A suicide bomber, apparently. A BBC obituary is available here.
Large numbers of other people – particularly security personnel – were also killed. Bhutto was campaigning in the lead-up to Pakistan’s first democratic elections in some time, and after the lifting of Pervez Musharraf’s state of emergency.
UPDATE: Earlier this evening, I had to pick up a prescription from a small Pakistani-owned pharmacy across from the surgery I use when in Edinburgh. The couple who run it are clearly devoutly Muslim – beautifully mounted copies of the Koran, Islamic calligraphy, fine embroidery. Unlike other Muslims around the district, they’ve never batted an eyelid at Deus Ex Macintosh’s assistance dog (large black labrador), and they’ve always asked her if she needs help.
The pharmacist and and an elderly man – I assume his father – were listening to an Urdu-language radio broadcast when I walked in. I signed my script and put it in the pharmacist’s basket on the counter and saw that the old man was crying. He looked at me and said (to no-one in particular, even though he was looking at me), ‘the people who did this think our wives and daughters are slime. Just slime to be scraped off the footpath and tossed down the drain’.
233 Comments
Seems to be a recurring theme, once everybody is nice and relaxed after Xmas something crap comes along.
Sceptic Lawyer and All:
Bloody hell!!! This isn’t just a political assassination. This is a bugle-call to every extremist and fundamentalist on the planet.
There’s going to be enough comment about Islamofascists here so I’ll just mention the other side for now.
The so-called “christian” Fundamentalists, the flat-earthers and all the other assorted dangerous loonies in the United States were losing ground throughout 2007 [and maybe in one day in 2008, Satan would have leaped out of Hell and claimed them all as his own - one can only hope].
Now, this assassination will reinvigorate them. For them, it will become proof that there are no “progressive” Moslems and any that do emerge get killed.
For them, it will be a call to Crusade again to wipe out the Saracens in the name of The Lord [and cheap petrol every gaad-fearin', red-blaaded pilgrim who goes on Crusade too]. Wiping out the abortionists, the fornicators, the papists, the atheists, the impious and those who vote Democrat can be put on hold for a little while.
We should be glad that this assassination happened after this year’s Hajj otherwise Mr Bush’s staunchest supporters would have had him launching an immediate missile attack that would have left Mecca as nothing but a luminescent expanse of glazed rocks.
My first thought, when I heard the news, was of a similar assassination in Serajevo in 1914.
” of a similar assassination in Serajevo in 1914.”
Not really, there are no allegiances to call upon, Bhutto only stood for Bhutto.
she was killed because she was seen as too close to the USa and espoused western values.
As a politican Bhutto was not to good but at least she was elected.
What an astonishing comment from Graham Bell. A classic case of blaming the victim. No it wasn’t the fault of inherently violent islamists, but of the fundamentalist christians (presumably he means groups like Hillsong and the Exclusive Brethren), flat-earthers (code for global warming skeptics), and dangerous loonies in the US (presumably the Republican Party). He’d be more honest if he’d just named these people outright. But hey, honesty is an unknown trait among the left “intelligentsia”. Let’s just turn everything on its head – black means white, yes means no, etc.
I think about the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that it was moslem on moslem violence. Entirely self-contained.
I suspect we can kiss goodbye to the Australia/Pakistan test series, too.
We don’t want these nutballs running loose in the West. We ought to be suspending male muslim tourism and immigration to this Continent. That way we can loosen restrictions on our own freedom.
It appears to me that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are just too big for a Muslim country. Look at what the magic of competitive federalism has done to the United Arab Emirates?
Peaceful. Economically productive. Wealth accumulation the likes of which it’s hard to find anywhere else.
Actually if you look at the setup of the blokes who invented modern capitalism… that is to say the Dutch….. in their formation and during their Golden years they had a setup not unlike the Emirates.
So competitive federalism is something we can all benefit from. But in the case of the Muslims, if they mess with us we ought to affect things such they are cut up into the tiniest principalities. The irony would be that after splitting them into the smallest possible nations they would likely outstrip us economically. But I can live with that. So long as these nutballs have to go through a dozen principalities to get to the West I’m ok with that.
The pharmacist was right of course. This is the most sexist bigoted philosophy imagineable. Its disgraceful that feminism has been silent on this one. The girls ought to have been sending us white feathers in the mail. But instead your average leftist feminist ends up making excuses for terrorism.
Hopefully this will empower moderate Muslims. Enough is enough basically, they must now decide not to return to their hideouts but take on the extremists themselves. The moderates can be judged to have been too tolerant of the extremist elements in their midst and this is the price they pay. Now they must fight harder than ever to demonstrate to the minority extremists that they will not have their religion and culture over run by fundanutters. If they don’t, if they scurry away into the corners, then Pakistan is in real trouble and that is going to be a big problem for all of us.
This won’t empower them. It will do just the opposite. It will put them in fear and make them side with the extremists.
One might hope that it will empower us. Or at least the Europeans. The Europeans ought to be taking control of their situation. Even that would seem to be a bit too much to ask for.
We can expect more of this sort of thing while the surge is on. While the surge is on the terrorists cannot make much head-way in Baghdad. Hence they will try and make progress elsewhere.
Homer is correct. What is unclear is how it will play out. Benazir stepped into politics after the execution of her father. I wonder if any family member or close associate is going to step into her shoes.
Can’t see it happening. It would take more than just stones – it’d require a deathwish, I think.
“For them, it will become proof that there are no “progressive†Moslems ”
Don’t see the logic here.
“and any that do emerge get killed.”
Well that seems to be the case. In Pakistan.
she was killed because she was seen as too close to the USA and espoused western values.
Like father like daughter. I wonder what officials may have been involved unofficially of course. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with a slipping hold on power. There are anti-modern forces everywhere in this country, it’s arguable that Pakistan will never become a modern state.
actually looking at voting patterns in Pakistan until the latest military rule came along ‘radical ‘ islamic parties hardly got any votes at all
For them, it will become proof that there are no “progressive†Moslems â€
You’ve got to understand that progressiveness or modernity comes with modern education. Pakistan is a country with a small elite who enjoy the privileges of a medieval elite (ie the whole economy is geared for them) and most of the people are agrarian peasants ruled by religion, superstition, fear and tradition. Anyone trying to modernize the place faces the ire of reactionaries in their own class who can mobilize the fear of the populace against them.
I know Ghandi isn’t popular ’round here but his strategy was sound in that it adopted much of what was traditional. It made his attempts to transform aspects of Indian society more palatable. Perhaps that’s what’s required. Unfortunately Pakistan’s Ghandi will have to deal with Jihadists who have enough knowledge of the modern world to spoil that strategy. The only suitable response is:
AAAARRRRRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Is a puzzlement.
actually looking at voting patterns in Pakistan until the latest military rule came along ‘radical ‘ islamic parties hardly got any votes at all
Yeah they don’t. It’s around 5%. But that doesn’t matter, they have the mandate of God.
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.
Her hope and courage will inspire many to triumph over hardship and injustice .
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?
It’s the willingness to blow themselves up that’s a problem. You only need three fifths of fuck-all people who think they’re God’s instrument or whatever and there’s going to be trouble.
“I wonder what officials may have been involved unofficially of course.”
You said it, Adrien. This stinks of ISI work, like her brother’s assassination might have been. They’ve opposed her and the PPP for a very long time.
My suspicions are heightened by the unusual method – shooting then explosion – and also by the ability of the assassin to get past huge amounts of security.
The ISI had their fingers in the Taliban pie for yonks. My suspicion at the moment is Al Qaeda with friends. Mind you, Bhutto was being incredibly cavalier about personal security – there was no-one around her car – during the first attack she kept popping up on top of an unarmored bus to wave at people. Perfectly explicable of course, but clearly presenting a target.
This is sad about Bhutto. I can’t believe she left herself so vulnerable though.
The question is how did the murderous lunatic make it so close to her. Were the security forces involved?
How can we rely on them to ensure the nukes are safely behind closed “doors”.
My suspicion at the moment is Al Qaeda with friends.
I hope you’re not going to be saying the same thing if a nuke device goes off in the west.
this is a very dangerous time, especially when the American President’s foreign policy is bascially in tatters.
I don’t know if Ms Bhutto was a moderate or not, or corrupt or not, or whether this is due to Jihadists or Crusaders etc. We should spare a thought though for the people of Pakistan who no doubt would like to have a peaceful political environment where extreme violence has no part to play.
How can we rely on them to ensure the nukes are safely behind closed “doorsâ€.
We can’t.
In fact after the Soviet meltdown there’s possibly a few loose nukes out there already.
Joy!
Sinclair says: We should spare a thought though for the people of Pakistan who no doubt would like to have a peaceful political environment where extreme violence has no part to play.
Average Pakistani says: Peaceful political environment? Que? Please explain?
Okay just for some light comedy relief let’s have some words from this enlightened blog pundit:
Oh lovely. I reckon we should have this dude ’round for milk and cookies.
Anyway before someone goes all kill-the-towelheads ballistic there’s some more considered viewpoints as well:
Please note the headlines of this woman’s blog says against fundamentalism, for humanism. Where’s there’s humanism, there’s hope.
And this as well (please note link contains some pretty gritty pix):
Later updated to note that al-Qaeda took responsibility for the attack. I wonder however what that actually means. If Mushariff wanted to kill Bhutto and blame it on al-Qaeda thereby justifying a further crackdown and perpetuation of military rule what’s to stop him? The guy was going to lock up Imrahn Khan f’r Chrissakes!
Al Quaedas nothing more than a brand-name. An off-the-shelf brand when a regime or regime-faction needs a patsy. Or when Westerners don’t want to deal with regime involvement.
It just means “Sunni-Terrorism”
They were once a small multi-lateral setup. But almost all of the original crowd is dead or in prison.
Whyisitso [5]:
Kindly read my post again; I wasn’t blaming but explaining and predicting. BBCLsB [on post No. 4] was right on the money: Bhutto was probably killed because the gutless mongrels thought she was too “Western”.
Holy rapture! This is a blog, not an encyclopaedia or a directory. Don’t expect me to name each and every every $trip-minin’-for-Je$u$ group or $plinter “church”. If you don’t like the generalization. Bad luck. Oh, by the way, you didn’t say anything about my comment on the implications of this assassination; is there a particular view you wished to express?.
Deus Ex Machina [6]
Sadly, unlike some of the high-level political assassinations in the Middle East, this one in Pakistan probably can’t be contained.
Boris [14];
It is impossible to put fundamentalists and logic together; logic is anathema to them; they have belief and perception instead of logic – whether the fundamentalists are “christian” or “moslem”.
You and I and everyone else knows that there probably are millions of progressive or moderate Moslems in the world, many of whom are strong believers in their own faith…. however, the “christian” fanatics and fundamentalists don’t want to be confronted with that fact. They want – perhaps even demand – a perception of a tiny handful of saintly democracy-loving pro-American Moslems surrounded by the screaming murderous fundamentalist friends of Osama bin-Laden who, in their skewed view, make up the rest of the Moslem world. Such a false perception would be used as an excuse to attack Moslems under the pretence of saving civilization. This assassination would surely gladden the hearts of “christian” fundamentalists.
