant threat to her life from Muslims angry with her writing. And in India, the Congress party (led by a woman, Sonia Gandhi) won the last parliamentary election, but that doesn't mean there isn't widespread sexism in India.

But why talk about Bangladesh and India? Bhutto has twice served as PM of Pakistan. She (her party) won parliamentary elections in '88, and '93 so there's no denying that a lot of people liked her. But that doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't despise her purely for the reason that she was a woman in power (though I doubt there was a strong majority either way). Moreover, she was never once able to implement a single one of the reforms on womens' rights that she promised during campaigns - they were just too unpopular, and pushing them was too risky, politically.


I agree that women are treated far from well in more or less the whole world, some regions worse than others. The difference being however, that extremists are not sexist when it comes to murder or call for murder. There is a very simple reason that Taslima Nasreen was removed, because the majority just didn't agree with her. That's democracy, like it or not. On the other hand you have the murder of Theo Van Gogh who produced more profound works - you can only call people 'goat****ers' for so long before they turn on you. I'm sorry to say but where there are a lot of people who are uneducated and intolerant, there will be limits to free speech, one way or another.

Also, just because a woman was in power means nothing when we take into account that she was also rather corrupt. People had a reason to dislike her, a well-founded reason (sure, sexist people might have hidden behind that). Do you actually have any statistics as to how many people dislike women in power in that region? Personally I see the vote as a measure and clearly the majority doesn't let that influence them. Some people still hate Margaret Thatcher over here, is that because she is a woman or is that because they hate(d) her policies?

Of course some people will hate (Rule 34) but seriously, unless you can pull up some statistics to prove what you're saying, I'll let the election results tell me their opinions.


Do you know about the violent Shia-Sunni connflicts?
That of the violent Kharijite sects back in the 8th century?
That of the Ishmaelite Nizaris (Assassins) from the 11-13th?

Or, from the 18th century, that of the Wahhabis?

Throughout Islamic history, various sects have cheerfully murdered each other for not being Islamic enough.


You could list three conflicts from 1400 years? Kharijites had major political issues (not surprising, there was an empire to be had). 'Violent Shia-Sunni connflicts' - Can you list any aside from the more recent in Iraq, and explain how they are any more "religious" than inter-Christian conflicts or any other political clashes?

And whenever have Muslims lived in peaceful co-existence with each other?

Oh, I don't know, possibly... for the last 1400 years in the non-politically rowdy areas of the world?

[Pelt]

And whenever have Muslims lived in peaceful co-existence with each other?

If we're talking strictly sectarian conflicts, then there are only two fitnas in Islamic history plus the conquest of the Fatimids followed by the final deposition of the Ismaili caliphate by the Sunni Ayyubids in the 12th century. So we're not talking about an order of difference between the Muslim sectarian fighting and Europe's wars of religion.

[Moridin]

If we're talking strictly sectarian conflicts, then there are only two fitnas in Islamic history plus the conquest of the Fatimids followed by the final deposition of the Ismaili caliphate by the Sunni Ayyubids in the 12th century. So we're not talking about an order of difference between the Muslim sectarian fighting and Europe's wars of religion.

One of them stopped. The other still continues.

[arildno]

I agree that women are treated far from well in more or less the whole world, some regions worse than others. The difference being however, that extremists are not sexist when it comes to murder or call for murder. There is a very simple reason that Taslima Nasreen was removed, because the majority just didn't agree with her. That's democracy, like it or not. On the other hand you have the murder of Theo Van Gogh who produced more profound works - you can only call people 'goat****ers' for so long before they turn on you. I'm sorry to say but where there are a lot of people who are uneducated and intolerant, there will be limits to free speech, one way or another.

Also, just because a woman was in power means nothing when we take into account that she was also rather corrupt. People had a reason to dislike her, a well-founded reason (sure, sexist people might have hidden behind that). Do you actually have any statistics as to how many people dislike women in power in that region? Personally I see the vote as a measure and clearly the majority doesn't let that influence them. Some people still hate Margaret Thatcher over here, is that because she is a woman or is that because they hate(d) her policies?

Of course some people will hate (Rule 34) but seriously, unless you can pull up some statistics to prove what you're saying, I'll let the election results tell me their opinions.





You could list three conflicts from 1400 years? Kharijites had major political issues (not surprising, there was an empire to be had). 'Violent Shia-Sunni connflicts' - Can you list any aside from the more recent in Iraq, and explain how they are any more "religious" than inter-Christian conflicts or any other political clashes?



