Bhutto assassinated.

[WheelsUpHeelsUp]

You're advocating war between two nuclear nations to 'thin out the herd'? The internet is full of people saying stupid, ill-advised things, but this is ridiculous.

Where am I advocating it? Sorry to say but it's probably unpreventable. Read into my statement before you throw the "stupid" penalty flag. Might not make you look so stupid.
What they do is their business and I hope it's contained. What would we do if 7/11 shut down? Call me uncaring, that might be more accurate, what they do to EACH OTHER isn't my problem.

 

[Mumbles]

I read somewhere once that because the Indian subcontinent is so densely packed in the urban areas, (Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi) and Lahore and Islamabad for the other guys...that a nuke exchange would result in megadeath..perhaps hundreds of millions killed. In a conventional war, the Indians would roll over the Pakis.

 

[HeyJoe]

Either Pakistan implodes in civil war, or without a leader to rally around, the opposition shrugs, goes home, and returns to subdued grumbling. I think the opposition loses momentum when they don't have a legit alternative for president.

Which is what whoever was behind was betting on (methinks)

 

[joshmf]

Where am I advocating it?

Here:

Hate to say it but if they can contain it there, thinning out the herd might not be such a terrible thing. India can't feed itself as it is.

That was you saying that a war between India and Pakistan wouldn't be terrible (i.e. advocating one), apparently because there are a lot of starving people there.

Sorry to say but it's probably unpreventable. Read into my statement before you throw the "stupid" penalty flag. Might not make you look so stupid.
What they do is their business and I hope it's contained. What would we do if 7/11 shut down? Call me uncaring, that might be more accurate, what they do to EACH OTHER isn't my problem.

What I read into your statement was that a war between two nations, both important American allies for different reasons, and both having nuclear weapons, was fine because it wouldn't affect you. This shows a lack of understanding of American political concerns in the region, the interdependence of America's economy on the region's, and a lack of concern for international terrorism.

A large-scale war between India and Pakistan would not be contained, and it would certainly affect you. It would likely breed several generations of armed, fundamentalists terrorists (i.e. Afghanistan) with the added possibility of loose nuclear weapons. It would be devastating to the world economy. And you would have a hard time getting good chicken tikka masala for several years :tongue2_1.

Sorry to jump on you like that, but it's a very real possibility, it would not be fine and it would certainly affect us in numerous ways.

 

[raptor10]

State Department is giving their reaction right now on C-SPAN.

Many are of the opinion that this was orchestrated by Musharraf.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

State Department is giving their reaction right now on C-SPAN.

Many are of the opinion that this was orchestrated by Musharraf.

I believe it is. Looking at the timeline, it seems very much like this was orchestrated.

 

[raptor10]

So who wants to start the pool on when Pakistan collapses in on its self in civil war?

I don't believe that a civil war is inevitable or likely at this point if we are using the US Military Definition of civil war:

“A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.”

What I do believe is likely is that Musharraf can be displaced if opposition groups can capitalize on the massive unrest and rioting in the country to pressure the military, led by Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to force Musharraf down.

Nawaz Sharif of the PML-N has already called for a boycott of the election on the 8th, and for Mesharraf to step down, (and with Bhutto out of the picture, he is the de-facto opposition leader).

Whatever the outcome it looks to be bloody days ahead for Pakistan.

 

[scoober78]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the Musharraf hypothesis is correct.

Probably the most likely alternative is Al Qaeda...in retaliation for pro American sympathies and support for the War On Terror...and to prevent her near certain control of the Pakistani Parliament. The thing that doesn't add up here though is that why would Al Qaeda not claim responsibility for this? Additionally, why the second attack?

 

[raptor10]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the Musharraf hypothesis is correct.

Probably the most likely alternative is Al Qaeda...in retaliation for pro American sympathies and support for the War On Terror...and to prevent her near certain control of the Pakistani Parliament. The thing that doesn't add up here though is that why would Al Qaeda not claim responsibility for this? Additionally, why the second attack?

Just in case you guys did not know, after the first attack, Bhutto made the claim that Musharraf's security personnel that were assigned to protect her were a part of the attack. Musharraf responded by not investigating the charges, but by calling Bhutto's security force incompetent and replacing her personal body guards with a government security force, the same agency Bhutto accused of planning the previous attack.

 

[Brett327]

I'd be very surprised if Musharraf had a direct role in the killing. I think, on balance, he stands to lose more now than before.

Brett

 

[raptor10]

If this was a move from jihadists, as Musharraf claims, than they would stand to lose even more. And why wait until after the Meeting with President Karzai?

 

[zippy]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the Musharraf hypothesis is correct.

Probably the most likely alternative is Al Qaeda...in retaliation for pro American sympathies and support for the War On Terror...and to prevent her near certain control of the Pakistani Parliament. The thing that doesn't add up here though is that why would Al Qaeda not claim responsibility for this? Additionally, why the second attack?

Spectacular attack using suicide bombers... Al Qaeda's style. Musharraf would have been better suited with poison or something less attention grabbing. Also, Musharraf risks losing a lot more with this happening then he did by letting her take place in the political process. He was having enough difficutly holding his country/ government togather without this. It wouldnt surprise me if UBL and Al Qaeda did eventually claim responsibility for this. Why haven't they already? They are better served by the public outrage against Musharrafs government as a result of this. They benifit greatly when Musharraf is kept off balace politically because thats less effort he can put into combatting them. If his government falls, they will thrive in the power vaccum that will exist in aftermath. Why the second attack? The first one failed, and Al Qaeda has a habit of re-attacking targets until they succeed (WTC is a great example).

 

[scoober78]

I can't help but think, regardless of who did this, that we just witnessed a watershed event.

I also tend to believe that to a certain extent, it doesn't matter who did it...much like Sarajevo in June of 1914, in Rawalpindi today, it feels like the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[WheelsUpHeelsUp]

Here:




That was you saying that a war between India and Pakistan wouldn't be terrible (i.e. advocating one), apparently because there are a lot of starving people there.



What I read into your statement was that a war between two nations, both important American allies for different reasons, and both having nuclear weapons, was fine because it wouldn't affect you. This shows a lack of understanding of American political concerns in the region, the interdependence of America's economy on the region's, and a lack of concern for international terrorism.

A large-scale war between India and Pakistan would not be contained, and it would certainly affect you. It would likely breed several generations of armed, fundamentalists terrorists (i.e. Afghanistan) with the added possibility of loose nuclear weapons. It would be devastating to the world economy. And you would have a hard time getting good chicken tikka masala for several years :tongue2_1.

Sorry to jump on you like that, but it's a very real possibility, it would not be fine and it would certainly affect us in numerous ways.

You don't "really" think Musharraf is our ally do you? Bhutto might have leaned more our way than he, that's why she's gone. Not long ago an attempt was made on her life, 100 plus got whacked, she lucked out. Today the final numbers probably aren't really in yet, these people have little to no respect for human life so why should I respect them as well. Should they duke it out I hope it's contained, that's what I was driving at.

India unfortunately is no different, who knows if Al Qeada does take over it will be India who's our next buddy over there. Make no mistake, Ghandi is not alive and well nor is his philosophy. The Indians are of the same blood, different religions but innately no real difference and just as fanatical. Don't worry about it breeding more terrorism, it's already there, both places. Should they whittle they're numbers down at their expense, so be it.

This throws a whole new cog into OUR election. Look for the minor players Thompson and hopefully Paul to bow out. Look for McCain to really get noticed since he probably has more influence and experience on the world stage.

 

[m3urthy]

You don't "really" think Musharraf is our ally do you? Bhutto might have leaned more our way than he, that's why she's gone. Not long ago an attempt was made on her life, 100 plus got whacked, she lucked out. Today the final numbers probably aren't really in yet, these people have little to no respect for human life so why should I respect them as well. Should they duke it out I hope it's contained, that's what I was driving at.

India unfortunately is no different, who knows if Al Qeada does take over it will be India who's out next buddy over there. Make no mistake, Ghandi is not alive and well nor is his philosophy. The Indians are of the same blood, different religions but innately no real difference and just as fanatical. Don't worry about it breeding more terrorism, it's already there, both places. Should they whittle they're numbers down at their expense, so be it.

This throws a whole new cog into OUR election. Look for the minor players Thompson and hopefully Paul to bow out. Look for McCain to really get noticed since he probably has more influence and experience on the world stage.

Wow.