SkepticLawyer [7];
I hope the Australia-Pakistan cricket test does take place. If it did, it would mean my prediction of a conflagration was wrong …. and on this, I would prefer to be wrong.
GMB:
Good point about the Emirates.
Well I dunno Graham, I thought your post was pretty indicative of a mindset that is much more frightened of American rednecks then anything else. I think Whyisitso’s post calling you out was pretty good.
Since you’re so keen on predictions, I’ll match you with one of my own- in two weeks, this will have all boiled over.
It’s a tragedy for the victims of this swinish attack, but it’s very much a part of Pakistani history for this sort of thing to happen. Her father died at the hangman’s noose after being at the wrong end of a military coup. My reaction was a) whatever the rights and wrongs of her political career, she didn’t deserve this, and b) thankfully I live in a country where political figures don’t get shot and blown up by nutcases.
As for the cricket, the word from Cricket Australia is that they’ll make up their mind in two months time, which seems sensible to me. I certainly would like the tour to go ahead- so far, the Muslims have not turned against cricket, which is something to be thankful for.
Scott [31]:
Of course I am frightened of incompetent American “rednecks” and similar fake “christian” loonies. Given their appalling track record and their often stated intentions, who wouldn’t be frightened of them?.
Likewise, I am just as frightened of ratbags misusing their own religion – Islam – for personal and political gain. These ruthless mongrels are happy to send their fellow Moslems off to kill themselves in the false belief that they are dying for their religion. These ruthless mongrels are happy to drag everyone back to the savage and brutal 7th Century tribal world of their imagination. Don’t they frighten you too?
Unless firm action is taken to stop them, it is likely both evil groups will get access to, or influence the use of, nuclear weapons sooner or later. A pox on both lots.
I do hope you are right and that this whole thing blows over in the next fortnight [= 2 weeks] and in other times it would have done just that. The situation now is rather different and , in my opinion, there are too many rewards for escalating the tragedy and too few for calming things down.
b.t.w.,[1] a single prediction does not make anyone “keen on predictions” as you put it; and, [2] Whyisitso did not call me out – there was plenty of scorn chucked at me but no challenge …. and no useful contribution by him/her to the discussion either.
I think this assissination has more to do with power politics, domestic and international, than with classical religious fanaticism.
I’m not fond of religious nutters of any persuasion either, Graham, but I do think Scott and Whyisitso’s point about the dangers of ‘immoral equivalency’ is well made. Basically, our religious nutters aren’t as bad as their religious nutters.
I agree with SL.
http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/
Good piece by Christopher Hitchens on the tpic, worth a read.
SkepticLawyer [34] and Boris [35]:
Really would like to agree with you …. but I keep thinking of the Crusades [both Holy Land and Northern], the Thirty Years War, the Nazis, the Jonestown massacre and the Waco,TX siege …. Over the centuries, The West too has had some real monsters using religion as their excuse for brutality.
My own preference would be for getting rid the Al-Qaeda-inspired and the Taliban-inspired groups first while keeping a very tight control [in detention would be nice] on so-called “christian” fanatics in The West. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect and if there was a powerful response by The West to whatever strife arises in the wake of this assassination, it would be seen as a licence for the “christian” fundamentalists to do whatever they liked, no matter how abominable. We have already seen how they influenced the United States military to trample all over the Geneva Convention and all other standards of civilized behavior. In a general war, they would have the US military outdo the Nazis in brutality because, in their perverted belief – “God wills It” – and they do have the influence to enforce their views on the US military..
Maybe the way to go would be to round up ALL “religious” extremists in The West, of whatever persuasion, as well as their political puppets; intern them all together; issue each with cudgels and bludgeons to beat the daylights out of each other …. then get on with fighting a general war free from interference by them, if it becomes necessary to fight a general war.
Panadawn [36];
Thanks for that link. It must be remembered that she was a politician; she did tell lies, she did deceive, she did have her hand in the till …. however, probably the penny drop for her on the lack of democracy – or at least concern for the welfare of ordinary people – and the rise of the fanatics.
There’s a discussion going on at Larvatus Prodeo on a similar topic. Some worthwhile comments amongst the dross there. Worth a read.
Graham, I should amend/withdraw my statement. I have no intention of judging who is worse. I just dont think it was appropriate to refer to Christian fundamentalists in the wake of this brutal murder (can murder not be brutal?)
Moreover this may have little to do with fanatics of any type. Power politics.
Yikes, Graham’s pretty harsh even for a leftie:
“while keeping a very tight control [in detention would be nice] on so-called “christian†fanatics in The West.”
So, we’ll just lock up people indefinitely for their religious opinions, Graham? And who do you ‘define’ these fanatics? Creationists? Modernists? People that vote Republican? GMB?
Excuse me for being cynical, Graham, but you strike me as being as ‘fanatical’ as these Christians that you dread so much
I wonder who does have the worst religious nutters in history. Malcolm X charged the white man as being the greatest murderer in history. “He can’t deny the charges,” he said. At the time I heard it, I agreed. But then I thought about it and realized it’s an award that probably goes to Asians.
Congratulations.
So if you actually reviewed the issue systematically; who would turn out to have the worst religious nutters? How would you define your terms? One thing about this Jihadist business is that it’s an awful lot of fear over not all that much.
Gallipolli ate up many more lives than terrorists ever did.
Bhutto supporters protest senseless violence.
The only reason Gallipolli ate up so many lives is that the future Ataturk was in charge of defending that sector on 25 April 1915. Had it been your usual buffoon from the Turkish Army, we’d have done much better, despite the tough terrain and dodgy British officers.
Malcolm X was just a boofheaded political activist. Anyone that makes Mark Latham look like a beacon of sense and reason is really off the reservation, and, to boot, Malcolm X was an African-American supremacist, which is just as foul as a white supremacist.
Malcolm X eventually rejected pan-Africanism. Considering his history I find it hard to judge the man for adhering to the blue-eyed devil notion.
Have you read ? It’s hardly a rant.
And the point about Gallipolli might also include reference to the fact that it was s’posed to be a surprise. That it wasn’t is best illustrated by Blackadder IV
Boris [39]:
Probably like you, I feel that the cause of this assassination was indeed power politics [even though that is still only a firm suspicion at this stage ]. However, what is very likely to arise as a result of this assassination is a widening conflict, a conflict fuelled and driven by the insanity of religious fundamentalism on both sides.
I mentioned so-called “christian” fundamentalists first up – not to give balance in the discussion here [evil does not have to be balanced] – but to point out that they should not be omitted, as a factor, from any thinking on possible outcomes of this tragedy.
Scott [40]:
Why on earth did you assume I was a “leftie”? L-O-L. Yes, I did speak out on returning David Hicks to Australia …. that was on practical military, political, national sovereignty and rule-of-Law grounds …. if any “lefties” also wanted him returned on other grounds then so be it; they’re allowed to get thing right occasionally.
“Preventative Detention”? Why the concern? It happens every day of the week and nobody even bats an eyelid. [You're not a member of a fanatical cult and so in danger of being rounded up yourself, are you?] Don’t tell me that if this develops into a general war, you would be happy to have all sorts of threats to national security, such as religious fanatics, wandering your streets, would you?
Lock up GMB? Hell no. We would need someone to run a wartime economy.
The difference between those who are determined and resolute and the fanatics is that the former [such as myself] can be persuaded, by verifiable evidence and the suchlike, to change our minds …. in contrast to the latter, the fanatics, who are incapable of changing their minds, not ever; that’s why they are fanatics; logic and proof mean nothing to them..
Graham. Take a chill powder. There isn’t going to be a ‘general war’ from this assassination.
So let me get this straight? You want to have religious fanatics locked up- but only the Christian ones, as they are the obvious threats to our national security.
You have any verifiable evidence to suggest that there’s a danger to Australia’s national security from our Christian Fundamentalist community? Kevin Rudd says he takes this Christian stuff seriously, should we lock him up?
I’m not a member of a fanatical cult, unless you count my support of the cricket team.
Scott [46];
Who knows what will emerge from this assassination? A widened conflict? A wake-up call for devout responsible Moslems to reclaim their religion from the fundamentalists and other evil-doers?
Rounding up and interning potential threats to national security is standard procedure if a general war looms. Extremists claiming to be Moslems are just as likely to be rounded up as extremists claiming to be “christian” …. and a lot of perfectly innocent people could get swept up to …. but didn’t you like my suggestion, back on post 37, of issuing cudgels to the internees so that they could sort out their religious differences with enthusiasm behind barbed-wire?
Everyone:
The Pakistani government report of how Benazir Bhutto may have died is credible. I wonder at the field experience of journalists who expect to find only shrapnel wounds or gunshot wounds. When an explosion happens, sometimes people are killed by falling masonry or by a secondary fire or by vehicles being thrown into a lane of fast traffic or by electrocution or in a dozen and one other ways. I find nothing particularly suspicious in the news report that she died by her head hitting the vehicle roof.
It’s not looking good for Pakistan. And the fools in opposition are now talking about boycotting an election. What would be the point in that? It seems the only “democracy” that the opposition wants is one where their opponents doesn’t run. Sigh.
Religious fanatics aren’t a problem if they’re libertarian religious fanatics. It’s only the socialist religious fanatics that cause trouble because they believe in using force to create their utopia.
One of the reasons that christian wackos have been relatively less dangerous in the last century is that more of them have rejected socialism and have at least some respect for freedom.
John Humphries [48]:
Boycotting the elections in Pakistan would be to hand an unearned victory to the terrorists. Taking part in an election, even an unfair one accompanied by civil disturbances, would be better than not taking part in an election at all.
With due respect, I don’t think “religious” fanatics can be divided into simply libertarian or socialist – it’s a lot more complex than that.
More important factors are: [i] number of adherents and the degree of their fanaticism, [ii]amount and type of resources, from money to technology, available to the movements’ leaders and how they are utilized; [iii] type of ideology/cult/belief system; [iv] specific opportunities available at that time; [v] behavior of their enemies, especially manifest displays of weaknesses. [v] degree of regime control over the activities of those groups which could divert or destabilize the regime. [vi] timing, extent and nature of the use of violence; [vii] willingness of the general populace to resist the fanatics …. etc., etc..
No doubt there are a many other factors, each more important than whether a movement of fanatics tends to be more socialist or more libertarian.
I don’t think Pakistan has any hope with people like Musharaf, or Nawaz Sharif, nor it had much hope with Bhutto for that matter. All these leaders have been in power several times and failed quite miserably. Pakistan badly needs new political leaders who are yet to emerge. PPP was run very autocratically and there is no obvious successor for Bhutto there.
I can understand why Sharif wants to boycott elections under a dictatorship where the Supreme Court judges and lawyers are under arrest. For him to take part there has to be a minimum standard to these elections, and also some security protection.
“It seems the only “democracy†that the opposition wants is one where their opponents doesn’t run. Sigh.”