Oh, I don't know, possibly... for the last 1400 years in the non-politically rowdy areas of the world?

I could have come up with dozens more.

What YOU however ought to read, is the following report from Human Rights world Watch institute concerning the structural violence towards women in Pakistan, from 1999.

Islamic societies are saturated with violence at all levels, down to within the family unit.

That is the sick, diseased soil from which terrorism springs as a natural outgrowth:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/Pakhtml.htm#TopOfPage

At the very least, you can read the summary:
I. SUMMARY
On April 6, 1999, twenty-seven-year-old Samia Sarwar was gunned down in her attorneys' office in Lahore by a hit man retained by her family. Her mother, father, and paternal uncle were all accomplices to her murder. Ms. Sarwar was killed because she was seeking a divorce from her estranged husband-an action her family deemed "dishonorable" and, hence, warranting death. That Ms. Sarwar suffered such drastic consequences for asserting a modicum of independence is not surprising in Pakistan, where the practice of so-called honor killing claims the lives of hundreds of women every year. Ms. Sarwar's transgression, in the eyes of her family, was seeking a divorce; other women are attacked, by or at the instigation of family members, for choosing their spouses. In addition, countless women suffer from battery, rape, burning, acid attacks, and mutilation. Estimates of the percentage of women who experience spousal abuse alone range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent. If there is anything more disturbing than the prevalence of these crimes, it is the impunity with which they are committed. Samia Sarwar's case is an example not only of the violence experienced by Pakistani women but also of the lack of governmental will to do anything about it. As this report went to print, months after her murder, Ms. Sarwar's killers had still not been brought to trial despite exceptionally strong and credible evidence against them. Similarly, of 215 cases of women being suspiciously burned to death in their Lahore homes in 1997, in only six cases were suspects even taken into custody.

Women in Pakistan face staggeringly high rates of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence while their attackers largely go unpunished owing to rampant incompetence, corruption, and biases against women throughout the criminal justice system. Women who report rape or sexual assault encounter a series of obstacles. These include not only the police, who resist filing their claims and misrecord their statements, but also medicolegal doctors, who focus on their virginity status and lack the training and supplies to conduct adequate examinations. As for the trial in rape cases, typically, in the words of a Lahore district attorney, "The past sexual history of the victim is thrown around and touted in court to the maximum." Furthermore, women who file rape charges open themselves up to the possibility of being prosecuted for illicit sex if they fail to "prove" rape under the 1979 Hudood Ordinances, which criminalize adultery and fornication. As a result, when women victims of violence resort to the judicial system for redress, they are more likely to find further abuse and victimization.

Women victims of domestic violence encounter even higher levels of unresponsiveness and hostility, as actors at all levels of the criminal justice system typically view domestic violence as a private matter that does not belong in the courts. Police respond to domestic violence charges by trying to reconcile theconcerned parties rather than filing a report and arresting the perpetrator, and the few women who are referred to medicolegal doctors for examination are evaluated by skeptical physicians who lack any training in the collection of forensic evidence. When asked about the domestic violence victims who have been examined at his office, the head medicolegal doctor for Karachi explained that "25 percent of such women come with self-inflicted wounds."

Human Rights Watch has investigated the Pakistan government's response to the pervasive problem of violence against women in the country's two largest cities, Karachi and Lahore. Despite the severity of the problem, the government's response has been indifferent at best. At worst it has served to exacerbate the suffering of women victims of violence and to obstruct the course of justice. Our findings highlight that a grossly inadequate and discriminatory legal framework is only one of a whole series of hurdles for victims seeking redress. Victims also have to contend with biased officials and outright harassment at every step of the law enforcement process, from the initial registering of a complaint to the trial. Only the most persistent and resourceful complainants succeed in maneuvering such hostile terrain, and even those who do seldom see their attackers punished. In the course of our investigation, we interviewed human rights lawyers and activists, police officials, medicolegal doctors, the personnel of government forensic laboratories, prosecutors, judges, and women victims of violence who had attempted to navigate the criminal justice system in order to obtain redress. Our findings are based on these interviews and on-site visits to government hospitals, medicolegal centers, and analytical laboratories.

