December 27, 2007
Damn
I am sure you have heard by now that former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. I have to say that this does not surprise me. TPM is also reporting that someone close to Bhutto suggests that Musharraf is responsible in one way or another. I hope that isn't true, but anything is possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
This is pretty bad stuff. Whether or not Musharraf is responsible, he's already getting much of the blame, from what I've seen. Not that he's not suspect anyway, given he Bhutto's thorny recent past, but he'll bear the brunt of the riots and the bombings and whatever else nasty is just beginning.
Incidentally, al-Qaeda is also claiming responsibility, but from what I've read so far, that doesn't seem to be particularly believable. Things, of course, could change.
Bottom line: I hate that they have nukes. That just makes me all sorts of jittery.
And just as I wrote my last comment, CNN had begun the wall-to-wall blaming of al-Qaeda and sundry other extremists.
Ah well, Musharraf now gets carte blanche for that martial law he's been working on for the last month or so. Huzzah!
Pakistan has sold nuke technology all over the world, its leaders confront one another with jail or murder. With a so-called ally like Pakistan, I can see why the Republicans hate the French so much. They set the bar too high.
BTW, Fred Thompson was the first one that I heard assigning credit to al-Qaeda for the Bhutto murder.
Considering how often his party has spoken out against the press giving voice to the radicals, Fred Thompson seems rather eager to make this kind of statement.
What no blame that this is all President Bushs fault?
What no blame that this is all President Bushs fault?
Hmm. Is that an idiotic statement or do you have a point?
What no blame that this is all President Bushs fault?
Hmm. Is that an idiotic statement or do you have a point?
Nope there's no point to that. FP, you've successfully degenerated into a hyper-right wing troll. To your credit, it took you longer than I thought it would, but you got there nonetheless. Congrats.
Yeah...I was watching CNN and some of the democratic hopefulls and watching them blame President Bush so I was wondering what was taking streak so long to blame him
FP, acting like a troll isn't going to help your case here.
For those that don't watch Fox News, they reported that al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility, but that those claims are not credible at this point. They also talked about a letter that Bhutto wrote to be opened upon her death that said to look at Musharraf.
As for the blame game, I haven't paid too much attention. I did notice that Obama's campaign manager placed some blame on Hillary and that Ron Paul blamed Bush. He suggested that it might not have been a good idea to support a dictator that only has the support of 8% of his country and that maybe we should have been supporting Bhutto, who was more moderate.
I don't know how that would have worked. I don't think we can just completely ignore Pakistan, but I certainly don't see an easy solution, or any soultion, for that matter.
Steve, one of the scenarios I've heard (and can't remember where, I've consumed too much media about this topic) is that Bhutto's return was in fact engineered tacitly by the US, who's needed a better man/woman in Islamabad for awhile now. The theory continues that the reemergence of Bhutto could help everyone win: by sharing power with Musharraf yet allowing him to stay part of the game; giving the Pakistani people a more popular central figure to fight for, not against; putting a more pliable leader in charge of the GWOT in Pakistan, which helps the US's needs tremendously.
I suppose it'll be almost impossible to know now, since the plan -- if that was the plan -- is clearly in tatters. There's been pressure for Musharraf to continue to hold general elections in January, but that looks completely worthless now. I mean, an election with only one choice (Musharraf) isn't really in election at all.
And yeah, Pakistan is nearly intractable. Some of the other theories I saw batted around about her assassination had to do with her being the target of a whole slew of other fundamentalist organizations -- entirely separate from al-Qaeda. That's another layer of scary, IMO; that there're multiple radical groups out there capable of such a level of destabilization.
Rob, I wonder if we are looking at Taliban II in the near future?
This moderate Muslim as streak would say was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits, Kashmiri Hindus.
hmmm...lets think about that word moderate again.
Oh yeah the Moderate Islamics are demanding that Oxford put the Islamic call to prayer over the loudspeakers 5 times a day for the entire city to hear.
hmmm...moderation...
Ten Obvious Reasons Why
Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace
#1 10,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last six years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so).