This is nonsense. Shairf wasn’t boycotting elections when he faced Bhutto.
Boris [50]:
You are right about the bunch of crooks who have ruined Pakistan …. the only trouble is that when fresh new leaders do emerge, they may not be the sort of people who you would like to invite home for dinner.
ScepticLawyer:
If you do happen to see that pharmacist in Edinburgh again, please urge him to be hopeful.
So long as there are good people like him who do care, there is indeed hope.
The situation may be grim but it is not completely hopeless.
The successor to Bhutto is her son who is only 19.
how tragic.
Sad that the PPP felt they had to have a Bhutto in place, no matter what. Though perhaps it’s a cynical sympathy-vote-getter.
Dude. The party is Bhutto family property.
Benazir became party Chairman for life. She was President of Pakistan at the age of 35. A women President of one of the most extremist Muslim nations at the age of 35.
Her party were not going to nominate anyone other than a member of the diminishing family that owns the party.
No it’s a cultural lag over from a monarchical age. It’s another indicator of the aclk of certain attributes in Pakistani culture necessary to a functioning democracy. Obviously a 19 year old is not qualified to lead a party and the only reason he would get so appointed is because of his name.
This shows that they don’t yet get it. India had the same problem. Indonesia and of course North Korea are other examples of ‘republican’ monarchy.
No its NOT a cultural hangover.
Don’t be an idiot. Fucking everything you say is idiotic. And this is a particularly unrealistic and condescending contention of yours.
The Bhutto family owns the party. Political infighting in a large democracy is too hard a racket to be entrusting everything to a 19 year old Law Student.
Get real.
Its got nothing to do with any bullshit about cultural hangovers.
Of course it is a cultural hangover.
It is why the Congress party next door always needs a handy Ghandi
Political infighting in a large democracy is too hard a racket to be entrusting everything to a 19 year old Law Student.
What large democracy would that be Graeme?
We are talking about Pakistan. Pakistan is not a democracy. Do you know what a democracy is? Do you know what the word ‘cultural’ means? Do you know how to spell your own name?
No?
You do it this way
F-U-C-K-H-E-A-D
Now let’s review. Bhutto’s Dad was head honcho, he got strung up. Bhutto was head honcho she got the boot and then shot when she tried to get back her job. Now Bilawal’s gonna head the party. Why? What’s his qualification? His years of experience? His indepth knowledge of politics? His willingness to get shot perchance.
Nay sir, nay.
It’s the name Bhutto. Which is what you mean by the PPP is Bhutto family property. It’s not literally Bhutto family property like the house in Tarbella or the Lear Jet or whatever. It’s a political faction headed by the Bhuttos.
Now which of the following governmental systems features political factions dominated by families:
a. Liberal democracy
b. Artistocracy/Monarchy
And which of the following governmental systems dominated India/Pakistan before the shift to a modern republican system?
a. Liberal democracy
b. Artistocracy/Monarchy
Do you see the logic here? No of course you don’t.
It’s a shame Graeme, it’s a shame. If only the Bird-Macquarie clan had not recombined their DNA with warthogs and geraniums for so many centuries you might’ve been a useful mammal.
You might’ve been useful.
You might’ve been a mammal.
No its not a cultural hangover. If anything it shows the intense crony capitalism of these countries. That you can have people who can spend all their time in politics and their money makes money while they sleep.
Her official position in the party was “Chairman For Life”. Now that takes a lot of money to run a party on the basis that no other fucker can even daydream about being the top man.
you might even take a look at the parties in Bangladesh at well.
quite cultural
Graeme I hear they have a sale on reasonably decent second-hand brains in Oxford St tomorrow. I think you should hurry in and snatch one. It could be your last chance.
And you can get some new David Hasselfhoff fan mags while you’re at ity. Woof woof.
Go away Adrien. We don’t need idiot leftist threadwreckers like you and fatty around here.
Fucking going out of your way to grind the forum into mindlessness.
Do something Jason.
Look there might be some cultural aspect to it. But make your case Homer.
Its all about crony capitalism. Families get superrich and no longer have to do anything to stay that way. Hence several families tie up all of politics. Nothing cultural about that except the culture of corruption and lack of clarity in property rights.
Something that the neoclassicals appear to want to foist on us here too.
Buy make your case. If you don’t think its something in the way that a relatively few people lock up all the wealth then make a good case of it.
Graeme you could write a book about what you know it would consist of the word Duh printed thirty three million times.
Relatively few people, tying up all the wealth.
Aw gee. Let’s see what kind of system is that called? Mmmm. Artistocracy. That’s it. And when people who occasionally have the vote persist in voting in an aristocracy…
WHAT IS THAT?
It’s a feature of a culture where the aristocratic mode of government is thought legitimate. Indeed it is thought as the only legitimate form. Therefore people must be in this or that family to get elected…
Which is what I mean by: it’s a cultural lag over from a monarchical age.
But of course spending all your time either gazing longingly at Baywatch reruns or sticking your own head in your bottom you fail to see this and start another argument you can’t possibly win.
Just for that I’m gonna be really mean. The car in Nightrider Graeme, doesn’t really talk.
So you knew the right answer all along but put it entirely down to “cultural” infantilism instead.
Go away Adrien.
We don’t need any threadwreckers around here. And take that cut-and-paste artist fatty-loony with you.
I asked Graeme earlier if he knew what the word cultural meant.
As demonstrated by #65, the answer is no.
Go away idiot. There is no calling for threadwreckers around these parts.
Go away idiot. There is no calling for threadwreckers around these parts.
Wow this is serious. Graeme’s starting to talk to himself.
You are an idiot. You are a threadwrecker. Go away.
We don’t need mindless threadwreckers areound here.
Apparently young Bilawal’s gonna finish up at Oxford before assuming the reigns. Talk about job wait after my graduation. See Graeme this is the mark of an aristocracy. Not only do the members of the rights families get the head gig without ever having to compete, they don’t even have to suffer the incovenience of sacrifice.
Graeme?
Graeme?
You are an idiot. You are a threadwrecker. Go away.
We don’t need mindless threadwreckers areound here.
Still talking to himself.
Hint: You don’t need the internet for that. Just lock yourself in the outhouse or something.
Its not quite like that Adrien. Its not a formal ARISTOCRACY with a whole class of people with special rules.
There’s no Sir wanker this and Sir penishead that. You are still fixated with blaming the British.
ITS CRONY CAPITALISM. AND THIS FAMILY OWNS THIS PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY.
They don’t have aristocratic position apart from their wealth and that fact.
Sir John Falstaff was a Knight who at first managed to flatter one of the two merry wives of Windsor. Though he was skint and was counting on these sheilas to fortify his purse as it were. A sort of two-way-deal.
But he could not have OWNED a political party in the way that the Bhutto family owns that party. His Aristocratic status wouldn’t count for shit.
In Pakistan there are civilian cronies and army cronies and thats it. The rest of them live shit lives.
Now we have the faint shadow of this haunting our society.
We must go for capitalism instead. Homesteading and a better way to privatise have to be a big part of the program.
And even a touch-of-Land-tax has to be part of it.
The combination of a mild land-tax and growth deflation monetary policy would end the crony-stranglehold in a country like Pakistan.
“In Pakistan there are civilian cronies and army cronies and thats it. The rest of them live shit lives.
Now we have the faint shadow of this haunting our society”
You commie filth. Capitalism is very well developed and works, Graeme. For one thing because we have competitive banks (working on fractional reserve) as opposed to village moneylenders. If you can’t tell the difference between Pakistani feudalism and modern Australian capitalism, you’re not fit to comment on economics.
We DON’T have competitive banks. We have a banking system cocooned in welfarism and mega-regulation.
And we sure as shit don’t have capitalism.
What are you talking about Jason. You are living in another parallel universe on this one.
Shit don’t these goddam lefties like to run the leftist reversal on a fella?
Jason.
What do you think “a faint shadow…” means?
I don’t think its Pakistani feudalism?
I don’t see that so far?
I think its crony-capitalism mixed with militarism.
You see I think the lot of you have to get past this British inheritance mindset.
This is your normal cronyism going on here. Lack of clarity in property rights and cronyism.
Nomiantion of the new PPP leader is so ridiculous it beggars belief. Just shows that even the most sane political force in the country is… well, insane.
Tragic, but not wholy surprising.
Its not a formal ARISTOCRACY with a whole class of people with special rules.
There’s no Sir wanker this and Sir penishead that. You are still fixated with blaming the British.
I haven’t mentioned the British. The Bhutto patriarch was Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto; here’s his colours. I don’t think Shah Nawaz means wanker or penishead but he was still a feudal ruler. He established a political party; the Tories are a political party and they were established by Sir Penishead and co. If it happens it Britain why not Pakistan?
In Pakistan there are civilian cronies and army cronies and thats it. The rest of them live shit lives.
Really? Tell me about it Graeme? I used to live there. My parents met there. My brothers were born there. And your extensive experience is?
Pakistan is, like many countries around the world, undergoing that transition from Agrarian Civilization to Modern Industrial Civilization. The former is characterized by:
- An entrenched ruling elite whose state is heritable.
- Most people work on the land in the primary sector.
Religion runs the place, there’s little by way of education etc etc. The culture of the place backs this up. So the Bhutto clan being an aristocratic family are thought to be legitimate rulers. This culture of aristocracy is something that is deeply appealing to humans: look at the Kennedy clan, the Bushes, the Clintons. Look at how many of our own members of parliament have relatives who’ve been in the game.
The difference between modern countries and old style regimes is that in modern countries there are checks and balances to place limits on cronyism. This is a process. We’re much further along this path than Pakistan. One reason is that culturally there’s broad support for it. If one of Bob Hawke’s kids said: I should be Prime Minister ’cause I’m Hawke’s kid, we’d say: so?
But in Pakistan a 19 year old law student who’s entire experience of politics is Student Council becomes the leader of the country’s main party by default.
So what you’re calling cronyism is pretty much the same as what I’m calling aristocracy, just for some reason you want to create a shitfight out of semantics.
Incidentally aristocracy takes on many forms, not just the English model.
You are living in another parallel universe on this one.
Yes Graeme. Jason lives in a parallel universe on the planet Earth. In this Universe CO2 causes warming.
He wasn’t a feudal ruler at all.
He was basically a rich guy who started a political party that was meant to be his families property and all policy was to that end.
Thats not feudalism. Under feudalism your Lords are basically WAR-LORDS in a garrison situation.
Its not like that. Its more a crony-capitalism deal.
If there are feudal turfs its more like the army as one “territory” and Pakistani intelligence as another fiefdom.
You ought not confuse these two highly different systems.
If it was feudal territories that could be a good thing. You could just convince folks of the righteousness of free trade between territories.
Its just cronyism. Lack of clarity in property rights. And the government and the private sector in incestuous partnership.
“Yes Graeme. Jason lives in a parallel universe on the planet Earth. In this Universe CO2 causes warming”
Where’s your evidence for that?
You’ve got no fucking evidence at all.
Its just cronyism. Lack of clarity in property rights. And the government and the private sector in incestuous partnership.