Human Rights Watch examined the state response to sexual violence outside the home as well as to sexual and other violence by intimate partners. However, this report deals primarily with the former because we were unable to identify even one domestic violence victim whose criminal complaint had been registered by the police. We found that, with the exception of the rare high-profile incident, domestic violence cases were virtually never investigated or prosecuted. In fact, Pakistani law fails to criminalize a common and serious form of domestic violence: marital rape. Even complaints regarding acts of domestic violence that fall within the ambit of the criminal law, such as assault or attempted murder, are routinely ignored or downplayed by the police as a result of biased attitudes and ignorance and lack of training with respect to the scope of the law. Such resistance on the part of the police to recognize domestic violence as a crime allows the battering of women to continue with impunity and contributes to a climate that deters women from reaching out for safety and justice.

Although the most determined and resilient complainants in cases of non-familial sexual violence fare marginally better in terms of getting access to thejudicial system, they face an extremely adverse legal regime. A stark example of the serious flaws in the applicable legislation is the fact that the very filing of rape charges can make the victim vulnerable to prosecution for extramarital sex. In some instances victims of rape and sexual abuse have actually been detained for months or even years, prior to trial, on charges of illicit sexual intercourse. Since statutory rape is not a crime in Pakistan, even barely pubescent girls alleging rape risk being charged with fornication or consensual sex outside of marriage. The possibility of prosecution, especially in a context where women victims of sexual violence are routinely disrespected and disbelieved by state officials, serves strongly to inhibit victims from pressing charges.

Sexual violence victims' first contact with the law enforcement system generally occurs at the police station. Here, right from the start, they typically encounter rejection of their complaints and harassment. The station chief of a busy Lahore police station told Human Rights Watch that rape did not exist in Pakistani society. He stated his belief that in practically all cases of alleged rape, women had consented to the act of intercourse and then lied to incriminate their male partners. These sentiments were echoed by several other police officers interviewed by Human Rights Watch. Given the prevalence of such biased attitudes among officials, it is not surprising that women complainants are consistently turned away from police stations and, at times, are even intimidated or warned against attempting to file charges. The police also intervene, often at the behest of the accused, to try to force the concerned parties to reach a settlement without officially registering a complaint. When a complaint is registered, usually through herculean efforts on behalf of the victim, any follow-up by the police is generally minimal and rudimentary, a mockery of professional investigative methodology. Furthermore, even such limited action by the police usually requires persistent inquiries and pressure from the complainant.

Serious failings also exist in the government's collection and analysis of medicolegal evidence, which is a practical prerequisite for securing convictions in cases of sexual assault. In many cases, police unnecessarily delay informing women of the necessity of a medicolegal examination and giving them the official referrals required for this purpose. This consistent lapse on the part of the police is especially egregious in view of the transient nature of forensic medical evidence and its critical importance in cases of sexual assault. Nor do the police ensure, where legitimate and possible, that the accused undergoes a prompt medicolegal evaluation. A timely examination of the accused can yield significant evidence of signs of struggle in cases where the victim resisted the attack, evidence that can be crucial for exonerating the victim from charges of consensual illicit sex.

When medicolegal examinations are performed, they are frequently conducted in a haphazard manner and fail to secure meaningful evidence. Doctors focus on determining whether and when the hymen was broken rather than on collecting evidence to demonstrate the extent and severity of women's injuries and to identify offenders. In some cases, unmarried women who, in the examining doctors' opinion, were not virgins prior to being attacked tend to be harassed and their rape allegations disbelieved by the doctors. The examination findings also render them vulnerable to attacks on their character by defense counsel and, potentially, to prosecution for prior illicit sex. The focus on the hymen also militates against effective examinations of sexually active married women because their injuries are not usually related to hymenal tearing. In addition to shoddy examinations, chemical analysis of forensic samples collected from the examinees is commonly mishandled and produces unreliable results.

The court system presents its own set of hurdles for women seeking redress. Magistrates and judges often have discriminatory and sexist assumptions about women that prejudice the few cases that do reach the courts. State prosecutors have little or no training in handling cases of sexual and other violence against women and are largely ignorant as to the significance and interpretation of forensic medical evidence in such cases. Judges allow defense counsel free rein to introduce inflammatory evidence and to attack the victim's character and prior sexual history even when this is patently irrelevant. Furthermore, in many instances, cases drag on for years. For a woman seeking redress, her experience with the judicial system is often more likely to compound the trauma of the original assault than to provide the satisfaction of seeing justice done.

