[Meowmeowz]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yes, I was talking about all muslims, which would be obvious considering what I said, as these types of events are hardly a Pakistan only problem. The willingness to run into crowds strapped with explosives, and the seeming acceptance or indifference to this by muslims worldwide, is a muslim problem. Compared to what has happened so far, what would you have preferred moderate Muslims to have done in teh few hours since teh incident?

[ptolerezort]

Yeah, that's moderate.

[StanWatts]

I'm not going to cry for that skank. "Mobutu with boobs" is the best description I've heard. Apparently, she and her husband had a money siphoning scheme and secret bank accounts that would have shamed the Mafia. And it's not as if she wasn't prone to using violence herself when it suited her (and before the Indians start up, Indira Gandhi did too). Musharraf is just as bad, and would be improved by being dead as well.

The usual crap is on the news, which is predictable since she was "our" bent Islamic politician.

The sad thing is that this will cause riots and massive civil unrest in which many ordinary Pakistani people will needlessly die. These are the same ordinary people who are the victims of the tawdry manipulation and corruption of Pakistani elites like Bhutto and Musharraf, who care nothing for them or their families.

[KojlinMakolvin]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm not going to cry for that skank. "Mobutu with boobs" is the best description I've heard. A few millions, much less than Mobutu stole, and Pakistans economy was a lot bigger than Zaire's. No comparison, really.

[Esmeralfaf]

[Ngwkgczx]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

A few millions, much less than Mobutu stole, and Pakistans economy was a lot bigger than Zaire's. No comparison, really. Except that both of them were thieves who exploited their impoverished citizens.

Nice one dude.

[hoconnor6605]

Originally posted by Agathon


Except that both of them were thieves who exploited their impoverished citizens.

Nice one dude.
Petty corruption is widespread in the 3rd world. If youre gonna wait for a leader with perfectly clean hands, youre gonna wait a long time. And again, from everything I can gather, the Pakistani electorate was quite aware of that as well. Oh, and her PPP was about as strong a voice for social democracy, IIUC, as existed in Pakistan.

Maybe she wasnt fit to be elected. If so, the people of Pakistan had the right to decide that for themselves.

I expect that what will follow now will be no better, and probably worse.

[ElisasAUG]

I like the fact that Aggie thinks any leader in Pakistan has clean hands. Like LOTM said, petty corruption (and not just the petty kind) is widespread in the 3rd world and especially a country like Pakistan, where the social norm is pay-for-play.

[vigraxtru]

Still, teh Lashkar-e-Taiba, launched and funded with Benazir's blessings, is as extremist as any of teh fundamentalist outfits Benazir was supposed to act against upon being elected.

[Dxwlxqvg]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Ok then,

who did it- wild speculation only please the ISI.

[Rememavotscam]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Still, teh Lashkar-e-Taiba, launched and funded with Benazir's blessings, is as extremist as any of teh fundamentalist outfits Benazir was supposed to act against upon being elected. But they werent out of hand then.

Fact is, the Pakistani fundies have been fighting her tooth and nail, and may have just killed her. They didnt seem to think of her as a friend, despite her past.

Folks change, both personally, and because of changed political conditions. Whether its a Sadat, a Sharon, or a Bhutto.

[cholleyhomeob]

Originally posted by Agathon


If completely ****ed up countries like Bolivia and Venezuela can manage to eventually elect governments that are properly representative, there's no reason the Pakistanis can't either. Pseudo politicians like Bhutto and Musharraf are the ones preventing that.
thanks for the touch of humor.

Unfortunately (or not) Pakistan doesnt have the oil wealth for a Bolivaran revolution. Theyve had to develop the old fashioned way, with foreign investment. low wage textile industry, etc.

[DexOnenlyCymn]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

thanks for the touch of humor.

Unfortunately (or not) Pakistan doesnt have the oil wealth for a Bolivaran revolution. Theyve had to develop the old fashioned way, with foreign investment. low wage textile industry, etc. And once again you are the king of assumptions. Bolivarian revolutions are irrelevant to my point. It really doesn't matter what sort of policy Pakistan follows. They could vote in the Gay Liberation Front for all I care, as long as the elections were free and fair and the traditional elites that attempt to overturn or otherwise distort them were prevented from doing so. As Chavez himself has said, what matters most is that everyone feels it is worth voting and that the result is respected and not distorted or undermined by anti-democratic centres of power. So far, he gets an A+ for putting that over his personal political program.

Bhutto was the wrong person to do that, since she was an anti-democratic centre of power. The PPP isn't even a real political party. It's just her family's party and serves no independent political function as, say, the Republican Party does in the US.

[payowlirriply]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon

Bhutto was the wrong person to do that, since she was an anti-democratic centre of power.

And again, theres no evidence that that is a fair charecterization the last few years.

The PPP isn't even a real political party. It's just her family's party and serves no independent political function as, say, the Republican Party does in the US.

In fact it had a secularist, and moderately socialist agenda for some time. Yes, it was also a dynastic vehicle - so?

For all the attacks you make on the Venezualan elite, they did run a constitutional polity with multiple parties and no coups for several decades. thats the political culture Chavez walked into. Pakistan doesnt have that.

[idertedype]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact it had a secularist, and moderately socialist agenda for some time. Yes, it was also a dynastic vehicle - so?

For all the attacks you make on the Venezualan elite, they did run a constitutional polity with multiple parties and no coups for several decades. thats the political culture Chavez walked into. Pakistan doesnt have that. Bingo. I mean we are talking about a country that has had military rule just about the same amount of time as democracy. Where the populace really doesn't see a coup as anything that alarming anymore. Now, maybe if Bhutto's father was able to remain in power, we'd have the proper groundwork for a democracy, but he wasn't and they don't.

It's a contrast to India, which also has corruption on a decent scale, but has a healthy democratic process.