Yes completely different from feudalism, Graeme you’re absolutely right.
Right.
Exactly true.
So it pays to have a bit of intellectual precision here.
Don’t screw it up again.
Everyone:
Geez. I better not comment here again …. or someone might call me rude names and question the quality of my DNA.
Anyway, Happy New Year …. and I hope happiness comes to the ordinary people of Pakistan in 2008.
If you lot want to understand the social and political situation in Pakistan, why don’t you do some careful research first then post the results here, with appropriate references, rather than just hang around here exchanging insults?
Why don’t you do that and get back to us Tim.
I’m willing to listen to what people come up with. But a lot of these guys just go with their first impressions and stick to that no matter what.
I don’t quite know where these allegations of feudalism and cultural infantilsm is coming from. But I just suspect its a spin-off from the ‘blame imperialism’ obsession.
If they were then to justify this way of looking at things I’d take it on board.
All I see is immense cronyism and corruption.
Tim says: why don’t you do some careful research first then post the results here, with appropriate references, rather than just hang around here exchanging insults?
A: Because he’s Goyum Montgomery Turkey dagnabbit!
Graeme says: But a lot of these guys just go with their first impressions and stick to that no matter what.
Unlike you who has displayed such deftness of mind and the uncanny capacity to evolve intellectually.
Graeme also says: I don’t quite know where these allegations of feudalism and cultural infantilsm is coming from. But I just suspect its a spin-off from the ‘blame imperialism’ obsession
Because Graeme thinks that only place in the world that had feudalism was merry old England. Graeme doesn’t realise that what is now Pakistan had elaborate aristocratic hierarchies when his ancestors amused themselves by defecating in their hands and pitching it at one another (ie yesterday).
And I’ve never said jackshit about ‘imperialism’ (you do realise that imperialism goes a lot further back in India/Pakistan than the British don’t you?) Or ‘infantilism’ (you do realize that India/Pakistan had a great civilization cooking when the miserable old UK were still sleeping with their dogs and eating moss don’t you?)
Don’t you?
You mean there’s something you don’t know????
Shock!
Horror!
There’s something Graeme doesn’t know.
What Graeme doesn’t know could almost fit into the super black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. Almost.
You are an idiot Adrien. You are a mindless threadwrecker. You are dead wood. You never have anything to offer.
So bugger off.
But if you are determined to stay make a case of some sort.
Better still take up Timothy’s suggestion. Its better to go and check it out then to just go and make things up all the time.
Exactly what am I making up Monty? I have made a case. All you’ve done is offer some semantic hairsplitting re. cronyism vs aristocracy. Here’s the news dickhead: aristocracy is cronyism. It’s dressed up, it has a nice red sash, there’s lots of honorifics and courts-martials over which way you pass the bloody port and you better not have a black bottle of moselle on the table but…
It’s cronyism. And the culture of Pakistan is one in which
cronyismaristocracy is regarded as the legitimate form of government hence the appointment of Wetnose Bhutto to the head of the PPP.To illustrate,a quote from the third series of Blackadder:
Sir Talbot Buxomly: (To the Prince of Wales) I care not a jot that you are the son of a certified sauerkraut-sucking loon! It minds not me that you dress like a mad parrot and talk like a plate of beans negotiating their way out of a cow’s digestive system. It is no skin off my rosy nose that there are bits of lemon peel floating down the Thames that would make better Regents than you.The fact is, you are Regent appointed by God, and I shall stick by you forever, though infirmity lay me waste and ill health curse my every waking moment.
See. This is the essence of aristocracy/cronyism. The merit of a personnage is irrellevant sir; ’tis his name that is the weight of all consideration. That is why young Bhutto is head of the PPP now. His name is actually Zardari (from his papa.). However he’s changed it back to Bhutto. Why is this Monty? It is so because the Bhuttos possess the patrician glamour; it is for the same reason that Octavian and all Roman princeps since acquired the surname of his great grand uncle. But who knows maybe young Bilawal’ll be brilliant. Maybe he’ll be the Pakistani Pitt the 2nd.
There is also an excerpt from the third Blackadder series that brilliantly illustrates the status of GMB. Here it is:
- The most extraordinary thing happened. Last night, I was having a bit of a snack at the Naughty Hellfire Club, and some fellow said that I had the wit and sophistication of a donkey.
- Oh, an absurd suggestion, sir.
- You’re right, it is absurd.
- Unless, of course, it was a particularly stupid donkey.
You’re a threadwrecker. And you are not even funny.
If you want to spin out the feudalism analogy more go right ahead. I don’t see it except perhaps near the Afghanistan border or something.
Because I see that feudalism as GEOGRAPHICALLY TERRITORIAL.
Whereas cronyism is territorial in terms of industries and government departments.
You are just incapable of backing up anything you say. You are one low-wattage individual.
No you have it all wrong. The Bhutto family owns the party.
This is not some sort of mass-behaviour of stupid muslim man-children still kneeling in the chains of the ghosts of the British Raj… dreaming like small children do of the splendour of a latter day youthful version of Queen Victoria…. Empress of India and the High Seas.
This is cronyism in business which leads to political fiefdoms.
Because I see that feudalism as GEOGRAPHICALLY TERRITORIAL.
Whereas cronyism is territorial in terms of industries and government departments
So what? The link is in terms of the socio-political structures that underpin what decisions are made, how they are made and by whom they are made. In essence industries, land it makes no difference.
But this is about a cultural mindset in which certain persons are deemed born to rule by reason of their familial heritage: the Bhuttos go back a long way. Snotnose Bhutto’s great-grandfather was a feudal lord. Sure the modern world’s come along and changed that some but essentially? No.
And for the last fucking time you brain-damaged donkey’s butt I am not talking about the British: Raj, Queen Victoria or anything bloody else.
The thing is you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Why your hairsplitting decisions are significant is beyond me, its beyond you too. Everything’s beyond you Graeme except for the nearest plate of pork chops.
No.
Totally different. Simple cronyism/corruption/lack of clarity in property rights is a totally different scenario from the medieval feudal system.
There’s no need to bring intellectual sloppiness into it.
However if you can make some sort of limited case for things being more akin to feudalism in some limited areas then go right ahead.
Its important to get these things right so we can recognise cronyism in our own midsts.
This reminds me of your filibuster on what constituted an ice age. Like you purposely wanted to bring in intellectual sloppiness and confusion for no known reason except to throw sand in the wheels.
Now either make a case or stop the pro-sloppiness filibuster.
Simple cronyism/corruption/lack of clarity in property rights is a totally different scenario from the medieval feudal system.
Yes feudal systems have clarity in property rights. Youn have no rights to property as Lord Fatbotty owns the lot. There is no corruption because cronyism is legitimate and therefore there’s no need to circumvent the checks and balances of a modern state to facilitate it.
The Bhuttos (and others) do circumvent said checks and balances because they must do so in order to persist as the elite entity they have always been. There’s no discreet division Graeme one period or way of doing things doesn’t end precisely on this date and another begin here.
I’m not even sure there’s anything to argue about you simply persist in refusing to see my point.
Like you purposely wanted to bring in intellectual sloppiness and confusion for no known reason except to throw sand in the wheels.
The prupose of my ice age filibuster was to try and see if you knew what you were talking about or were merely just repeating something you read on a blog somewhere.
There are two ways of defining an ‘ice age’
1. The commonly understood one: a period of large amounts glaciation such as the one that ended about 12 000 years ago, and
2. The climatological definition which is a much larger period in which the poles are covered in ice.
By this last definition it’s right to say we are in an ice age. However when you add, as you do, the qualifiers: brutal and pulverizing you are inferring that we are in a glaciation period which we are not.
I stuck my neck out again and again on this. All you had to do to chop it off was link to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age
But you didn’t. Someone else did. Why is that Graeme? Perchance were you afeared that the wikipedia page would prove you full of shit? I don’t know.
But here I am not being ‘intellectually sloppy’ nor am I baiting you.
Pakistan until very recently was a feudal country. It still is mostly. Most people there still live in villages working the land as they have for thousands of years. The political culture of such places is not akin to ours. There is a limited sense, for example, of nationhood. How does one create a ‘nation’ in illiterate company where newspapers, TV, radio etc are limited in scope. Where regional loyalties outweigh national ones. Where a person’s political allegance is still to clan, to tribal chief, to local lord and to monarch.
How do you create a modern nation out of that? Answer: slowly. The Bhuttos and others have attempted to do this over time. It’s the source of all their grief.
No an ice age is those tens of millions of year periods when ice covers one or other of the poles in some substantial way.
Then you have glacials and interglacials WITHIN that ice age.
You ran a massive filibuster on this point in favour of a more confusing definition. And you did so only to throw sand in the wheels.
In what way is it a feudal country?
If it was a feudal country it would be an easier nut to crack.
Because then you could just give home rule to the regional areas and practise vigourous competitive federalism.
But its not really feudal (OR AT LEAST MAKE A FUCKING CASE WILL YOU) so its not that easy.
If it was feudal it would be a lot easier to reform.
I did so to prove you don’t know what you’re talking about dickhead.
Now back on topic.
Please illsutrate how the Bhuttos are not aristocrats/feudal lords. Please also illustrate the difference between the way a feudal system works and cronyism. Please refer to actual practise in reality on planet Earth while you do so.
Oh yes Graeme feudal countries are really easy to reform into modern states. I mean when the bourgeoisie in 14th century France objected to the raucous taxes laid upon them by the aristocracy in pursuit of various wars of fortune not to mention that business with England it was cleared up in no time. They objected, sometimes violently and look now they’re a modern country with elected government and it only took 500 years.
Grow a brain Graeme and then give it to someone who know what to do with it.
No fuck you.
You show how they ARE feudal Lords.
They are not. Otherwise the boy would be a military leader in some specific region.
You’ve got to show how I’m wrong.
Its just cronyism in business leading to political rather than territorial fiefdoms.
Its just mixing up business and government and the failure to establish capitalism via clarity in property rights.
See you are always asking for this and that. Yet you come up with nothing.
The Bhuttos don’t have special priviledges before the law. These are instead the DEFACTO priviledges of great wealth and political pull.
In an aristocracy the Nobles actually have special LEGAL priviledges in return for having to serve in the armed forces and raise arms for the King.
Graeme I am not arguing that Pakistan is in fact still a feudal state. I am arguing that the Bhutto’s status is a leftover from the feudal era which didn’t end so far back.
Learn to read.
I say: grow a brain.
Graeme says: No fuck you.
Sums him up doesn’t it.
No you are just an idiot. I’m hoping that dudes get your obstruction techniques down and make the leap to understanding how the hard left control the debate.
“Graeme I am not arguing that Pakistan is in fact still a feudal state. I am arguing that the Bhutto’s status is a leftover from the feudal era which didn’t end so far back.”
But its not. Its the result of crony-socialism that allows people to have immense wealth and land holdings and not have to work too hard for their economic position to be maintained.
This is an important point for policy in this country.
I mean it MIGHT BE to some small extent. But thats an inferior way of looking at the problem.