Pakistan is obliged by its ratification of international treaties to ensure respect for women's human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which Pakistan acceded in 1996, requires the government to take action to eliminate violence against women as a form of discrimination that inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Pakistan's CEDAW obligations extend to the provision of an effective remedy to women victims of violence. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Pakistan has not signed but which is a cornerstone of international human rights law, requires governments to ensure the rights to life and security of the person of all individuals in their jurisdiction, without distinction of any kind, including sex. In line with the ICCPR, Pakistan should not only refrain from, but should also prevent private actors from committing, acts of violence against women. Human Rights Watch found that rather than responding actively to violations of women's rights to life, to security of the person, and to befree of discrimination, the government has acted, through its police, medicolegal, prosecutorial, and judicial systems, to block access to redress and justice for women victims of violence. "

[Pelt]

One of them stopped. The other still continues.

One of them had a three century head start with its last organized stage wrapping up ten years ago. The other's experiencing troubles that don't even compare in either organization or scale to pre-Industrial religious wars.

[Gokul43201]

I agree that women are treated far from well in more or less the whole world, some regions worse than others. The difference being however, that extremists are not sexist when it comes to murder or call for murder.No, Islamic extremists are whatever they need to be to carry out the calling of their interpretation of the Quran or hadith. If it requires them to be sexist, who are they to refuse?

There is a very simple reason that Taslima Nasreen was removed, because the majority just didn't agree with her.More accurately, they didn't agree with her decision to talk about things that they wanted to keep hushed (a la Duygu Asena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duygu_Asena), in Turkey?).

That's democracy, like it or not.A democracy is also charged with protecting individual rights. The censorship, ostracism and imposition of a fatwa on Nasreen is hardly the recourse of democracy. To call it that is a grave insult to modern democracy.

On the other hand you have the murder of Theo Van Gogh who produced more profound works - you can only call people 'goat****ers' for so long before they turn on you. I'm sorry to say but where there are a lot of people who are uneducated and intolerant, there will be limits to free speech, one way or another.And these uneducated and intolerant people would not also be infuriated by seeing a woman ascend to a position of power, in mockery of hadith?

Also, just because a woman was in power means nothing when we take into account that she was also rather corrupt. People had a reason to dislike her, a well-founded reason (sure, sexist people might have hidden behind that).I did not deny that there were other reasons, like corruption, to dislike her. In fact, I documented this pretty elaborately in the same post.

Do you actually have any statistics as to how many people dislike women in power in that region?I made no statement about how many people dislike women in power, so I see no need to provide statistics for such an assertion.

Personally I see the vote as a measure and clearly the majority doesn't let that influence them.Though this is irrelevant to the point I was making, let me point out that both elections (1988 and ’93) won by the PPP were not absolute majorities. The majority of the voting public did, in fact, vote for other parties.

Some people still hate Margaret Thatcher over here, is that because she is a woman or is that because they hate(d) her policies?More for her policies, I guess, but what is the relevance of this?

Of course some people will hate (Rule 34) but seriously, unless you can pull up some statistics to prove what you're saying, I'll let the election results tell me their opinions.To repeat:
1. I made no statement about statistical distributions,
2. The election results show that 15-20 years ago, the PPP party won 40% to 45% of the legislative seats being contested.

For clarity, here’s exactly what I said in the earlier post:
You don't think her being a woman in a position of power offends deep seated Islamic beliefs?

So, I made no statement about opinions of fractions of the population. The only thing I questioned, was the relationship between women in power and Islamist doctrine. This relationship is easy to document. Feel free to look up hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:709, where the Prophet says: “Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful.”

Also remember, that despite repeated efforts to abolish the 1979 Hudood Ordinance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance), Bhutto was absolutely powerless to even make the slightest dent in it. It was only last year, that Musharraf, under considerable international pressure, was able to make some amendments to it.

In any case, do you think it completely unimaginable that Bhutto’s killing by a militant Islamist (or group) during a suicide attack caould have been motivated by some literal reading of scripture?

[mheslep]

This is topical and should be fun. An animated film.

Persepolis (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/persepolis/persepolis_lg.html)

Persepolis is the poignant story of a young girl in Iran during the Islamic
Revolution. It is through the eyes of precocious and outspoken nine year old
Marjane that we see a people's hopes dashed as fundamentalists take power
- forcing the veil on women and imprisoning thousands. Clever and fearless, she
outsmarts the “social guardians” and discovers punk. Yet when her uncle is
senselessly executed and as bombs fall around Tehran in the Iran/Iraq war, the
daily fear that permeates life in Iran is palpable.

