Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Benazir Bhutto dead

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It could have well been a collusion between the two. An Al Qaida member of sympathiser allowed to get as close to Bhutto as he could. There were metal detectors in place and theoretically everyone going to the rally and its surroundings had been checked.

    The some high rank officers in the Pakistani army as corrupt as fuck and not exactly fans of democracy. Many would have seen Bhutto's elimination as beneficial to their goals and beliefs.

    Certainly, a blind eye turned towards a so-called martyr by the military could well be a possibility. That way, they can find someone retarded enough to kill themselves for non-existent virgins - and get rid of their main political threat.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Al Qaeda doesn't exist.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

    Damn! There goes that theory then! :grump:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Al Qaeda doesn't exist.
    Who are you, klintock or something? :mad: ;)

    I know what you mean though. Al Qaida certainly does not exist as a terrorist organisation. Not now anyway.

    What I find even more difficult to believe is that the Taliban might be to blame, as Pakistan claims. If there is one thing that can be said of the Taliban is that their only concern has been control of Afghanistan. They have never a shit about anywhere else, nor have the means, personnel or infrastructure to do anything about it.

    The Pakistani government's response to the assassination reads as if it was written by one of the Chimp's advisors in Washington. Oh wait...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ... although Bhutto did say that she would allow US incursions into Pakistan to chase the Taliban. It could have been that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Who are you, klintock or something? :mad: ;)

    I know what you mean though. Al Qaida certainly does not exist as a terrorist organisation. Not now anyway.

    What I find even more difficult to believe is that the Taliban might be to blame, as Pakistan claims. If there is one thing that can be said of the Taliban is that their only concern has been control of Afghanistan. They have never a shit about anywhere else, nor have the means, personnel or infrastructure to do anything about it.

    The Pakistani government's response to the assassination reads as if it was written by one of the Chimp's advisors in Washington. Oh wait...


    Certainly does suit the Taliban - Bhutto was going to allow hot pursuit across the border, whilst currently we have to stop as soon as we reach Pakistan. And given how porus the border is, its naive not to think that taliban forces don't have bases in Pakistan as well

    US Government will be well pissed off - much better to have a democratic leader as an ally than a military one. They were the one's pushing the current regime to call elections
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have to be honest - I don't see any upside for Mussaf in allowing this to happen. He's proven himself pretty much unable to govern as a politician and the return of a twice disgraced political rival to take part in a questionable election that would have probably left him very wealthy and free of the burden of government seems to gain him much more than a country in turmoil.

    An insurgency does obviously exist within Pakistan, and does gain from increased instability - certainly seems Okham's shaving tool applies here to me.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was out shopping on Friday. I went into Tesco and saw that day's newspapers. The Sun said that this was "The Day That Democracy Died". For the sake of Pakistan, I hope they were wrong - and I suspect so do they.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I mentioned on the BBC message boards (boy things are slow there), how much does it suck to be BB's son, Bilawal? 'Political heritage' my arse. Big target painted on his back more like...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is a bit of a legacy isn't it = grandfather hung for political assasination, mother killed in bomb attack, father implicated in one uncle's murder, other uncle gunned down...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You've also got to question how democratic a party is when it's three leaders are granddad, daughter, grandson. It sounds a bit North Korean to me...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Is a bit of a legacy isn't it = grandfather hung for political assasination, mother killed in bomb attack, father implicated in one uncle's murder, other uncle gunned down...
    and now son to run for PM and to head the party.
    is it me or is 19 years old a bit young to be running for PM of the country?!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7164968.stm
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    is it me or is 19 years old a bit young to be running for PM of the country?!
    Not really. Some British kings were only kids when they came to the throne. For example, Edward VI (who followed Henry VIII onto the throne) was only nine years old when he became king. And only 16 when he died...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Not really. Some British kings were only kids when they came to the throne. For example, Edward VI (who followed Henry VIII onto the throne) was only nine years old when he became king. And only 16 when he died...

    But he didn't get the chance to rule until he was 16. He was under Protectorate until he reached his Majority. Well, that's what I can remember from my A-Level history anyway.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    But he didn't get the chance to rule until he was 16. He was under Protectorate until he reached his Majority. Well, that's what I can remember from my A-Level history anyway.
    True enough. I do wonder how much of what happened under Edward's reign was actually what he wanted. Or was the Duke of Somerset, running things "on his behalf" the one really pulling the strings? I need to have a look at my A-Level History papers again!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Not really. Some British kings were only kids when they came to the throne. For example, Edward VI (who followed Henry VIII onto the throne) was only nine years old when he became king. And only 16 when he died...

    Yeah, but that is so NOT the case for the 21st century. They became kings because of 'divine right to rule' etc
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Yeah, but that is so NOT the case for the 21st century. They became kings because of 'divine right to rule' etc

    :yes: there is a big difference from those old days when boys were joining, fighting and dying in the army before they were even 12.
    it just seems like spelling disaster, okay so he'll have plenty of advisor's but PM at 19 just doesn't seem right...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    it just seems like spelling disaster, okay so he'll have plenty of advisor's but PM at 19 just doesn't seem right...
    Well, what age IS right, if you don't mind me asking? For example, in the USA, the constitution decrees that no one under the age of 35 may stand for the presidency. But what's to say that someone over that age has enough life experience to know what matters in a job like that? In the UK, most MPs are now politicians for life - they've never done anything outside politics. I think that has some serious downsides.
Sign In or Register to comment.