#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#3 Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that. Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#4 After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other. Muhammad's favorite daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali (the second convert to Islam, who was raised like a son to Muhammad) fought a war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was the "perfect woman." Not only was her husband, Ali, eventually murdered, but Fatima (who survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound) died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only three months after her father died. Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by the son of the first. The fourth caliph was killed by the fifth, who subsequently poisoned one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. Muhammad's other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph. Within 50 years, the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war.
#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.
#6 Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
None of these other religions are at war with each other.
#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.
#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.
#9 The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.
#10 "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" (The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93)
Hmm. Easier to go back to this than respond to the evolution thread, I guess.
The Qur'an:
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."
Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Ibn Ishaq: 327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Nope...just spreading the wealth.
This is an example of why I was interested in translations of Arabic. What does the original text say and what are its meanings within that cultural context?
ubub, I dont know if the Koran has translations. I know that it is the one I got from the Mosque. It has Arabic on one side and english on the other.
Additionally, there are WAY more references than what I gave. I didnt give all of them out of preference to streaks desire to keep post a little smaller.
Wow. I guess I should say thanks for being sensitive to my request.
Oh wait.
wow streak. Even when I try to do what you ask me you cant accept it.
Hmmm...that is telling.
No, that isn't the issue, though you are simply giving us a list of quotes-as Ubub says sans context and cultural explanation.
My other point was another sigh about the constant "no such thing as a moderate muslim" mantra. Just tiring of that.
I also notice that you simply avoided Leighton's science lesson.
Didnt avoid it. I am definitely not a scientist so I have to read up on what she said.
Once again if Bhutto is your moderate...there is no such thing as a moderate.
I am about to either give up or throw up. You want to keep the bigotry, perhaps you should post elsewhere.
Unless you can give us more than that, change the subject or move on.
Give you evidence of Bhutto doing ethnic cleansing. It is all over. Type in the info a gave and you will get more than enough.
2nd who is a "moderate Muslim" according to you? Are they a person who observes the Koran? If so I have given AMPLE evidence to suggest that if they are followers of that book they arent moderate. Here is the issue. I take the time to research the stuff you state, read the articles you post, and take time to consider what you post.
YOU HAVE NOT READ ONE ARTICLE I POSTED!
So before you say anything check my sources.
I think reading comprehension might be a problem for you. For your benefit, let me repeat:
I am about to either give up or throw up. You want to keep the bigotry, perhaps you should post elsewhere.
Unless you can give us more than that, change the subject or move on.
What more would you want since you wont read the articles I have posted?
Why dont we just say this streak. I could provide you with all the evidence in the world and you would still call me names. Why dont we just say that regardless of the evidence presented you will refuse to accept it.
Then we can move on.
I tell you what. When you have your own blog and I am forcing you to become a bigot (in a way that you already aren't) then you can lecture me.
hmmm...what a deflection. I hope everyone can see your double standard.
Oh that's right. I went to your blog and harangued you.
Oh wait. I didn't.
Like I said, if all you want to do is bash Islam, then get lost. I am fast losing patience with you. I suspect that not only did Will Rogers never meet you, but that you might taken home reports from school that said you didn't play well with others.
Maybe so. But the fact remains that you refuse to address the inconsistencies of your own views about a religion that you apparently know next to nothing about.
As I have shown before, if you show me where I am wrong I am quick to admit that I was wrong and change my position. Whereas you have been shown to not deal with issues, refuse to admit you are wrong, and further refuse to even consider the validity of any position that doesnt line up with what you think.
I think that I have shown you cant back up your own claims about Islam and that you have no intelligent response to the evidence I have put forth. So I am finished on the blog entitled "Damn" and I will now go back to the evolution stuff since I personally took time to research what was said.
Besides streak look at the history of your own blog. You have never had as much conversation as you do with me...maybe it is a good thing that I am here on your blog. It definitely is drawing more opinions and conversations.
Sorry. I didn't realize I needed to respond intelligently to such ridiculous claims that there was no such thing as a moderate muslim.
Obviously my fault.
Post a Comment