[klusener]

She was brave alright. But many people will not feel a whole lot of tragedy for the person that was the Taliban's strongest supporter in the mid-90's, a person that diverted over a billion dollars of state money into her personal swissbank accounts and been charged with corruption and money laundering in over a half dozen different countries.

Gokul does bring up something that, perhaps, is not particularly appropriate in the current mood of sorrow and remembrance, but should be considered. Bhutto essentially fostered the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan, verbally incited anti-Indian terrorism in Kashmir, and called for the governor of that state to be cut into pieces. And this is without mentioning some of her less than scrupulous internal dealings.

Once again, it is unfortunate and tragic anytime somebody's life is so violently and unnecessarily ended, but she was, by no means, a champion for democracy and peace during her terms.

[dst]

No, Islamic extremists are whatever they need to be to carry out the calling of their interpretation of the Quran or hadith. If it requires them to be sexist, who are they to refuse?

[cut]

For clarity, here’s exactly what I said in the earlier post:


So, I made no statement about opinions of fractions of the population. The only thing I questioned, was the relationship between women in power and Islamist doctrine. This relationship is easy to document. Feel free to look up hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:709, where the Prophet says: “Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful.”


In any case, do you think it completely unimaginable that Bhutto’s killing by a militant Islamist (or group) during a suicide attack caould have been motivated by some literal reading of scripture?


Well that's far more agreeable than what I was understanding from your original post. Thanks for clearing that up.

[edward]

Here is an interesting video of Bhutto being interviewed in November by David Frost. She is giving a list of people who may try to assassinate her. Towards the end she mentions one of them may be the man who killed Osama Bin Laden.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

How could she have made a statement like that without follow up questions?

[BobG]

Here is an interesting video of Bhutto being interviewed in November by David Frost. She is giving a list of people who may try to assassinate her. Towards the end she mentions one of them may be the man who killed Osama Bin Laden.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

How could she have made a statement like that without follow up questions?

Actually, she says one of them had dealings with Ahmed Omar Sheikh. While she does refer to Sheikh as the man who murdered Bin Laden, Sheikh is actually the man who kidnapped and murdered Daniel Pearl.

[Gokul43201]

Sounds like a slip of the tongue.

[russ_watters]

One of them had a three century head start with its last organized stage wrapping up ten years ago. The other's experiencing troubles that don't even compare in either organization or scale to pre-Industrial religious wars. I'd quibble with the 10 years thing, but regardless -- In other words, one has evolved past that point and the other hasn't, right?

[Pelt]

I'd quibble with the 10 years thing, but regardless -- In other words, one has evolved past that point and the other hasn't, right?

Most definitely, although that observation is about as salient as noting that modern republican democracy hit Western Europe before it did East Asia. The West did all the hard work in figuring out how to make this whole pluralism thing work, leaving the rest of the world with the comparably easy task of tossing it on their own societies--after all, the 20th century spread of democracy and freedom was both explosive and sticky. For that reason, I'm hesitant to write off the Muslim world simply because they're behind the West culturally and ecumenically.

[arildno]

And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.

[mheslep]

And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.
proper? LOL

[arildno]

Bad choice of words, there. :smile:

[dst]

You have to remember that the "Muslim world" is in its medieval period. 1400A.H. in fact :O

[arildno]

And wherever have you gotten this fantasy from, that all cultures conspire to develop in the same direction??

Surely, you are not serious?

[Pelt]

And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.

I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not they become "secular" human beings. I'm only concerned with their ability to latch onto modernity, and it's a mistake to underestimate (http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings.pdf) what a country can achieve whether or not it's culturally or politically less "enlightened."

[arildno]

Are you even aware of the state of human rights in those countries, Pelt?
How minority faiths are persecuted and oppressed?

[arildno]

What I CAN tell you, is that the parameters going into that index are utterly ludicrous.
Countries like Qatar and Saudia Arabia has NO internal scientific expertise; their oil is drilled up by WESTERN know-how.
They have severe problems getting homegrown doctors, and scientists&engineers in general are lacking.

That index is just bogus.

[Pelt]

Are you even aware of the state of human rights in those countries, Pelt?
How minority faiths are persecuted and oppressed?

Oh definitely. But that is hardly a reason to generalize political and social abuses into cultural defects that prevent entire peoples from achieving modernity. Pakistan's an obvious case study. A country where barely half of its population is literate managed to develop nuclear weapons. Why? Because you don't need to uplift everyone to modernize. The Chinese learned this decades ago; now they have a middle class the size of the US's entire population.

On the other hand, if you can uplift tens and even hundreds of millions of people, the question becomes why can't you uplift them all? Some countries have very unique ways of going about this: Kuwait and a number of GCC states simply purchase their way into the modern age, Saudi Arabia tries something similar with less success. Egypt and Syria have gone the Russian/Chinese route, urbanizing most of their population and imposing a bare minimum industrial economy on them while concentrating innovation and the wealth that comes with it in an elite upper class. Malaysia and Indonesia emulate Singapore and Japan. Simply put, while the Western way may undoubtedly be the most equitable and principled way, there's more than one way to skin a cat if a nation's goal is simply producing a sustainably competent population.

[arildno]

Oh definitely. But that is hardly a reason to generalize political and social abuses into cultural defects that prevent entire peoples from achieving modernity.
They are cultural defects.
They fail to achieve modernity precisely because such abuses continue unabated, and will continue unabated.
Pakistan's an obvious case study. A country where barely half of its population is literate managed to develop nuclear weapons. Why?
Compare the 60-year history of Pakistan with that of India.
Any striking differences, perchance?

[Pelt]

They are cultural defects.
They fail to achieve modernity precisely because such abuses continue unabated, and will continue unabated.

Except, they don't fail to achieve modernity. Are they less modern than the US? Yes. But so what? If the US is the measure of what is and isn't modern, most of Western Europe falls short.

Compare the 60-year history of Pakistan with that of India.
Any striking differences, perchance?

Do tell.

[arildno]

Except, they don't fail to achieve modernity.
Sure they do. They murder and oppress people they have no business to murder and oppress. That is what makes them non-modern.

[Pelt]

Sure they do. They murder and oppress people they have no business to murder and oppress. That is what makes them non-modern.

Okay, by that definition they're not modern. Neither is China. Not sure how useful that definition is but okay.

[arildno]

It is useful in determining whether they have a culture entitled respect or not.
In Pakistan (and most Islamic countries), they don't have that.

[arildno]

And, if you are puzzled as to what THAT means, it means that those cultures not worthy of respect (like most Islamic countries) may, in certain cases be annihilated (for example that the set of governing ideas are rooted out from the minds of the believers) without any oppression being done to the adherents of that culture.

[Pelt]

What do you mean not worthy of respect? What rules do I have to abide by to show my proper disrespect?

[arildno]

By holding opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect.

Holding such opinions make you into a violator, thereby nullifying (some of) the obligations others had towards you, i.e, obligations they have towards those upholding the principle of reciprocal respect.

[Pelt]

By holding opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect.

Holding such opinions make you into a violator, thereby nullifying (some of) the obligations others had towards you, i.e, obligations they have towards those upholding the principle of reciprocal respect.

My apologies, but that didn't even begin to make sense to me. "Opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect?" What are those and why should I hold them? Why do they make me a violator? What (or, dare I ask, who) am I violating? Sounds dirty to me.

What obligations do others have to me? I hope it's cash.

No, but in all seriousness what are you trying to say here?

[arildno]

My apologies, but that didn't even begin to make sense to me.
Why am I not surprised?

"Opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect?" What are those and why should I hold them?
For example, if you hold the opinion that a person who changes his mind about the structure of the universe (say, becomes an apostate), should be punished for that, then that is an example.
The reason is that just changing your mind about how the world is constituted is fully compatible with respecting other people's right to hold a different view on that matter.
Therefore, we are obliged to respect such a change of mind a person might have.

Why do they make me a violator? What (or, dare I ask, who) am I violating?
The principle of reciprocal respect.
What obligations do others have to me?
To treat you in accordance with the principle of reciprocal respect, as lomng as you uphold it.

[Gokul43201]

Say, there used to be a thread about Bhutto somewhere here. Anyone seen it? :biggrin:

[arildno]

Say, there used to be a thread about Bhutto somewhere here. Anyone seen it? :biggrin:

It hit the sunroof I guess, and never recovered. :smile:

[Pelt]

So goes Sindh, so goes the nation:

From here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/pakistan.politics/index.html).

Violence following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could threaten Pakistan's January 8 parliamentary elections.

Protesters outraged by Bhutto's killing are burning election offices in districts across Pakistan's Sindh province, according to media reports in Pakistan.