And plus if you want to make that case you ought to make it. The place is wall to wall Muslim and they don’t run that class system amongst eachother the way that the class system ran within greater India.
“Oh yes Graeme feudal countries are really easy to reform into modern states.”
They would be in todays context. This crony-socialism in todays context would be a much harder nut to crack.
Feudalism was destroyed mainly by gunpowder and the need to have standing armies.
So today it wouldn’t be hard to reform but why would you want to destroy it?
You’d just want each feudal territory to establish clarity in property rights, equality before the law and free trade and you’d have a fantastic situation of competitive federalism.
Everyone:
Amid all the abuse and fury, there are very good points made here.
[Who knows but this Catallaxy thread might be made required reading for South Asian History 1.03 and 2.03 - and so, good gentlefolk, your words may become immortal
]
“And plus if you want to make that case you ought to make it. The place is wall to wall Muslim and they don’t run that class system amongst eachother the way that the class system ran within greater India.”
Not an Indian-type cast system. But a very rigid class system. I have recently had a Pakistani student who was pretty smart. He told me he has no chance of getting a decently paid job because he comes from lower classes. He says they would ask if he has any connections and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t stand a chance. Even with an oil company etc. He can get a lecturer position in a university, but that is VERY poorly paid, and he won’t be able to support himself and his elderly parents.
Very interesting Boris. I was waiting for Adrien to come up with something like this.
Looks like he had a point afterall.
Are they formalised Castes like India now but particularly India of a few decades ago?
Boris [109];
True enough …. nice to see a touch of reality here, based on personal experience, that we don’t get from the mainstream media.
[Off-topic for a moment]. Do you mean that Pakistan is a bit like Australia, where upward social mobility is rather less than the social myths would have us believe?.
Bilawal Bhutto is at Christ Church. Somehow, I don’t think there’ll be a run on dining rights at that esteemed Oxford college…
Boris – He told me he has no chance of getting a decently paid job because he comes from lower classes. He says they would ask if he has any connections and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t stand a chance.
This is a problem across the whole Muslim world. In fact there’s a certain line of thought that says it’s a prime factor in terrorist recruitment. The 911 leader was an Egyptian from a poor village whose dream originally was to revive Islamic architecture in the modern context which would’ve been a fine way to spend a life. Islamic architecture is scrummy. But alas he didn’t have the right connections so he flew a plane into the World Trade Centre (as you do).
What Graeme’s failed to understand is that societies don’t just switch from feudalism to capitalism overnight. It takes years, centuries even. Two hundred years ago the franchise in the UK was so limited as to be barely worth the name. And its only recently that they nixed the peerage!
On Bilawal:
Glad to see that some of us are serious about the issues. Apparently he describes his political views as ‘liberal’. His take on Islamic Fundamentalism:
Well he’s obviously geopolitically astute. I’ve often thought that the real problem with religious fundamentalism was the poor range of choice in football chants. In fact that’s how we filter out all the extremists. We take ‘em straight from the airport to a Carlton vs Collingwood game and if they can scream out: C’arn the Blues, the Pies are a buncha faakin’ poufs – they’re in.
They’re in big trouble with Chopper Read.
Graeme says: Feudalism was destroyed mainly by gunpowder and the need to have standing armies.
And the industrial revolution and something called capitalism and something else called democracy.
You just want each feudal territory to establish clarity in property rights, equality before the law and free trade and you’d have a fantastic situation of competitive federalism.
Um I thought you said you didn’t want to destroy feudalism.
In feudalism property rights are clear. The Lord clearly owns all the property. Have you heard of something called the French Revolution? Well the French Revolution was partially caused by the fact that France was divided into a zillion little aristocratic fiefdoms and anyone doing business in France was driven crazy by thousands of tariffs, tolls and tributes. You wanna get some grapes from Bourdeaux country, take ‘em to town, press ‘em, make wine and transport the wine to Paris. Well that’s hard enough but you’d have to pay the Duc d’Stuffbeard the ancient tith for looking across at the sheep while you walk down the road, and the Viscomte de Silliwalk a tarrif because you opened the ancient gate of his forefathers (which doesn’t need to be there anyway) etc etc.
It was partially due to the fact that the aristocracy was completely unwilling to be rational (ie get rid of all these stupid, outmoded charges and conform to nationally set standards) that the Third Estate was forced to boot ‘em.
I think you need to read up some more on this.
You are just pointless fella.
Its amazing you haven’t had some sort of existential crisis yet as to your own uselessness.
But the interregional tariffs is a good point. They used to have them in India not so long ago (I’m not sure HOW long ago but it wasn’t that long ago).
Do they still have these inter-regional tariffs in Pakistan?
But the interregional tariffs is a good point. They used to have them in India not so long ago (I’m not sure HOW long ago but it wasn’t that long ago).
Do they still have these inter-regional tariffs in Pakistan?
Under todays realities an authentic feudal country would be very quick to reform.
Thats why your definition for Pakistan… without any justification until Boris helped you out…. and awaiting some finding on this inter-regional tariff question…… Thats why your definition of Pakistan is so pernicious.
Because whereas a feudal country under todays realities could reform quickly this CRONY-SOCIALISM is almost impossible to imagine fixing itself without some grave crisis.
I don’t know. I’d be surprised if it was so. Pakistan has been undergoing an economic liberalization of sorts since 1999. They still have pretty high tariffs on foreign imports but not as high as they used to be:
56% !!!!!! Ay carumba!
Its amazing you haven’t had some sort of existential crisis yet as to your own uselessness.
Yeah but the Inquisitor told me it was okay. I might be a superficial, shallow guy…
…but with a great ass.
Graeme I NEVER defined Pakistan as a feudal country. What I said was that the appointment of Belawil Bhutto to the head of the PPP is a relic of feudal culture. Hopefully one day the Paksatnis will realize that you have to have free competition within caucus. Y’know like we have: backstabbing, denials of challenges for leadership, Johhnie won’t let me have a go on the bike – like that. Much better.
After all we have some relics left over from our own feudal past:
Here’s one
Here’s another.
Now we see you AGAIN characterising Pakistani as small children locked into some Narnia-like world view.
This is bullshit. The fact is that political infighting such a populated country would leave matters impossible for a 35 years old sheila to grab supreme power. Or for a 19 year old law student in Britain to, by his long-distance intrigues to grab power.
FOR FUCKSAKES MAN STOP BEING SUCH A FUCKING MORON.
That party is Bhutto family property.
Stop being such a dumb shit fantasist.
If that society has some remnant of what you call feudalism thats neither here nor there. The party belongs to the Bhutto family
You are such an idiot mate.
No no no. The tariff question I asked about was DO THEY HAVE INTERNAL INTER-REGIONAL TARIFFS.
That would be evidence of feudal remnants.
Now we see you AGAIN characterising Pakistani as small children locked into some Narnia-like world view.
Really? Please quote where I do this. I ask merely because it’s been a while since you’ve demonstrated your uncanny knack for changing the meaning of things. It’s been, like, a whole five minutes.
That party is Bhutto family property.
Oh so that’s not like feudalism at all. No. Christ Graeme you’d argue over the meaning of a crack in the sidewalk.
The feudal remnants I was referring to were cultural. You know there are remnnants left over from all the past eras in history. The Pope and the Queen are relics of the medieval era; the Mafia is a leftover from the Roman Empire, you are a leftover from day when hairy Mammoths walked the Earth.
In fact I reckon you need to get to a museum because most people think you’re extinct. A study of you would increase our knowledge of the Woolly Mammoth considerably:
The Mammoth was a proboscidean mammal originating in the Pliocene epoch and had a big trunk and lots of fur and was a compete arsehole to boot.
See Graeme you always wanted to make a contribution to science. Know you have.
You might find some aspect of feudalism in that society. Boris did. You haven’t yet.
But no. Family control of a political party is not really all that feudalist. It requires great wealth. Its more crony-socialism so yo ought to get that right.
And your view of Pakistanis as akin to small children is pretty damn evident.
And your view of Pakistanis as akin to small children is pretty damn evident.
Well it should be easy to cite some evidence for it then Oh Last of the Arsehole Mammoths. Go on quote me. Make my day.
Also please read up a little on the Bhuttos:
Here’s Bilawil’s great grand-daddy:
Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto … was a well known feudal lord and politician of a Rajput clan hailing from Larkana in Sindh province of British India, which is now part of Pakistan.
Now take that and stick it in your Hugh Jass. It’s the Bhuttos, not the Butt-ohs – well known cousing to the Maquarie-Bird Wathog-Chicken-Turkey-Mammoth hybrids in the wilds of New Zealand.
You are an idiot fella. Even when you have some sort of a point you never make it.
Boris made a stronger argument for you weak thesis in about 10 seconds after hours and hours of you filibusting.
Its like you have no shame.
JUST TRY AND MAKE A CASE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
You might get somewhere with it. But you’ll get nowhere if you don’t even try.
This constant dumb-left filibuster.
Internal tariffs would certainly be a sign of feudalism. Give it a go. Go find something out about it.
Formal caste systems with legal backing may be another sign. Give it a shot. See if you can find and name them.
We ought to have a Spiv/Fyodor/Nabakov/JohnZ filibuster award for Adrien.
Runner-up to Reynolds for his sterling filibusting on the money thread.
Adrienswords [113]:
Good points. However, there was a flowering of liberal and progressive thought in sectors of society both in Egypt and in the Ottoman Empire during the late 19th~early 20th century …. and not just in the upper classes. I would be surprised if that breeze of freshness wasn’t felt among Moslems in what was then the [British] Indian Empire.
“We ought to have a Spiv/Fyodor/Nabakov/JohnZ filibuster award for Adrien. Runner-up to Reynolds…”
What, no mention of good ol’ fatfingers? (pouts)
I thought if I didn’t mention you you might stay away or alternatively read a book or something.
I was thinking about that whole book-reading thing, but then got distracted….
I read today that Kim Peek can read 2 pages at once, one with each eyeball, and has read 9,000 books so far, remembering each one. It got me thinking – how many books have I read?
It’s very hard to estimate. I’m guessing somewhere around 2,500 with a large margin of error.
Not trying to make a competition out of it, just curious – how many books have all you Catallaxians read?
For the last(?) time Graeme I am not saying that Pakistan is a feudal country. Thanks for the award it puts me in good company. I’d like to thank the academy.
I dunno how many books I’ve read FF. But I know that Graeme’s read a few:
See Spot Run
Run Spot Run
Run Over Spot
He’s now working on Fox in Sox but it’s a little difficult for him.
On Pakistan’s internal tariffs. Pakistan is divided into four provinces, two territories and two portions of Kashmir. The provinces and terroritories have their own governments. Since the 90s the Pakistani federal goverment has been liberalizing the economy which includes reducing tariff barriers. Interregional barriers were done way with in 2001-02.
I’ve figured it out. Graeme’s just here to learn stuff and he can’t spell ‘google’. So he gets an assistant at the Happy Valley Home For Deranged and Dangerous Drunken Mammoths to type in his rants and read out the responses. Before he got into that fractional reserve stoush with Andrew R he didn’t even know what a bank was.
