Bhutto killed in bomb attack
 

this world is a mess.

they sure know how to treat their women over there.

Three cheers for the successive regimes of dictators the USA has supported in Pakistan for decades, three cheers for the Madrasahs the ISI founded for the Americans in the 1980s to provide a ready pool of fanatics.

for those that need a recap, here's how this thread goes:

1. new, interesting, somewhat shocking!
2. pure genius.
3. same old shit.

dont forget to report the turkish attacks on iraqi kurds.

o yea.

merry fuckin ex-mas.

I'd have thought the same old misogyny joke told for the millionth time would classify as the 'same old shit'.

who's fucking joking?

Bhutto was an outspoken woman with power. that doesn't go over very well with a large percentage of the Pakistani population.

however, please continue blaming the U.S. for every woe perpetrated upon the planet. it makes my penis throb.

Yeah, this really fucking sucks. Reading the article from AOL News there is one qoute from Nawaz Sharif says, "I will take the revenge of her death to the rulers." The circle of violence in Pakastain just never fucking ends. Its just some fucking sad state of affairs.

Well who else puts those dictators into power in Pakistan; sells them advanced military equipment; protects the A.Q. Khan network?

oh yeah, tell me I've been bad again.

really really bad.

yeaaah.... don't. stop.

I find it much easier to blame religion.

there's a bomb going off in Belfast, there's a war in Vietnam, there's a TV documentary, to help you understand, but the other channel is better, because it doesn't tax your man, relax in the ignorance of yr mind as man destroyes mankind...

And the rest of the world has gone to sleep Because they couldn't care less
The world is going, so am I It's such a bloody mess


There's an arms race in America The race that no one wins
If somebody pushed the button The accidental sin
Meanwhile baby wonders "What's a nuclear war?"
And mummy says to tell the truth, I'm really not quite sure


And the rest of the world was ignorant Because they weren't told more
The pamphlet said 'Just stay at home, avoid the threat of war


The computer pressed the button
The rain was full of lead
And more bombs dropped on Belfast
And Vietnam went dead
The T.V. Documentary
Outlined the possible cause
It was just a human error
Because man invented war

Not good. Civil war could be well on it's way.

I blame it on human nature.

al-qaeda + taliban + nukes = no good

As far as I'm aware, so far al Qaida haven't claimed responsibility yet.
Even if they were responsible, it seems highly improbable that this attack could have been carried out without at least some collusion on the part of the Pakistani security forces.
Al Qaida is not the only organisation that would stand to gain from Benazir Bhutto's death.
Musharraf has ajready put the troops on red alert and there is talk that that January's elections will be postponed, if not cancelled - Exactly what Musharraf was aiming for when he declared a state of emergency a month or so back.

yeah musharraf *might* benefit some or might not, but bhutto was a secularist & pro democracy-- the fundamentalists have the most to gain from her death.

bhutto actually offered musharraf a chance to go after the extremists by forming an alliance in the power sharing government. now that avenue is more of a narrow alley.

remember that pakistan is the world headquarters of the taliban & al-qaeda, they've tried to suicide-bomb musharraf too.

in fact, musharraf doesn't have full control of the pakistani security forces, as they are heavily infiltrated with sympathizers of the religious fascists.

Well you could say the same about Pakistan itself, or the USA for that matter.

i could, but i don't-- beyond the obvious fact that nuke are bad, the threat of retaliation is a deterrent for most conventional states. pakistan and india can growl all they want at each other, but if they go nuclear they both lose.

in the hands of stateless terrorist organizations however, nukes become an asymmetrical threat-- deterrence (mutually assured destruction) no longer applies and all bets are off.

That argument sounds nice until you consider the potential for accidents in the automated systems that run it all, the potential for human error in already tense situations, and consider the destabilising knock-on effect they have in a region. Although maybe you think these are good things or at least will make some blasé smartarse dismisal of them all.
The MAD argument also fails when you consider that the Americans are quite adamant that they would use their stockpile in either a large scale First Strike or tactical devices in a minor confrontation (there is also the trivial matter of who exactly would be threatening the USA). Again, plenty of opportunity for arsehole-ishness here.

Just my $0.02, but I think if terrorists ever get their hands on a nuclear device it'd probably be something like what David Hahn built in his mums backyard in the 1990s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

so lamont (atari?), are you trying to argue that the current political turmoil in pakistan has no bearing on said country's nuclear capabilities??

really now, is anyone having nuclear weaponry good?


sounds like US pro-nuclear weaponry propaganda... the reality is that if eye for an eye leaves us all blind, then poking out eyes is wrong. possessing nukes is wrong for anyone, and their very creation was the problem, not controling their distribution. nuclear weapons anywhere are a threat to human beings everywhere, regardless of who possesses them.

2 things you dont talk in public about is politics and religion....... the whole middle east thing is proof of that. i shudder to think of what the long term outcome will be for those unfortunate souls who have to live with that day in day out. the world is literally red!

the possibility of an eye for an eye (more of a head for a head) is what has kept us nuclear free since nagasaki even at the height of the cold war. goody-goody statements aside (i agree with NO NUKES, if it was possible), the strategic reality is what it is--it's not propaganda, deterrence works in a symmetrical scenario where both parties have a lot to lose.

when one of the nuclear-armed parties has nothing to lose, it's another story.

how are we nuclear free in the midst of continuous nuclear arms races? it has never stopped, only paused for a breath. through the 1950s and 1960s, testing and build up, pause mid-70s, then the 80s come back, build up and testing, then 90s pause, and today its all back in the 21st century. we didn't get rid of a thing, deterrence hasn't stopped the killing of human beings in the slightest, if anything the Cold War proxy wars which have continued and revamped in the form of 21st century Counter Terrorism, and yet the exact same dudes are cutting checks and arms to the exact same places as during the cold war..... its all the same shit. nuclear weapons are the vilest evil man created since the blade...

by the way, this so-called deterrence has also forced convential weapons to advance in their destructive capabilities, there are now conventional explosive devices as powerful as the atomic bombs dropped in Japan... so again, how have nuclear weapons contributed to our civilization? they haven't. you should not give them any credit for anything except for death and destruction.

sorry by nuclear free i meant FREE FROM BEING BLASTED TO SHIT.

i havent said anything about nukes contributing to civilization.

jeeezus...

im not praising nukes for fuck sakes. but the strategic picture of the nuclear arms race could change in pakistan. right now everyone is afraid of blasting another because they have the same thing coming to them. this could change to a scenario where someone feels free to nuke someone else because they can't be nuked back. can you understand that? that is all.

Terrorist with Solanite Bombs.

your reasoning does not necessarily make sense. just because "extremists" do not possess a "legitimate" territory to defend, does not mean that they would be reckless with nuclear weapons. I'd imagine that such "extremists" would be just as cautious as any other supposed "legitimate" nuclear power. my point is it is reckless period for such things to continue in existence, we already have to explain them to our children, why our grandchildren as well? should we simply accept such a thing?

I miss the Cold War, as many nukes as there were I never felt real concern that anybody would use them. The Russians were pretty level headed compared to today's religious wackjobs. A mushroom party involving India and Pakistan is a real possibility if Pakistan completely falls apart as is the liklihood that enough material for a dirty bomb will come up missing. Religion sucks, differences in political ideology are much easier to handle.

That could be a possibility in a few years. Missile Defence Shield is not about defence at all; it is aggression, if it ever works it puts the USA in a position where it can threaten First Strike against states that have only a limited conventional or nuclear Retaliatory ability.
I doubt China would continue to be as passive to the Americans provocations as it has been so far.