Voter rolls and ballot boxes are kept in such offices, so the attacks could derail preparations for the vote.

Rioting that erupted after Bhutto was killed Thursday in Rawalpindi has led to dozens of deaths and much damage to buildings and vehicles in Sindh and other locations throughout Pakistan. Sindh, Bhutto's home province, is a bastion of support for Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party.

It's about damned time the Sindhi got pissed off about something. There's hope yet.

[arildno]

If they had started to get pissed off at Islam, it would have helped a lot better..

[Gokul43201]

I doubt the PPP will participate in the elections any more. It's now just Musharraf vs. the MMA (or, as jcsd likes to call them: the Islamic militants). No points for guessing who wins.

PML-N (Sharif's party) was previously going to boycott the election. I wonder if they'll change their minds now...

[Pelt]

If they had started to get pissed off at Islam, it would have helped a lot better..

How could that possibly be helpful?

[arildno]

By attacking the vile doctrine responsible (sanctioning), for example, for the horrendous situation for women in all Islam-dominated societies.

[Pelt]

I doubt the PPP will participate in the elections any more. It's now just Musharraf vs. the MMA (or, as jcsd likes to call them: the Islamic militants). No points for guessing who wins.

Not if Bilawal Zardari and his father have anything to say about it. The elections have already been postponed to a TBA date, the rioting will setback the date even further. Hopefully it will be enough time for PPP to regroup, and Musharraf's government seems to be going all out trying to extend a hand to them by whatever backchannels are available.

PML-Q was previously going to boycott the election. I wonder if they'll change their minds now...

I think you mean PML-N. PML-Q is Musharraf's branch, although they've absorbed most of the other splinters by now. If the election date is postponed far enough, Sharif and friends might make a show. Then again, the man is the leader of a token opposition compared to the PPP. So long as the Zardaris play along, it doesn't matter if he stays in or out.

[Pelt]

By attacking the vile doctrine responsible (sanctioning), for example, for the horrendous situation for women in all Islam-dominated societies.

Okay, that's what we have a punditry and NGOs for. Is that it?

[arildno]

Okay, that's what we have a punditry and NGOs for. Is that it?
You disgust me. You are a deeply immoral person who trivializes the horrid effect Islam has on the lives on billions of people out of some twisted cultural relativism dogma you hold by.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Pelt]

You disgust me. You are a deeply immoral person who trivializes the horrid effect Islam has on the lives on billions of people out of some twisted cultural relativism dogma you hold by.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hey, dude. No need to get personal. If you really think it's productive for us to spend our time on this board gnashing our teeth, ripping our garments off and donning sackcloth over atrocity in this world, fair enough. I assumed you were leading to some policy recommendations, that's all.

[arildno]

Hey, dude. No need to get personal. If you really think it's productive for us to spend our time on this board gnashing our teeth, ripping our garments off and donning sackcloth over atrocity in this world, fair enough.
How pathetic.
I assumed you were leading to some policy recommendations, that's all.

Policy recommendations?
Towards robber&murderer states?

Figure them out for yourself.

I'm sure you'll devise rosy-coloured fantasy schemes you think you can bring about in reality by "tact" and diplomacy.

[Pelt]

How pathetic.

I agree, anonymous whining on a discussion board is pathetic. So how about we get back to the meat?

Policy recommendations?
Towards robber&murderer states?

Figure them out for yourself.

Humor me and give me a hint or two.

I'm sure you'll devise rosy-coloured fantasy schemes you think you can bring about in reality by "tact" and diplomacy.

I'm not proposing anything, friend. I'm offering you the opportunity to do so.

[Gokul43201]

Not if Bilawal Zardari and his father have anything to say about it. The elections have already been postponed to a TBA date, the rioting will setback the date even further. Hopefully it will be enough time for PPP to regroup, and Musharraf's government seems to be going all out trying to extend a hand to them by whatever backchannels are available. Actually, I'm sure there's external (read "US") encouragement as well, for (i) the PPP to participate, and (ii) for Musharraf to respect any power-sharing promises made to Bhutto (which, were likely themselves a result of a lot of a pressure from the US).

I think you mean PML-N. Yes, that's what I meant. I caught the error during a re-read and fixed it.

PML-Q is Musharraf's branch, although they've absorbed most of the other splinters by now. If the election date is postponed far enough, Sharif and friends might make a show. Then again, the man is the leader of a token opposition compared to the PPP. So long as the Zardaris play along, it doesn't matter if he stays in or out.Token opposition, but valuable as an ally if anything other than a PML-N + PPP alliance shakes out.

