Bhutto assassinated

December 28th, 2007 at 8:58 am by David Farrar

Woke up to the news that former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto was shot dead last night. Her killer then blew himself up.

A real tragedy both for her family, and for Pakistan.

Poneke has a look at how and why India has turned out so much better than Pakistan, since their separation. The bottom line is one is a secular state.

bhuttomurder.JPG

The photo above shows the awful reality of the aftermath of the homicide bomber.  The photo is by John Moore of Getty Images – hat tip : Andrew Sullivan.

No tag for this post.

42 Responses to “Bhutto assassinated”

  1. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    I don’t really think Poneke’s comments about Pakistan not being a non-secular state are accurate. The Islamism came with General Zia well after Pakistan’s governance had become a joke and for a long time (ie Indira Gandhi), India’s governance was dismal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Oh great stuff, as the main suspects in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination are the Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants that are nothing more than homicidal maniacs high on the crazy idea that as jihad martyrs they will be welcomed by virgins at the gates of heaven. These vile, gutless, cowardly creeps regarded Benazir as a heretic and an American stooge and had repeatedly threatened to kill her.

    Battle lines are being drawn and no amount of rhetoric can stop the deluge of violence and serious fallout created by this senseless murder and lets hope that Benazir’s suffering will become a light in the horizon encouraging us all that there are greater possibilities within each of us?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tina (687 comments) says:

    Well, as long as they’re shredding each other and leave other people alone…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    whoops I blinked and another PC term was born…”Homicide bomber”. Good grief, who cares. The death of a suicide bomber is the only certainty of his action. Did the bomber survive and only other people were killed? Tell me, I can’t wait, why in god’s name did we need to change the terminology. What stigma are we avoiding, what agressors must we turn into victims now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    religion has the most to answer for.

    it dishes out evil

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    goodgod,

    IIRC, ”Homicide bomber”, was coined by the crew at Faux News some time ago, ie, they are not “suicide bombers”, they’re murders’ which makes some sense of the ”Homicide bomber” term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    vto, I hope you had an evil Christmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    cha, this might help you clarify the type of people who blow innocent people into tiny pieces ;
    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/12/mohammed-claus.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dan (44 comments) says:

    goodgod,

    Sure, the term could imply that the bomber survived, and is therefore ambiguous if one doesn’t know any more about the situation, but as far as PC goes, I’d say that the term ‘homicide bomber’ is less PC than ‘suicide bomber’. Other people were murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Sad to see a bright, brave light extinguished. She led by example.

    God rest her soul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    So how will the “blame-America-first” brigade explain this? Wait for it.

    The Islamists “woman out of her place” syndrome won’t be anything to do with it, naturally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    And Islamism wasn’t dependent on General Zia: it is a worldwide movement with its own dynamic. And the sooner the western chattering classes come out of denial over this, the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    Relevant:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=985C80CF-FA08-46D5-B696-E0B1A9E391A7

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    Mark Steyn on this killing:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTYyZDM1ZTJiYTEzMzM2ZDZjNTAxZWQ3MzMzODBmOTg=

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    More from Mark Steyn:

    On Pakistan, then and now:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmZGEzNDE3NDc1MGU2ZGRiYWIwYWYyZjcxM2Q0YTE=

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    And the US has clean hands, yeah right!.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p10s01-wosc.html

    “The whole idea behind the US plan was to bring [Bhutto] and Musharraf together, thereby wedding the hard power of the Army and an increasingly isolated leader to a populist democratic movement,” Mr. Hulsman says. “The reasoning was that this broadening of support [for Musharraf] would stabilize the most volatile nuclear power in the world – but now that plan goes out the window.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p01s01-wosc.html

    “In recent weeks, Bhutto has alienated many Pakistanis by her dealings with President Pervez Musharraf, which were seen as driven by Washington’s desire to bolster a moderate South Asian government in its fight against Islamic extremism. They have also, at least for the moment, cleared her of charges that she stole millions from Pakistan in the 1990s.”

    http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/07/stories/2007110756621100.htm

    “And from the point of view of the U.S., Pakistan’s paymaster, geopolitical guide, and strategic dominatrix, a Bhutto-Musharraf deal still seems the best way of avoiding various nightmare scenarios all pointing towards the same uncomfortable question: who “lost” Pakistan?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    More opinions.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3099884.ece

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kehua (225 comments) says:

    So a candidate in an election thousands of km away gets wacked by an assassin and the bloody Council and RSA in my closest town put their flags at halfmast. That`s got to be pc at its worst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    Another failed Islamic state but with the added bonus this one has nuclear weapons and could threaten the whole of Asia and the middle east.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Take comfort, Tim, in the probability the instability in Pakistan is likely to remain local. This isn’t a rogue state threatening its neighbours. It is a fractured one that is more than likely going to implode.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    VTO says: “religion has the most to answer for. it dishes out evil”

    Like some others VTO, you don’t appear to draw a distinction between religion as an institution and cetain people’s deliberately perverted interpretation of it to justify their own personally conceived evil ends.

    For example, take a comment from cha’s opinion link:
    “All over the world, they should not be known or called or referred to as Islamic Militants. The word ISLAM should never be attached to refer to them, because what they have done is not Islamic at all. A shame on them and inshAllah a damnation in the fire of hell.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Kimble, the risk has always been that the mad mullahs get hold of Pakistan’s nukes. That’s not a local problem.