Before he got into that fractional reserve stoush with Andrew R he didn’t even know what a bank was.
He still doesn’t.
Re – Pakistan and feudalism (paying attention dingbat?):
From John Lancaster’s article “Pakistan’s Modern Feudal Lords” found here. But wait there’s more:
However it is changing:
Slowly:
And again from Anarcho-Capitalist anti-state.com (obviously a bunch of commies):
Really? Surprise surprise.
According to the authors of this article the US support for the ‘pro-democracy’ movement and the much discussed, now moot, partnership between the military and the PPP was to subvert Musharif’s refusal to endorse US foreign policy 100%.
That is Pakistan has refused to join the US in isolating Iran and is pally-pals with China:
The PPP “pro-democracy” people on the other hand are nothing of the kind:
Given Bhutto’s indifference to the safety of her supporters you can see the writers have a point. After all she chose to ride around on the street rather than opting for the more secure helicopter commute in order to facilitate her cult of personality. Many of these supporters paid with their lives.
In any event Graeme, the political struggle in Pakistan is between forces for modernization and the middle class that underpin this and on the other hand both ultra-traditionalist radicals (Jihadists) and traditional elites on the other.
Not that you’re entirely wrong about ‘crony-capitalism’. And as the article above also argues the Buttos own the PPP but that is a feature of the feudal culture not evidence against it. There’s cronies alright and there’s capitalists. Mostly however they’re not the same people. But in the end what’s the difference between ‘feudalism’ and ‘crony capitalism’?
Crony capitalism makes more smoke?
And finally a selsection of quotes for poor old Graeme the Churkey-Mammoth:
The Australian says: …even though Bhutto spent eight years in exile, the feudal power of her family name made it inconceivable that anyone else would take over.
The Guardian calls Bhuto: Pakistan’s flawed and feudal princess
And finally a word from the blogosphereM, namely one Tariq Ali, Pakistan-born writer, broadcaster and commentator:
But of course Bonehead the Churkey Fat is right. The PPP is Bhutto family property he says, and therefore there is no feudalism at all. He is thus far the biggest argument for decriminalizing infanticide since Oedipus.
Last in this long tirade (I promise). The blogger cited above is a greta demonstration of the blogosphere’s superiority to the MSM. Here’s his further thoughts on the Bhutto fallout. This time his consideration of government’s dubious claim that Bhutto hit her head.
Compared to the Oz and the Guardian it’s much more in-depth and complex. The newspapers read like the government PR releases that they are.
Sorry the pedant in me can’t let this go (I know, it’s a sickness): “he is refusing to tow Bush’s line” is wrong – it should be ‘toe’.
It is interesting how the succession decision was made. I have no clues, but it seems unlikely that the decision was imposed by the two heirs, as they have had little if any experience with the party (Bhutto’s husband did not even return to Pakistan with her).
It seems the decision was made by Bhutto’s inner circle in accordance with Feudal traditions as it is perceived to be something likely to win votes. As usual the idea is “get elected first, then we will thnk about reform”. I think the reform will probably only come from top down.
An alternative is to elect a principled politician whom nobody knows and then lose the election. I can understand why this decision wasn’t taken.
Its just their party Boris. Its a family operation. She was CHAIRMAN-FOR-LIFE.
Nothing to do with any traditional at all.
Their could well have been inside collusion on this one. After all if the Bhutto family has the top spot in perpetuity there’s one way to deal with that and its to get rid of the family members.
139. Thats just an analogy.
Anyway its good you are finally making a case. When the large landowners are running jails thats a remnant of feudalism for sure.
.
“Interregional barriers were done way with in 2001-02.”
Thats it. Thats what you were looking for. Another feudal remnant right there.
You’ve run about 20 filibusters including on this topic.
I want you to go away and think about what a complete kuunnnnt you are.
http://www.booktv.org/default.aspx
Here is a woman talking about Pakistani-INC.
How the military influence and corruption is affecting the economy.
She uses the word “cronies” many times and the word “feudal” never as far as I can make out. Its a slow-moving tape so I’m not reccomending it.
So we want to get beyond the words when clearly this feudal business is being overplayed. Though I have recognised that there was a case for some hangover from a feudal setup way back on Boris’ first post on the matter.
I also basically lead Adrien by the neck like I was leading this unwashed circus freak through the desert of ignorance at the end of a
thick naughtical rope.
Surprisingly he managed to come up with a couple of points after filibusting on this subject and about 30 others for a year.
But its all pretty irrelevant to how a 35 year old chick who looked like a model could have gained the most powerful position in a massively populated country via general elections.
Thats to do instead with the Bhutto family basically owning the PPP. Its to do with economic cronyism and not feudal ritual or a pro-feminist population. Or indeed to a population who instincetively votes for the best looking sheila on the ballot.
After all if the Bhutto family has the top spot in perpetuity there’s one way to deal with that and its to get rid of the family members.
Graeme Bird’s foreign policy: if there’s a problem annihilate a family. If you want to go to Pakistan and kill the Bhuttos Graeme I’ll hand ’round a hat and collect your fare – one way of course. It’s a plan. The one about sending you to Watts with a Tookie Williams is a House Nigger Wannabe sign didn’t work out.
Graeme your link has nothing to do with Pakistan.
Here’s Graeme’s rant:
I also basically lead Adrien by the neck like I was leading this unwashed circus freak through the desert of ignorance at the end of a
thick naughtical rope.
Cue the sound of a gorilla beating his chest. With apologies for the gorilla analogy. Gorillas are intelligent. Let’s have a look at Graeme incisive political analysis shall we:
But its all pretty irrelevant to how a 35 year old chick who looked like a model could have gained the most powerful position in a massively populated country via general elections.
Thats to do instead with the Bhutto family basically owning the PPP. Its to do with economic cronyism and not feudal ritual or a pro-feminist population. Or indeed to a population who instincetively votes for the best looking sheila on the ballot.
Ay carumba. Notice Graeme’s favourite techinique the false dichotomy – its not feudalism it’s cronysim. What’s the difference you vat of toxic poo?
Here’s my take: What is now Pakistan was a set of feudal territories dominated by various clans and vassal to the British Empire. Along comes the modern world, Pakistan the new nation is formed.
In order to perpetuate their power these clans form political parties. These parties don’t operate like parties normally do because as Graeme says they are the instruments of clanned power. People go along with this because they are still locked into the traditional beliefe that there are such things as born rulers.
Please also notice Graeme’s other favourite technique the shithouse link to nothing in particular.
The situation in Pakistan is probably too complex for us to understand from the outside. Here’s a link to an article written just after 911. The autor is describing various parties’ positions after Sep 11. He describe’s Bhutto’s rush to ally herself with the US against the Taliban and calls her on this laying partial responsibility for Taliban ascendency at her feet:
There’s probably three main power vectors in Pakistan:
The secular elite (feudal or crony whatever).
The military
The religious elite
According to Ali’s article linked to yesterday, the recent push by the UK/US against Musharraf stems from his resistance to aspects of US foreign policy: he refuses to trash Iran and he’s doing business with China – they cannot control him any longer. Originally the US/UK supported him because he was strong on crushing the Jihadist forces stemming from the pro-Jihadist North-West Province (where I used to live). But now he’s a cheeky monkey so they want a Bhutto to set things right.
If the argument has veracity then that makes it interesting. Was Bhutto killed by the government in order to block US interferance in their agenda (which has been on the whole on of economic modernization). Or did the Jihadists kill her for pretty much the same reason?
Its an interesecting set.
They are different concepts but they overlap.
After leading you by the neck and pointing to the fine example of Boris you finally came forth with some feudal remnants going beyond mere cronyism.
HAVE ABOUT NOT EVER FUCKING RUNNING SOME LEFTIST FILIBUSTER AGAIN SO LONG AS YOU LIVE and hope to avoid a broken nose.
What can I say. You fucked up.
Worse then a fuckup because after wasting my time and taking up Serengatis of internet space you finally showed you could make a scintilla of a case.
Which proves what a wicked obstructive marxist kkuunnt you were being in the meantime.
HAVE ABOUT NOT EVER FUCKING RUNNING SOME LEFTIST FILIBUSTER AGAIN SO LONG AS YOU LIVE
Could you please write this again – in English.
Worse then a fuckup because after wasting my time
I wasted your time? Oh shit! I better reimburse you then. Let’s see now. Let’s say 100 hours total, multiplied by the dollar value of your time should come to .05% of 1% of a Somali shilling.
Cash or cheque?
Yes. Send me money. That will do something to save your dignity and repair the damage.
Sure okay .05% of 1% of a Somali shilling. Don’t spend it all at once.
Open Democracy’s essay on Pakistani political economy, this time aimed at the military dominance of Pakisatn’s crony/feudal system. Yes Graeme the essay calls it both:
And another Pakistan: the army as the state by Ehsan Masood who grew up in Pakistan:
Cronyism/feudalism? I dunno what you call it Graeme old bean but we can at least agree it’s FUBAR.
And the PPP has a blog. The latest post being the last post of Benazir Bhutto.
OT: Adrien, Online Opinion are trying to get in contact with you – I’ve given them the email address you use for Catallaxy login but don’t know if it’s just a spam-fielder or whether you actually use it.
Way-hey, Adrien! You’ve hit the big time! Well, at least the medium time.
What you end up contributing to Online Opinion, if anything, is going to be better than the average crap they have. I hope. Don’t let us down.
Yes now I think you’ve at last made a good enough case to call it either. Cronyism of feudalism would do I suppose.
But cronyism would be the better one for diagnostic purposes. You could have these half-assed neoclassical reforms and though the growth rate would pick up the society wouldn’t heal itself for many decades.
With fiat money and high rates of monetary growth the massive land holdings in so few hands would persist, as would the rather low productivity of the super rich.
Put in 100% commodity backing with just a scintilla of Georgism and the super-rich would have to consolidate, sell of huge chunks of land, and they’d have to concentrate on business lest they lose their fortunes.
I don’t exactly know what you mean by a scintilla of Georgism Graeme, land reform might do. I’d suggest some good secular education but the Godsquad’ll get in the way of that and various silverspooners’ll get in the way of land reform. it’s a mess.
Maybe we can call cronyism a limbo phase between fedualism and modern democracy?
Meantime Mushareff calls in Scotland Yard. Ironic considering he refused to allow Bhutto a ‘phalanx of US marines’ on the grounds that it was an incursion into Pakistani sovereignty. Says volumes about the place if they can’t even trust their own cops to be objective. It also indicates that either he was not behind Bhutto’s assassination or he’s very cocky and/or he’s got a cunning plan.
Bhuttobashers want the UN to intervene. Pakistani govt blame a-Qaeda. jeez al-Qaeda’s convenient for people. Anything go wrong,anything stuffing up: it’s the terrorists. If they didn’t exist someone’d have to invent ‘em.
#159 – Cheers FF
Not sure if I’ve let you down. See for yourself.
In response to Graeme comment on the open thread:
The trouble with you thinking as I see it is twofold:
1. If you cut aid to Pakistan, you cut ‘em off and drive them straight into the arms of Iran and China. Do you actually want to carve the world into two (or maybe three) superpow blocs.
2. You can’t be sure that Mushareff is responsible for the Bhutto investigation. If he’s calling in Scotland Yard it’s unlikely. They’ll either find out evidence for govt involvement or they’ll be stonewalled and talk to the press. And it might not have been Mushareff any number of factions could be responsible for Bhutto’s death. And many gained from it.
Thats great. Let Iran and China pick up the bills for these assholes. They are already Chinas allies in any case.
Catastrophic war will be avoided this century by the US keeping tight with Japan and—————- fill in the gap.
Is it INDIA. Or is it Pakistan.
I’ll give you a clue. Its NOT fucking Pakistan.
If the US, Japan, and India are strongly allied and extremely strong we will not have catastrophic war in this first half of the century.
Where does Pakistan come into this?
You make it sound like the Americans have to bribe them not to be mates with the others. These things are futile over the long haul and amount to the Danegeld.
It would be better for us if Pakistan was in pieces so long as we were fabulous buds with India and Japan.
He hosed away the evidence. He’s guilty until proven innocent and so he’s guilty.
1. It happened in the Pakistani equivalent of West Point.
2. Straight away the fire trucks went in and destroyed the crime scene.
3. Bringing in Scotland Yard and controlling the scope of their investigations is just window-dressing
He’s the suspect. Let him prove his own innocence. He is afterall running a country that is a terrorist sponsor. We don’t assume he’s innocent until proven guilty. From here on in the assumption has to go the other way.
I want to point out that our Aussie soldiers are fighting Taliban as we speak. Like it or not Pakistan is on the other side of that fight ie the enemy.
We cannot win unless we beat Pakistan or get her not to send its fighters across. There is no such thing as the Taliban in 2007. What we mean by this shorthand is Pashtun, ununiformed soldiers fighting with the aid of one or more regimes.
There is no such thing as Al Quaeda in 2007. What we mean by Al Quaeda is non-Pashtun murderers, murdering with the assistance of one or more regimes.
Get in your head. Pakistan is our enemy and if we don’t like that we ought to be out of that place.
We could try telling the Americans to halt aid to Pakistan. We could try saying we’ll stay on under that basis and even bring more resources. But any more aid to Pakistan and its a case of “SCREW YOU, WE’RE GOING HOME”.
This is unacceptable to let our ally aid our enemy.
The only way you ever win wars is to deliniate things clearly like that. If we aren’t up to it we just have to let it go.
Few wars appear to be won in a fit of absentmindedness and evasion.
With “Al Quaeda” we mean NON-PASHTUN SUNNI TERRORISTS.
Thats “Al Quaeda”. Its just a 360 degress way of evading regime involvement.
Are we ready to:
1. Bolster our resources in Afghanistan.
2. Request the US cease aid to Pakistan.
3. Request extra resources from the US.
4. Start making plans to push the fighting across the Pakistani border.
5. Slash non-defense spending.
If we aren’t ready to do this we aren’t ready to win and we ought not even be there.
If any of you guys is thinking this sounds like a very fine set of arguments to bring our people home well I think they are too.
One of the most effective things to do is simply build up ones defenses when you have problems. That improves your threat profile even without killing any fucker.
I say we leverage our input. Tell the Americans we’ll come back with real committment when they have a strategy that works. When they show their national will by slashing their own non-defense spending.
Leave the field to them but prepare to help them out later if they decide they want to win this thing.
That may be a way of influencing our ally. But none of us here are prepared to win. If we cannot so much as scuttle our non-defense spending to underwrite a future victory then we do not have the will to win and so we won’t win.
If we cannot do that then we ought to just fortify our own Continent a bit more and pull back behind our borders.
Graeme do you really want to make enemies with people who are not our enemies?
I know you’ll say: but they are. But really, are they? It’s not even our region. We have no beef with Pakistan. And withdrawing from the region will create a power vaccum that will result in either another military coup (back to square #1) or an
al-QaedaSunni terrorist (?) takeover turning Pakistan into a for-real terrorist state WITH NUKES who will certainly pincer Afghanistan. BTW How does Pakistan’s relationship with Iran figure into this Sunni thesis of yours?It seems to me you’re making an error – I might be wrong – but it seems to me you are. We (the West) ally ourselves with Japan, India, S Korea various parts of central and eastern Europe. Right?
We withdraw aid from everyone who’s a ‘terrorist state’ ie Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt(?). leaving them with a common enemy than can bury their religious differences over. It also gives China a proxy base from which to begin any strategic movements geopolitically.
Where will Russia go?
Where will Indonesia go?
Malysia?
And then let’s consider Iberian America. Venezuala’s (currently) a no brainer for alliance with Iran (and hence under your schema: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China).
Whatever. It sounds very familiar. It sounds a lot like the mass alliance deterrance play that led to WWI.
What’s that sound?
The sound of the world tearing itself a new arsehole.
And also I don’t think the Yanks are going to take kindly to us telling ‘em what to do. Tho’ I must say that:
Tell the Americans we’ll come back with real committment when they have a strategy that works
Sounds good to me.
I also don’t think the Oz population’s going to approve your slash all spending ‘cept defence play. Half the country was against Iraq war when it started. Now it’s much more than that.
And did I mention that Pakistan has nukes?
They are our enemies now.
And no I don’t want to rile them up but whatever strategy you choose it must be a strategy based on REASON and not on EVASION.
I’ve just showed you what it will take to win. So if thats what it will take to win ought we even be there?
What are we doing there? Is the Pakistan/Saudi nexus going to run out of Pashtuns for us to kill?
Are they going to run out of oil dollars?
If we hold on there are they going to change their minds and their strategy?
Well perhaps they might do one or the other but do you think so?
So if we can’t win why stand around in a daydream of pretense while our own soldiers get killed, injured and suffer from stress disorders?
You, Humphreys and others appear to think that if we PRETEND that regimes aren’t fighting us we can make that fact go away.
You can take what I’m saying as an argument to come home. Thats fine. But how can you make the enemy go away by make-believe.
Wars cannot be won that way.
You see what we’ve become now. We need to slash non-defense spending to win. We don’t necessarily need to spend the whole amount on defense spending but to win we have to get used to the idea that we’ve got to slash non-defense spending.
Now why would that be too much to ask to win a war. Winning means peace and the end to a problem. And slashing non-defense spending is a great benefit to us all for starters quite apart from it strengthening the country in such a way as to win war.
You see there is a big problem here. We have raised a nation of people that no longer have the will to win once they go to war.
That means our ability to stay sovereign, free and not have our sheilas raped by foreign soldiers…… well all that is thrown into question.
We are not at war with Pakistan Graeme. And if we did what you say half the world would be at war with the other half.
You seem to fail to distinguish between a state of war and situation in which swords rattle. Pakistan as a matter of state policy is against the Taliban. Whatever intrigues go on within the various Pakistani corridors I don’t see the advantage in just declaring them all out enemies.
Wars rtake resources Graeme, they cost lives. I mean why don’t you just advocate nuking the lot of ‘em. You might as well.
You see the other thing is that while militarily Pakistan would be a hard nut for Australia to deal with, from the point of view of their own stability we might certainly be able to hurt them via soft power.
But even thinking about that relies on us being a lot stronger in order to be able to get away with that without absolute disaster.
The PM of our country isn’t going to launch an anti-Musharif-Macbeth propaganda campaign to try and stir every fucker up and produce internal instability within Pakistan.
We are not going likely to start an insurgency within Pakistan against the ruling elite.
But thats what it would take to win. We would want to send proxies in with mercenaries assisting them with our own people helping out those two groups. And relentless propaganda war against the Paki government.
I don’t think we are ready for this. But the alternative isn’t to do something that simply cannot work. The alternative might be instead to come home and build up somewhat militarily BUT MASSIVELY ECONOMICALLY and also from a national mental point of view for want of a better way of explaining things.
I mean THIS IS WAR. Technically wars can be easy to win. But when it comes to convincing people of what it takes to win and convincing them to grow just a little bit of attitude when going about it, well thats the difficult thing.
With Ron Paul I’m kindof torn. Like that isolationism cannot work over the long haul. It amounts to surrender. NEAR-isolationism can work but you have to be pretty muscular about it.
However things have gotten so bad you would almost want them to just come home and consolidate vigourously for a few years.
Because the way they are going they are determined not to win this thing.
How can you expect to win if slashing non-defense spending is just too much to ask?
Its a bizarre idea.
Now what you said about WWI. The problem there is that when the division was made the two sides were relatively equal.
To avoid such a catastrophe again we would have to go into it with our side massively stronger so that when we escalated the war ended rather than turning catastrophic.
But to grow massively stronger at this point the first thing to do is massively slash non-defense spending.
If we don’t have the national will to do even that how can we possibly get by this century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
About escalation. There is all this talk about not wanting escalation. If we talk like that we cannot win. Since its escalation which wins the war. However is we escalate when the other side is equal to us then we will have a catastrophic war.
But if we are standing around shivering for fear of escalation and turning a blind eye to the fact that the regimes that we are worried about are already fighting us……. then how the hell can we expect to win? And so what are we doing there?
“You seem to fail to distinguish between a state of war and situation in which swords rattle. Pakistan as a matter of state policy is against the Taliban”
No they HELP AND SUPPORT “The Taliban” and “Al Quaeda”.
So they are our enemy in that sense since we are fighting these guys and they are in effect hiring these guys.
Bearing in mind that there is no such thing as either. That the Taliban is just Pashtun nonuniformed soldiers and Al Quaeda is basically Arab non-uniformed soldiers.
It doesn’t matter what the propaganda is. The reality is that they are behind these people.
They even have training camps on their territory. We cannot win via the power of childish make-believe.
But even running a propaganda campaign against them, if we have the stomach for it and for the military buildup it would take to so much as talk honestly about these bastards…..
….. Even running a propaganda campaign against them would be immensely powerful. It could be conducted in a number of languages via many medium.
“We are not at war with Pakistan Graeme. And if we did what you say half the world would be at war with the other half.”
We are. Our guys are fighting Taliban as we speak. Just the other day one of our guys got killed by them. It would be one thing if we were merely aiding others to fight jihadists. But our guys are fighting them directly.
It is most improper and unfair for us to be making them do so in this environment of childish make-believe.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan stand behind these guys who our guys are fighting.
Anglo-Saxons may be used to winning but those days are over if we have reached a new age of make-believe.
I know it sounds like I’m going for overeach. But when talking in principles about what it would take to win its always going to sound that way.
Tommorrow I’ll try and explain what a more realistic non-fantasy, minimalist approach would be that would be fairer on our soldiers.
I suspect our guys are fighting a pretty intense war over there and like we are pretending that its some sort of police action.
Alright I’m going to leave the whole Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-Taliban thing aside because I suspect it’ll just end up going around in circles.
Now what you said about WWI. The problem there is that when the division was made the two sides were relatively equal.
