Conquer Club

A tragic end to a revolutionary campaign. Bhutto was giving hope back to the people and back to democracy.

I think Musharaf and Sharif both have something to do with the assassinations. But the finger will be pointed at terrorists, who have absolutely nothing to gain from assassinating Bhutto...they have everything to lose. It just doesn't make any sense. The only ones who gain from this assassination is Musharaf.

Something doesn't smell right...

Considering I just farted, smack tard, I believe you are sniffing up the true beauty of 5 days worth of bean burritos.

Theognome

Theognome. wrote:Considering I just farted, smack tard, I believe you are sniffing up the true beauty of 5 days worth of bean burritos.

Theognome

You are what you eat.

hmmm..I'm a little sceptical as to the significance of this assassination.

Norse wrote:hmmm..I'm a little sceptical as to the significance of this assassination.

Some people say the most obvious solution to a problem is most probably the correct solution.

Who stood to gain from this assassination? Al Queda?

At first glance, Musharaf stands to benefit most from this assassination, not Al Queda. That's where I would put the microscope right now.

Al Queda would have been better off killing Musharaf, not Bhutto, in my opinion.

I am not jumping to conclusions, I am just saying that Musharaf and his illegal government had the motive and the means to pull off this assassination.

Bhutto was going to win and pull Pakistan back into a Democracy instead of Musharaf's martial law tyranny. Why is the US freinds with this guy?

Strange...

I see.

Do you think I am likely to die?

Norse wrote:I see.

Do you think I am likely to die?

It's 100%

Musharraf has been rather friendly with the fundamentalistic islamist in Pakistan, to be more precise, there are a lot of things he hasn't done that he said he would, to be even more precise: He hasn't done shit about them, letting Al Qaeda play on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now tell me DaGip, why would Al Qaeda want to see Musharraf dead?

MeDeFe wrote:Musharraf has been rather friendly with the fundamentalistic islamist in Pakistan, to be more precise, there are a lot of things he hasn't done that he said he would, to be even more precise: He hasn't done shit about them, letting Al Qaeda play on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now tell me DaGip, why would Al Qaeda want to see Musharraf dead?

Hmmm? Now that you put it that way, you may be correct. I was always under the assumption Musharaf was involved with the War on Terror...it is all just a ruse. Musharaf and AL Queda are in bed together then?

Maybe not quite that bad, hedging his bets and trying to play both sides is what I'm thinking he's doing.

I doubt it matters who planned or supported this attack, it's potentially going to rip the country in two.

Bhutto was a voice a lot of people were hoping could come back to the country and bring some semblance of democracy with her. She had a lot of popular support and a lot of momentum.

The assassination will no doubt provoke angry responses from her supporters. We'll probably see large scale riots over the next few weeks leading up to the elections which Musharraf will use to further legitimize and cement his emergency powers and possibly call off the entire election process for several more months potentially sparking more violence and instability and cementing his rule.

The question of spillover into or from the surrounding region and the US attempts to push Pakistan to be a model for democratic development in the region will be the wildcards. If there is violence, US intervention may be fairly swift (political support/pressure, not direct intervention) but the more the US intervenes the more backlash we may see from within the country.

It's an interesting and potentially scary situation

Fingers crossed for the best
Twill

(oh, and Theognome, go fart somewhere else. Keep the spam and flames out of here. Welcome to CC, shape up or ship out )

How long before the UN steps in I wonder?
It's weird that the trouble is slowly moving east:
First Iraq, then Iran and Afghanistan, now Pakistan...
India is next, then - scarily - China.

Doesn't Pakistan have nukes? This isn't good news.

Twill wrote:I doubt it matters who planned or supported this attack, it's potentially going to rip the country in two.

Bhutto was a voice a lot of people were hoping could come back to the country and bring some semblance of democracy with her. She had a lot of popular support and a lot of momentum.

The assassination will no doubt provoke angry responses from her supporters. We'll probably see large scale riots over the next few weeks leading up to the elections which Musharraf will use to further legitimize and cement his emergency powers and possibly call off the entire election process for several more months potentially sparking more violence and instability and cementing his rule.

The question of spillover into or from the surrounding region and the US attempts to push Pakistan to be a model for democratic development in the region will be the wildcards. If there is violence, US intervention may be fairly swift (political support/pressure, not direct intervention) but the more the US intervenes the more backlash we may see from within the country.

It's an interesting and potentially scary situation

Fingers crossed for the best
Twill

(oh, and Theognome, go fart somewhere else. Keep the spam and flames out of here. Welcome to CC, shape up or ship out )

I will have to agree with you on this, the event of Bhutto's assassination will indeed spark civil unrest in that part of the world, only strengthening Musharaf's grip on that nuclear country.

So many speculations right now, but Civil War is not a far off conclusion.

I wouldnt worry about the nukes, they aren't going anywhere.

I'd worry more about civil unrest and precedent.

It's the social fallout of this that will be much more damaging than any military arms fallout. The military, after all, is in charge right now

Coleman wrote:Doesn't Pakistan have nukes? This isn't good news.

Yep! Plus, India too! And China! It's a Nuke Fest! We need to get our troops the f*ck out of there, the more I think about it! Holy Schnikies!

let the fuckers kill each other!!!

Minister Masket wrote:How long before the UN steps in I wonder?
It's weird that the trouble is slowly moving east:
First Iraq, then Iran and Afghanistan, now Pakistan...
India is next, then - scarily - China.

Don't worry though minister, we're almost the last on the list.

Twill wrote:I wouldnt worry about the nukes, they aren't going anywhere.

I disagree, in the event of civil unrest the wrong people getting a hold on any of the ones they have could be very disastrous.

It doesn't help knowing that anytime an intelligent power attacks us in the war games Offutt AFB is nuked first since they all know that is where Stratcom is and the first place our president would head if we were attacked (as he did on 9/11).

hulmey wrote:let the fuckers kill each other!!!

This is quite possibly the most intelligent thing I've heard you say.

Well, not to say that the assassination wasn't tragic, or that it won't have disasterous consequences or to support Musharraf in any way, but Bhutto was known for being a corrupt leader herself (albeit not a dictator). The Pakistani people were barely going to be in better hands with her than they were with Musharraf.
Personally, I was hoping elections would proceed and a third-party canidate would be elected. I guess that possibility is gone now.

Norse wrote:

hulmey wrote:let the fuckers kill each other!!!

This is quite possibly the most intelligent thing I've heard you say.

meh I may have to agree.

Oh wait

nope its the 3rd

It must have been Roger Explosion

a couple of things....

i almost vomited/cried when i saw how fox news labeled their correspondent talking about pakistan "survived terror" i think it was...well played team fair and balanced.

I would agree in many ways it seems like this could lead to democratic elections being delayed hurts musharifs legitamacy as someone who can keep the country stable.

It will be interesting to see what some of the offical us statements are later on this morning. Obviously there will be an offical denouncment of al-qaeda but it would be interesting to see if anything is done strategically in afghanistan as a result.

Coleman wrote:

Twill wrote:I wouldnt worry about the nukes, they aren't going anywhere.

I disagree, in the event of civil unrest the wrong people getting a hold on any of the ones they have could be very disastrous.

It doesn't help knowing that anytime an intelligent power attacks us in the war games Offutt AFB is nuked first since they all know that is where Stratcom is and the first place our president would head if we were attacked (as he did on 9/11).

Are you aware of the political history of Pakistan since independence? Whilst this is certainly a tragedy, the country has cycled from military democracy to dictatorship for fifty years more or less, and will no doubt continue to do so whilst the west maintain support for people like Mushareef.