Two things (internally) are going to decide which way the cards fall:
1. What comes out of the investigation, and how it is (seen to be) handled,
2. What comes out of the riots, and how they are orchestrated as well as how they will be stamped out.

[Pelt]

Actually, I'm sure there's external (read "US") encouragement as wel, for (i) the PPP to participate,

The hell, dude? That's hush, hush. :wink:

....and (ii) for Musharraf to respect any power-sharing promises made to Bhutto (which, were likely themselves a result of a lot of a pressure from the US).

Ironically, Bhutto's death likely easier for Musharraf to swallow coalition-building that's in his own interest. It's easier to work with the memory of a martyr than a living opponent you intensely dislike.

Token opposition, but valuable as an ally if anything other than a PML-N + PPP alliance shakes out.

I have to wonder though, how many PPP leaders will have to die before Musharraf ever considers working with Sharif? Then again, I was amazed he let the man back into Pakistan. There must've been some enormous arm-twisting by the US behind the scenes.

Two things (internally) are going to decide which way the cards fall:
1. What comes out of the investigation, and how it is (seen to be) handled,
2. What comes out of the riots, and how they are orchestrated as well as how they will be stamped out.

I don't think the riots will play a significant role in shaping how the PPP works with PML, if for no other reason than that the party leadership has more to fear now from the Islamist coalition than PML. That leaves 1), and that depends now largely on how (un)reasonable PPP is willing to be given how far the government is bending over backwards to do it right the first time. I'm wagering that the move to install Bilawal Zardari is a signal that PPP will not drag this out to the point of absurdity.

On another note, interesting piece in Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698949,00.html?imw=Y) yesterday. Steve Cohen at Brookings observes: "Bhutto was the only Pakistani politician willing to stand up and say, 'I don't like violent terrorists,'"

Even so, Musharraf is the only Pakistani so far that's shown the willingness to kill them. Kind of a weird that PPP still has to play catch up in that regard. Still, Bhutto's death finally gives PPP the credibility they need to show they're in the fight.

[arildno]

Ooh, how clever you are little boy.
As if it matters one whit if the leading figure in Pakistan is called Zia ul-Haq, Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf or Imran Khan.

You are blathering about trivialities.

[Gokul43201]

That leaves 1), and that depends now largely on how (un)reasonable PPP is willing to be given how far the government is bending over backwards to do it right the first time. I'm wagering that the move to install Bilawal Zardari is a signal that PPP will not drag this out to the point of absurdity. I can't imagine that stretching "negotiations" beyond a certain point will be beneficial to the PPP. They've got all the infrastructure already in place for the election - just need some reworking. But if they drag things out too long, they risk losing momentum on the sympathy vote.

On another note, interesting piece in Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698949,00.html?imw=Y) yesterday. Steve Cohen at Brookings observes: "Bhutto was the only Pakistani politician willing to stand up and say, 'I don't like violent terrorists,'"

Even so, Musharraf is the only Pakistani so far that's shown the willingness to kill them. Kind of a weird that PPP still has to play catch up in that regard. If you've been "with" these violent terrorists during your last term, you've got to give it some time before you start denouncing them, lest the smell of hypocrisy drown out the message.

Naturally, there's been no pressure on the PPP to do anything they might later regret. No such luck for Mush!

[arildno]

If you do want a measure that WILL be effective in the long run, it is the forcible shutdown of hate-spewing madrassahs, indoctrinating new generations of impoverished/orphaned children in radical Islam.

Rather, the zakat should be steered to build REAL schools for these kids, where they were given REAL education, rather than be beaten into memorizing the Quran.

No Pakistani politician has the balls to attack the root problem in their society.

[Gokul43201]

As if it matters one whit if the leading figure in Pakistan is called Zia ul-Haq, Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf or Imran Khan.Hey, Imran Khan might be good!

But seriously, there is a difference, in that some people are a lot more susceptible to external pressures than others (and conversely, others are more susceptible to internal pressures).

In fact, the best hope for any rapid improvement is a military dictatorship that is puppet-stringed by the west. But is that what you want?

[arildno]

In fact, the best hope for any rapid improvement is a military dictatorship that is puppet-stringed by the west. But is that what you want?

Certainly.

[Evo]

This thread has run it's course.