    The US reportedly has a contingency plan to seize P’s nukes. Unless they can get alongside Nazir Sharif, they might have to execute that. Better that than the alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Policy Parrot (174 comments) says:

    Great pity – Benazir wasn’t perfect, but she was a democrat, and Western educated and oriented.

    Some reactionaries obviously believe that women shouldn’t lead a country, and then there is Pakistan. “Girltocracy” and “Feminazi” spring to mind as hateful words mentioned recently (and frequently) on this blog by various commentators (not the editor mind).

    If you truely believe that, then you are as bad the people who assassinated Ms. Bhutto.

    [DPF: Actually being a sexist is not in any way as bad as being a mass murderer]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Really policy parrot ! Anyone would think that you are ” happily married ” to a radical feminist Prime Minister ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Kahua,

    When I got up this morning and heard the news I was so sad. This is more than her, this is about the future of Pakistan, the future of that area of the Middle east.

    She was Pakistan’s only hope.

    I take this post to commemorate her life and the service she gave to the Pakistani people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Kehua not Kahua – My apologies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. francis (712 comments) says:

    She may come, unfortunately, to mean more to Pakistan’s future now than had she won the election. A terrible day with potentially devastating consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Policy Parrot, you are pure filth for making that comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Is policy parrot Peter Davis ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    D4J – Are you Peter Burns?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    James Sleep – Are you Peter Out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Sean (301 comments) says:

    reid said “Like some others VTO, you don’t appear to draw a distinction between religion as an institution and cetain people’s deliberately perverted interpretation of it to justify their own personally conceived evil ends”

    There is no distinction. Because religion is inherently contrary to reason, tolerating moderates simply provides legitimacy for irrational behaviour. To continue to draw a distinction, as you suggest, means tolerating the same irrational behaviour that gives rise to zealous behaviour, since it is the lack of zealotry in the moderate that drives the zealot to be zealous. Elimination of both forms of irrationality is the only logical outcome for humankind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    I hope the US does have contingency plans to take P’s nukes. I assume this will be excuted with the approval of the Pakistani President and the military. I presume they will be held “in trust” for the P Government should the place descend into chaos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. calendar girl (1,232 comments) says:

    James S (3.30),

    What is “that area of the Middle east” that you think Pakistan is in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Sean says: “…religion is inherently contrary to reason…”

    I agree Sean, but hasn’t it occurred to you that such is the point? Religion reflects the reality that we are beings with a spriritual component.

    Good luck if you want to try to argue against that.

    Ever wondered why some of the few things that have spontaneously arisen (i.e. without direction from a chief, king or government say) and have been consistent across civilisations and throughout known history are:
    music
    art
    religion

    In my imagination this fact is evidence that we have an innate spiritual being. I have found personally the extent to which we are in touch with it, is the answer to peace, security and happiness. Sorry for the off topic response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    Way up the top of this thread I said “religion has the most to answer for. It dishes out evil”. I posted this in a hurry before heading out to try and snare a salmon for the hols.

    While happily casting away and watching various small and large fish splash everywhere but near my line the post above popped back into my head and I realised it was not a good post.

    A couple of folk have pulled me up on it and quite rightly. Brain not in gear first. Whoopsie daisy. Can I withdraw it?

    p.s. a 6lb sea-run trout then graced my presence and is in our pukus tonight – hopefully those omega-3 barin chemicals will improve my thinking and posting performance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Hope it was a good fight vto

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    G-d bless Benazir Bhutto and her family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Matthew Flannagan (76 comments) says:

    David

    If it is merely the issue of a secular state vs one based on religious ideas then if Pakistan had adopted the model of North Korea, an overtly secular state. And India had followed say the ideas expressed in the declaration of independence which affirms belief in a God and inalienable rights confered by him on all people. Then Pakistan would be a success (being a secular state) and India a failure (basing its policies on belief in a deity and inalienable rights conferred by God).

    Obviously this is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Matthew Flannagan (76 comments) says:

    First, to substantiate your claim that you would have to show that (i) there was some feature common to all religions and (ii) this feature necessarily contradicts something which reason requires people to believe. To provide any one with reasons for accepting this claim you actually need to do (i) and (ii) merely asserting it and asking me to take your word on faith is not terribly compelling.

    Second, even if you could substantiate this claim your argument does not follow. Even if religion is inherently contrary to reason it does not follow there is *no* distinction between “an institution and certain people’s deliberately perverted interpretation of it to justify their own personally conceived evil ends” the fact (if it is a fact) that both things share one property; the property of being irrational does not mean they share all properties and are hence indistinguishable.

    Third, while I am not an expert in sociology of religion, the little I have read suggests that your claim that religious beliefs cause “zealous” behavior does not fit the historical data. Rodney Stark in his study of the historical consequences of monotheism for notes that what you call zealotry appears to occur when *certain types* of religious beliefs are combined with certain social and political conditions and do not occur in the absence of these conditions. He could be mistaken but merely stating your own controversial thesis hardly proves it does it. Moreover, far worse zealous behavior occurs among people who do not hold religious beliefs (i.e. in Socialist countries) making it hard to see how mere elimination of religion can be the solution.

    It’s interesting to see so called advocates of reason arguing by (a) assertion (b) drawing fallacious inferences from this assertion based on (c) a failure to distinguish between the claims that something has one feature in common with the claim that it has all things in common and then (d) making assertions which do not fit the data.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote