Bhutto Assassination

Donkey® · 12-27-2007, 12:23 PM

So how does this impact our war on terror? Another question I have is why do we concern ourselves with insignificant global players like Iran and North Korea when this country is a clusterfuck, supports terror, does nothing about Al Queda hiding there and has nukes?

Benazir Bhutto assassinated - CNN.com

DosEquis · 12-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Al Qaeda claims to be taking credit, and the other side claims people who support their former leader did it, former leader claims someone else did it. Either way its a pretty dangerous situation when a state that sponsers terror, that actually has nuclear capability, has essentially no leadership and no control over the military.

garbagemanlb · 12-27-2007, 12:46 PM

But the leader of Iran has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map!

Stylerod · 12-27-2007, 04:38 PM

:

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So how does this impact our war on terror?

Benazir Bhutto assassinated - CNN.com

It doesn't impact it at all. A person was murdered. It happens every day. Of course, this person happened to be a figurehead. Which isn't uncommon for them to be murdered either.

The rest of the post was just your typical

Thorgrim · 12-27-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

:

It doesn't impact it at all. A person was murdered. It happens every day. Of course, this person happened to be a figurehead. Which isn't uncommon for them to be murdered either.

The rest of the post was just your typical

Just quoting, don't mind me

Donkey® · 12-27-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

:

It doesn't impact it at all. A person was murdered. It happens every day. Of course, this person happened to be a figurehead. Which isn't uncommon for them to be murdered either.

The rest of the post was just your typical

I'd like to respond to this post but it's pretty much irrelevant and a direct attack on me...so I'll just not address it.

motivez · 12-27-2007, 06:21 PM

The next few weeks will really tell the story, I think this has the potential to completely destabilize the Musharraf regime if things aren't seriously locked down.

Donkey® · 12-27-2007, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The next few weeks will really tell the story, I think this has the potential to completely destabilize the Musharraf regime if things aren't seriously locked down.

Not that we'll ever know...but I am not completely sold on the fact that he had nothing to do with this in some way.

RMNIXON · 12-27-2007, 06:23 PM

Some people just don't like Liberty or Democracy. You will find them in lots of places. So if we wish to keep ours we need to remain alert.

We really don't know how important this event was. That will take some time. My hope is it will generate a greater backlash against extremism in Pakistan, but who can tell?

David Octavius · 12-27-2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So if we wish to keep ours we need to remain alert.

Yes we have to remain alert..against out own government. AQ can never destroy our liberty and democracy, they are too few and have no means to do it. It is only our own government that can that by being too reactionary and curbing our liberty and republican process (no not the party) to protect security.

David Octavius · 12-27-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The next few weeks will really tell the story, I think this has the potential to completely destabilize the Musharraf regime if things aren't seriously locked down.

I agree with that. With all the turmoil plaguing the regime lately (all his own doing), this may be the straw that breaks the camels back

DosEquis · 12-27-2007, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

:

It doesn't impact it at all. A person was murdered. It happens every day. Of course, this person happened to be a figurehead. Which isn't uncommon for them to be murdered either.

The rest of the post was just your typical

um, this is actually a pretty big deal. It creates even more uncertainty and instability in a region that is already unstable. Al Qaeda and OBL are in the western part of that country. India and Pakistan are enemies, and both have nuclear weapons. The recent events in pakistan with Musharaff and the death of this lady are 10 times more influencial with the "war on terror" than removing Saddam would ever be.

We allegedly went to Iraq to keep Al Qaeda from getting weapons of mass destruction. There are now based in a country that has functional nuclear weapons, instability, and no leader.

IminWonderland · 12-27-2007, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not that we'll ever know...but I am not completely sold on the fact that he had nothing to do with this in some way.

Me neither.

IminWonderland · 12-27-2007, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

um, this is actually a pretty big deal. It creates even more uncertainty and instability in a region that is already unstable. Al Qaeda and OBL are in the western part of that country. India and Pakistan are enemies, and both have nuclear weapons. The recent events in pakistan with Musharaff and the death of this lady are 10 times more influencial with the "war on terror" than removing Saddam would ever be.

We allegedly went to Iraq to keep Al Qaeda from getting weapons of mass destruction. There are now based in a country that has functional nuclear weapons, instability, and no leader.

I think the really sad thing is that Bhutto could have been a great leader for that country. She really loved Pakistan and the people in it, and wanted to work for them to take the terrorists out of their country, and make it a peaceful country.

Musharaff, he's the product of a coup, it's not like he was democratically elected. And that sucks for the country that are left with him.

RMNIXON · 12-28-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yes we have to remain alert..against out own government. AQ can never destroy our liberty and democracy, they are too few and have no means to do it. It is only our own government that can that by being too reactionary and curbing our liberty and republican process (no not the party) to protect security.

I must add that our own people can do it to themselves. By being to reactionary on security and also by being overly progressive of government providing personal needs. As Franklin said coming out of the Constitutional Convention "You have a Republic if you can keep it?"

Stylerod · 12-29-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

um, this is actually a pretty big deal. It creates even more uncertainty and instability in a region that is already unstable. Al Qaeda and OBL are in the western part of that country. India and Pakistan are enemies, and both have nuclear weapons. The recent events in pakistan with Musharaff and the death of this lady are 10 times more influencial with the "war on terror" than removing Saddam would ever be.

We allegedly went to Iraq to keep Al Qaeda from getting weapons of mass destruction. There are now based in a country that has functional nuclear weapons, instability, and no leader.

Sure, it is a big deal for Pakistan right now. It changes our War on Terror little though. Plus, Donkey's question was put as a way to put down our administration not to pose any real kind of question.

The War on Terror stays the same. We are still at war. What happened in Pakistan doesn't change that. So my original answer stands.

And SoFlaJDM. Why don't you get involved in the discussion instead of leaving a cowardly reputation point with no words in it.

Donkey® · 12-30-2007, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Sure, it is a big deal for Pakistan right now. It changes our War on Terror little though. Plus, Donkey's question was put as a way to put down our administration not to pose any real kind of question.

The War on Terror stays the same. We are still at war. What happened in Pakistan doesn't change that. So my original answer stands.

Apparently you're the only person who thinks this has little or no impact on the "war" on terror. Not just here in the forums, but pretty much most of the world.

My questions didn't put down the administration either.

Now that I read this answer again...

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It changes our War on Terror little though.

and

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The War on Terror stays the same.

Which is it and why does your opinion differ from a majority of the people paying attention to the situation?

Dylith · 12-31-2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think the really sad thing is that Bhutto could have been a great leader for that country. She really loved Pakistan and the people in it, and wanted to work for them to take the terrorists out of their country, and make it a peaceful country.

Musharaff, he's the product of a coup, it's not like he was democratically elected. And that sucks for the country that are left with him.

Musharaff is a better leader for Pakistan than Bhutto (not saying he is great, just better than Bhutto which doesn't take much). Bhutto was horrible for Pakistan and deserved to be in jail.

Stylerod · 12-31-2007, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Apparently you're the only person who thinks this has little or no impact on the "war" on terror. Not just here in the forums, but pretty much most of the world.

My questions didn't put down the administration either.

Now that I read this answer again...

and

Which is it and why does your opinion differ from a majority of the people paying attention to the situation?

My opinion differs because it's not my job to exagerate the news to make it more interesting then it really has to be. That's the job of the press. It's how they get ratings and readers.