ChatterBank0 min ago
Bhutto assassination - Who Gains?
Both the Pakistan opposite parties of Bhutto and Sharif have both been attacked many times during the election campaign Musharraf's party has not.
You must ask yourself, Who gains from this?
Al Qaeda?
Bhutto opposed terrorists, but everyone else is campaigning on that. Musharraf is a Key player in the US war on terror, yet his party is untouched. The blame has quickly been pinned on 'Islamic terrorisst' with no evidence to back the claims.
Musharraf?
The opposition in the election has effectively been halved. He didn't what the election anyway, it was outside pressure that drove him to call elections.
The Military Dictatorship?
They killed her father and have been openly critical of her party and her return. They want Musharraf to win, and that is now a step nearer.
The US?
The US have invested literally billions of dollars in Musharraf. They are committed to democracy, but they want Musharraf to win. Bhutto's asassination makes that possibility easier.
You must ask yourself, Who gains from this?
Al Qaeda?
Bhutto opposed terrorists, but everyone else is campaigning on that. Musharraf is a Key player in the US war on terror, yet his party is untouched. The blame has quickly been pinned on 'Islamic terrorisst' with no evidence to back the claims.
Musharraf?
The opposition in the election has effectively been halved. He didn't what the election anyway, it was outside pressure that drove him to call elections.
The Military Dictatorship?
They killed her father and have been openly critical of her party and her return. They want Musharraf to win, and that is now a step nearer.
The US?
The US have invested literally billions of dollars in Musharraf. They are committed to democracy, but they want Musharraf to win. Bhutto's asassination makes that possibility easier.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well it didn't take long for the Yank bashing did it. Get real mate Middle eastern politics is extremley complex and intertwinned with very deep religious views of differing opinions.
Non of us like the sceptics but get the chip off your shoulder and admit it Islamic fundamentalists will not stop until there is world war.
Non of us like the sceptics but get the chip off your shoulder and admit it Islamic fundamentalists will not stop until there is world war.
jno
The US wanted a 'democratic' ally in Pakistan. They wanted to legitimise Musharraf, so Musharraf had to be elected . That could only happen if Sharif and Bhutto were allowed to return.
Now, half of the opposition has been eliminated. Elections will go ahead, Musharraf will win (that has already been decided) and the US will have their puppet and the Military will still have their man in charge of a so-called decomcratic pakistan.
The US wanted a 'democratic' ally in Pakistan. They wanted to legitimise Musharraf, so Musharraf had to be elected . That could only happen if Sharif and Bhutto were allowed to return.
Now, half of the opposition has been eliminated. Elections will go ahead, Musharraf will win (that has already been decided) and the US will have their puppet and the Military will still have their man in charge of a so-called decomcratic pakistan.
the only comment I can find online on the subject of US strategy (so far) is from the Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/345f8922-b48d-11dc-9 90a-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=4d9dd3aa-5fbd-11dc-b 0fe-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/345f8922-b48d-11dc-9 90a-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=4d9dd3aa-5fbd-11dc-b 0fe-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
also this from the Guardian:
Bhutto's death marks a severe blow for the US, which had encouraged Bhutto to return from exile and share power with Musharraf.
I think the USA would have preferred Musharraf to share power as a way of encouraging democracy and discouraging the military. They are embarrassed by authoritarian allies; having an apparently modern, Islamic but not extremist, woman as a partner would have looked much better. She was apparently the first Bhutto woman not to wear a burqa, and was known at Oxford as Pinky.
Bhutto's death marks a severe blow for the US, which had encouraged Bhutto to return from exile and share power with Musharraf.
I think the USA would have preferred Musharraf to share power as a way of encouraging democracy and discouraging the military. They are embarrassed by authoritarian allies; having an apparently modern, Islamic but not extremist, woman as a partner would have looked much better. She was apparently the first Bhutto woman not to wear a burqa, and was known at Oxford as Pinky.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
My first thought when I heard about it was what a very brave woman she was. My second thought was that as far as I know all Islamic countries seem to be a politically and religiously violent mess. My next thought was is this what the UK will become like if muslims eventually become the majority , as seems likely? What the hell is going on? It is terrifying.
but IaP, they did indeed send in the lads to get Noriega. They played loud rock music at him till he broke down and surrendered (really).
But it's hard to be sure how Musharraf comes out of this. On the one hand it seems to justify his attempts at declaring a state of emergency a while back. On the other hand it proves that actually he isn't in control at all; people can murder politicians at will.
The ones who really profit from it all are al-Qaeda. They're the ones who can't abide women in positions of power.
But it's hard to be sure how Musharraf comes out of this. On the one hand it seems to justify his attempts at declaring a state of emergency a while back. On the other hand it proves that actually he isn't in control at all; people can murder politicians at will.
The ones who really profit from it all are al-Qaeda. They're the ones who can't abide women in positions of power.
jno, that number has increased dramatically since 01. They breed like rabbits, and deliberately so. No other aspect of British society is growing at anything like this rate. It's like watching a disaster movie, except it's worse as this real. We're allowing it to happen, leaving it too late to stop it, and boy will we regret it in years to come.
In 2001 there were 1.6 Million Muslims in the UK. Lets take that figure and work on it.
Let say that half those people are of a child bearing age (and half of those are female). This brings us to 400,000 women. From ONS data, Muslim families are aiming for 3.8 children on average (compared to 2.6 for Christian families).
So in 20 years (a generation) we can extrapolate that figure to suggest that we have almost 3 Million Muslims in the country (3.8 x 400,000 plus original 1.6 million). This of course takes no factor of any of these Muslims dying in the 20 years (natural causes or suicide bombs)
Of course in those 20 years the rest of the population will have increased - but lets say it doesn't that still means Muslims would still not even be 10% of the population.
Still, why let facts get in the way of an argument - easier to just say things like "They breed like rabbits" with no basis of fact as it sounds good doesn't it.
Let say that half those people are of a child bearing age (and half of those are female). This brings us to 400,000 women. From ONS data, Muslim families are aiming for 3.8 children on average (compared to 2.6 for Christian families).
So in 20 years (a generation) we can extrapolate that figure to suggest that we have almost 3 Million Muslims in the country (3.8 x 400,000 plus original 1.6 million). This of course takes no factor of any of these Muslims dying in the 20 years (natural causes or suicide bombs)
Of course in those 20 years the rest of the population will have increased - but lets say it doesn't that still means Muslims would still not even be 10% of the population.
Still, why let facts get in the way of an argument - easier to just say things like "They breed like rabbits" with no basis of fact as it sounds good doesn't it.
-- answer removed --
You must ask yourself, Who gains from this?
Well it certainly won't be us.
If it comes to a civil war in Pakistan, (and there is every likelihood it might) then I can see there will be another mass influx of "asylum seekers" into the UK.
We should have sorted Pakistani out after 9/11instead of the softer option of Iraq, and the wilderness of Afghanistan, this is where the terrorist breeding ground really is.
Why didn't we do it? Because this Goverment is so damned frightened that it might upset all those Pakistanis that already reside here.
Well it certainly won't be us.
If it comes to a civil war in Pakistan, (and there is every likelihood it might) then I can see there will be another mass influx of "asylum seekers" into the UK.
We should have sorted Pakistani out after 9/11instead of the softer option of Iraq, and the wilderness of Afghanistan, this is where the terrorist breeding ground really is.
Why didn't we do it? Because this Goverment is so damned frightened that it might upset all those Pakistanis that already reside here.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.