Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto Assassinated at Rally in Pakistan RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, shot in the neck and chest before a homicide bomber blew himself up at a campaign rally. Twenty others also died. The assassin struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed a rally of thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. She was shot as she was entering her car. Her attacker then set off his bomb. Bhutto was rushed to the hospital and taken into emergency surgery. "At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital. "The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Sen. Babar Awan, Bhutto's lawyer, said.
hunhee Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 *cries* there is no santa claus!!!! This is not the world peace I asked for :(
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted December 27, 2007 Author Posted December 27, 2007 This should send the stock market into a roller coaster ride... I predict riot and retaliation by 6pm.
Destroit Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Sucha shame, what an inspriring lady, I read her bio awhile back when all the hype happened that she was coming back to Pakistan and was wowed. I'd say I can't believe it happened, but then I'd be lying, to me it was only a matter of time. It's horrible too because now the "bad guys" probably feel like they're winning more than ever and will be encouraged to keep fighting.
Head Wreck Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 she was just as crooked as the current militry head mind you but yes this is going to get worse
ttogreh Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 She was no angel, but violence does not solve anything. This is a sad day.
Kit Kat P Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 OH my god. I was talking about her last nite w/ my aunt and all the possible good progress.
ttogreh Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Kit Kat P, she was an elite, just like the current President. Still, Pakistan is poorer for losing her.
Kit Kat P Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Oh I agree that she had her own issues, but Pakistan is poorer for losing her and well the female side of me was glad to see a woman in charge, childish but true.
CandyQuackenbush Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Oh I agree that she had her own issues, but Pakistan is poorer for losing her and well the female side of me was glad to see a woman in charge, childish but true. It's not childish to be happy with knowing that a woman was incharge. In their culture is the same as the Iraqi culture, woman are normally frowned upon, but now with the US being there, they are actually sub-siding on that belief.
Reaper Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Opening a can of worms as it is said. Poke and prod into other nations that may be oppressed but are downright religious. And we went in to change their world, and here is the result. Just what we need, is another excuse to go in and annihilate the opposition. Nope, can't afford it anymore. Lets take care of our own first before we help others.
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted December 27, 2007 Author Posted December 27, 2007 Um... How is this our fault? We have never "gone in" to Pakistan.
phee Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Um... How is this our fault?We have never "gone in" to Pakistan. I am at a loss as well... I think this is one event that we can't take the blame for
Der Nister Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Most of the people in that region only know violence/killing as a way of life. How can we expect that to change? I know that my words only cast a dim view (with no hope) but it's the truth. Those people have been killing each other since the begining of time and will probably never stop.
Hellion Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Give it some time,we will get involved,because we police the planet.lets hope not on this issue.
CandyQuackenbush Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Give it some time,we will get involved,because we police the planet.lets hope not on this issue. I don't forsee that happening anytime soon. You should all be watching Fox 2 news for it right now.
Gaf The Horse With Tears Posted December 27, 2007 Author Posted December 27, 2007 There would have been a serious war in Pakistan if she had been allowed to run for election. All the polls were showing her winning by a land slide. She was VERY anti-Al-Qaida. They had threatend to kill her repeatedly... they took credit for killing her already. I'm full of hope. Pakistan has been divided for 20-30 years along political/religous lines. The infighting has been horrific at times. The people were going to rally behind her to put thier country back together after years of fighting extremists.... Now... I think the poeople of Pakistan are going to get collectivly pissed off and finally drive the terrorists out in the open so we or they can pick them off.
phee Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 There would have been a serious war in Pakistan if she had been allowed to run for election. All the polls were showing her winning by a land slide. She was VERY anti-Al-Qaida. They had threatend to kill her repeatedly... they took credit for killing her already. I'm full of hope. Pakistan has been divided for 20-30 years along political/religous lines. The infighting has been horrific at times. The people were going to rally behind her to put thier country back together after years of fighting extremists.... Now... I think the poeople of Pakistan are going to get collectivly pissed off and finally drive the terrorists out in the open so we or they can pick them off. That is one of the only ways to "win" the war on terror
CandyQuackenbush Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 The stocks went crazy. Oil and gold went up. Alot of stock went down 200 points.
Destroit Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 There would have been a serious war in Pakistan if she had been allowed to run for election. All the polls were showing her winning by a land slide. She was VERY anti-Al-Qaida. They had threatend to kill her repeatedly... they took credit for killing her already. I'm full of hope. Pakistan has been divided for 20-30 years along political/religous lines. The infighting has been horrific at times. The people were going to rally behind her to put thier country back together after years of fighting extremists.... Now... I think the poeople of Pakistan are going to get collectivly pissed off and finally drive the terrorists out in the open so we or they can pick them off. We can only hope. That is pretty much the only good that could come out of this whole thing because if that does occur, she would be the reason it did. Meaning, if she hadn't died (as horribly insensitive as this sounds, I'm not trying to make light of her death or anything) then the people wouldn't have necessarily got the idea (assuming they do) to run out the terrorists. We've known for a minute that there were sectors of Al Qaida in Pakistan and couldn't really do much about it, hopefully this gives us the opportunity we need.
Troy Spiral (13) Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Really pretty shocking for me since I've been following the Pakistan thing fairly closely. To respond to the though above about our involvement in the affairs of the middle east being a bad thing: The middle east has a long history of various attempts at secular / democratic governments, its not accurate to think of the middle east as a place that has always had, and never wanted separation of church and state. They've tried it many times, in some cases with fairly good success. Unfortunately "their" key religion does not , in its fundamentalist form make room for any separation of church and state, the Qur'an is very "church and state should be one" to oversimplify, despite the new-age interpretations that have been put forth. But it is true that the average-joe middleasterner is far, FAR more likely to be devoutly religious than we are in the west. If the goal is (long term) to have a world with less violence, more equality and less oppression of freedom, its in the "less violent" countries interests to get involved over there to some degree. The more the average person in a more repressed / reactionary society brushes up with less violent more stable societies , the more they are encouraged to, and emboldened too demand such things from their leaders. Long , painful process? Sure. But isolationism is a long discredited (and rightly so i think) foreign policy. There is such a thing as being too intrusive in the affairs of others, but some "intrusion" if you want to call it that by the more progressive societies is a good thing. Its our "fault" they are generally MORE inclined to demand democratic , secular, non-violent approaches to things , rather than the opposite.
Reaper Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Opening a can of worms as it is said. Poke and prod into other nations that may be oppressed but are downright religious. And we went in to change their world, and here is the result. Just what we need, is another excuse to go in and annihilate the opposition. Nope, can't afford it anymore. Lets take care of our own first before we help others. I didn't mean that we as our nation went in physically. I meant that our ideals sent into the middle east in general pretty much sparked the opposition to their society. We led the charge even though we might not have started it. I just don't think we have a place to wage against an old religion and bring in democracy and christianity where it wasn't wanted. Granted now that the people have had a taste of it and feel the need to now change. But when you affect one country, others tend to follow in the same area.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.