In the blue corner: The USA, Australia, the UK, India, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Poland(?), Spain(?), Germany(?), France(????).
In the red corner: Saudi Arabia, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation(?), Zimbabwe, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuala, France(??).
Looks like another catastophe waiting to happen. Maybe it’s inevitable.
But how’s this: Pakistan continues its economic development. We encourage it down the path of secular education. Connect with and encourgae it’s middle class. They look across and see India getting rich and maybe they’ll turn into a modern country and they’ll be no need for mushroom clouds.
Maybe the world’ll blow up.
I was poking thru some foreign correspondant’s book re Nukes and al-Qaeda. He reckons Zimbabwe might be the new Afghanistan.
Well why?
Why go around in circles you stupid kuunnt?
You’ve been doing it PURPOSELY all year but why?
And why suddenly refer to it now like its the first time you’ve ever laid out the filibuster.
Why what?
You’ve been doing it PURPOSELY all year but why?
All year? You mean since Tuesday?
I’m not filibusterererering Graeme. I just don’t see how this ‘let’s declare war on everybody’ thing works except if you want to start an all out war. The world’s at a crossroads. All over the world there’s massive economic development and with it, if we can generalize, possibly comes democracy.
Decomocracy is very good for market economies. No-one’s got a stranglehold on government in a democracy. It just seems to me that if you go around pointing fingers, beating chests and telling other people what to do in their own country you end up putting them off democracy and giving heaps of ammo to reactionary forces.
This thing with the Middle East is a case in point. Listen to Amir he undertsnad the situation better than most of us (funny that). The Jihadists have risen in opposition to the dominant hierarchies in their countries. This isn’t good because it should be a pro-democracy, pro-liberal middle class. Unfortunately our years of farnarkling about with various despots have given democracy a bad name. This Bhutto business (the draconian support for her election) is such an example. We don’t have the right to tell Pakistanis who to vote for, we don’t have the right to dictate Pakistan’s trading partners or foreign policy. That we do so is understandable but it’s the wrong strategy. We’re only further alientating huge chunks of the world population that already have a fair few punters hating our guts.
By all means put pressure on the House Saud to bust terrorists, by all means don’t take their word for it that they’re fighting terrorism. But we don’t have to line up for WWIII to do it.
This book I was poking thru last night (I forget the name sorry) had an interesting anecdote about the Egyptian attitude to democracy and its intelligentsia.
There’s this notion that writers, journalists, academics etc wake up every day in Cairo and say: My God! It’s already 7am and I haven’t done anything to undermine Egypt! Now these people are mostly pro-democracy and anti-crony. They are trying to make Egypt a modern state with free and open elections and free speech etc. And they are regarded as traitors!This is because to say such things means that they are pro-American and the Egyptian people by and large regard America as the Great Satan.
Now the Middle East was fucked up way before the States ever got there. It’s still fucked up for pretty much the same reasons. But they blame the States.
Why is that?
Well some of it has to do with Israel, some of it has to with the politics of resentment, some of it has to do with pig-headed conservatism. But some of it has to do with the fact that the States props up nasty governments and fucks around in Egypt’s internal affairs.
We’re not helping.
This is the book. Only read the intro and part of Ch 1. Don’t know how good it is.
Adrienswords [182]:
And there’s yet another cause of resentment and hatred of Americans. Arrogance. Not aloofness or remoteness or overconfidence but arrogance. Insulting, demeaning arrogance. The arrogance that believes that any g-d-m-f “towelheads” who can’t understand good ol’ American aren’t worth bothering about and who believe there is only one way, the American way.
Strange that. There is no shortage of fluent speakers of high-register Arabic, Farsi and Urdu in the United States …. yet very few are ever enployed where they are most needed.
How does it go? …. The country with a thousand of the most talented minds in the Universal – and a quarter of a billion simpletons. [Mind you, Australia is not much better].
What the hell are you on about now?
Are you claiming that if you PRETEND that a regime isn’t the enemy that makes the regime dissapear?
We are fighting an enemy. Or lets say a regime is backing irregulars fighting us.
Does anyone believe that by pretending that regime is not the enemy that makes the regime go away?
This sort of make-believe is extremely expensive. How do you suppose it is for our soldiers?
We are pretending they have a few goat-herders to maintain some Police action towards when in reality they have Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to try and deal with.
And how is this fair on our allies? Forcing a situation onto them wherein all the murder,property damage and so forth thats going on is ON THE TERRITORY OF OUR ALLIES.
This is all just one big disgrace. We don’t have to be there. But why are you guys so gutless that people have to die waiting for you people to stop hiding under the sheets and figure out who the enemy is?
Fred Kagan is probably the guy who is most responsible for designing this temporarily successful surge in Iraq.
But dig the way he’s speaking about it? He cannot quite say that Pakistan is a terrorist state. He cannot quite say that Pakistan is fighting us. Waging war against us.
He’s angry of course but he wants to shy away from saying that the Pakistanis are the enemy outright.
“……. For Pakistan this is not a border problem. When you have terrorist and insurgent training camps in your country… targeting your people and neigbouring countries your problem is not that your borders aren’t working….”
Right Fred. But the Pakistanis don’t have a problem. We Australians have a problem. You Americans have a problem.
That problem that Australia and the USA have is that Pakistan is at war with the people we are trying to protect and our soldiers and we want to pretend that this isn’t the case.
Now its hard to hassle Danielle and Fred isn’t it. Because they have bravely pointed out that the “Taliban and Al Quaeda” (ie Pashtun and Sunni fighters… there is no such thing as the Taliban nor is there any meaningful outfit that is being referred to as “Al Quaeda.”)……
…. Danielle have bravely pointed out that Pakistan is harbouring and supporting these guys. But they won’t say that Pakistan is basically the enemy. Because listen to what Fred says next:
“…Your problem is your counter-insurgency forces are not working…”
See here how strong is the bullshit-momentum of the cult of “no regimes to see here…”
Fred just cannot bring himself around to saying out loud on camera that Pakistan is fighting on the wrong side.
Supposing the shoe was on the other foot .
Australia is blowing up family Saud houses every other week and non-uniformed Australians are coming across the Saudi border and engaging in fire-fights, vandalism and mass-murder.
But they aren’t known as Australian insurgents. We are calling them “The Woolshed”.
So then the Crown Prince goes to Kevin Rudd and says… “Look you’ve got to stop these Brigands and terrorists. Show some responsibility!”
“What can I do?” says Kevin. “we are looking for ‘Mad Dog’ Doug Macquarie. Really we are looking for him. We seek him here. We seek him there. He hides in spiderholes and comes and goes like a Ninja.
But we believe he’s in the badlands and tribal areas of the Northern Territory. I send my soldiers in there looking for him but my soldiers get thirsty and need to come home.
Mad Dog Maquarie has the advantage of being under the protection of the desert Koorie tribes and these guys always know where to find water.”
Now this is ridiculous. I’ll try and find a better example of this sort of thing written by Victor Davis Hanson. I couldn’t find it so I had to do an Australian version.
All this Al Quaeda and Taliban stuff is primitivism brought to the 21st century. Its like the fantasy of demon possesion or the idea of witches being everywhere.
The Taliban and Al Quaeda are simply indirect hirelings of the various regimes.
Just as Mad Dog Macquarie would have to be considered a creature of the Australian government though he may have sworn black and blue that he wanted to bring the Australian government down and replace it with a government of sheep-shearers.
You are all goose-stepping in this pantomime this waking dream. But the paradigm you understand these problems by is self-evidently ridiculous and a small childs fantasy.
#188 – still alibing Osama, you Wahhabi shill?
Not at all. Terrorism is a team sport. That tons of other people are guilty doesn’t let Mad Dog Maquarie off the hook.
There is nothing he is NOT guilty of. Cattle rustling. Bad Video making. The growing of inappropriate beards.
But there’s simply not much you could do alone and unaided from regimes. They say he picks up some money from the Church coin collection on Sundays. That he sneaks in and steals the blind-mans-dog collection in pubs. He empties out the coins to buy bullets and craftily returns the plastic dog before anyone sees him.
They say that there are radicals in the shearing industry that pay for his operations. There is nothing we can do about it we are after all a free country.
Now Jason you do realise don’t you that your view of the situation is TOTALLY IDIOTIC.
You do realise that surely.
Graeme I haven’t said regimes don’t exist. I’m saying your notions about foreign policy are blunt, overly aggressive, not to mention dumb. You say Pakistan is harbouring the Taliban, Pakistan is harbouring al-Qaeda.
Read a book you dope. Pakistan’s North-West Province has large chunk that’s totally tribal, ie: beyond the control of the government.. Understand?
Say a large chunck of the Northern Territory went feral, run by bikers. Say soldiers and cops found it very difficult to enter that zone and return with their heads. Say the govt just didn’t have the resources to tackle the zone. And say that corruption was rife within the Australian military itself. Some parts of the military had alliances with the NT outlaws etc. Say the military, far from being the professional sector under secular, democratic control that we know, was in fact an institution that existed to grab the lion’s share of available resources for its elites.
The government would find it difficult to deal with this situation. They would not be able to pacify the NT. They could only try and contain it.
This is Pakistan.
The Americans have supported Musharaff because he’s the best bet they have. He’s anti-terrorist, he’s pro-economic development, he’s not part of the entrenched elites etc.
Now you’re saying the Taliban train on Pakistan territory without taking into consideration the fact that this territory is out of control, without taking into account the precarious and Byzantine nature of politics that exists all the way from Karachi to Cairo.
You just wanna go in there bugle-call blazing and shoot everything that moves. And you say it’s easy.
How would you know?
In order to do what you’re saying you would either have to consript large sectors of the population and transform the economy into a war economy or you’d simply blanket the area with bombs. Either way you are heading back into the past.
And not the John Howard past. The 1950s after all are still post-Enlightenment.
That tons of other people are guilty doesn’t let Mad Dog Maquarie off the hook
That tons of other people are guilty doesn’t let Mad Dog Maquarie off the hook
Mad Dog Macquarie?
A Bird-Macquarie clan ancestor perhaps?
What a load of crap.
One bullshit claim at a time thanks.
No I’m afraid that pretending that regimes aren’t involved will not make them go away.
Now have you got that right?
Don’t bullshit about my policies being too aggressive?
What policy is that?
WHAT POLICY IS THAT?
Look Adrien you are just a fuckwit.
WHAT POLICY IS TOO AGRESSIVE!!!!
I’m just telling you what it would take to win. What do you think I was saying here?
What is the point that you are trying to make Adrien?
Can you attempt not to be an idiot?
What point are you trying to make?
Look you fuckwit. How will pretending that the Pakistanis aren’t involved allow our guys to beat them when they are in fact involved?
What advantage does this pretense of their non-involvement give our guys in battle?
No how about not fucking lying about my policy this or my policy that you stupid fucking idiot.
Now supposing you could prove that we couldn’t beat Pakistan, even after acknowledging that they are involved?
Does that mean we can beat them by pretending that they are NOT involved when they are?
No I’m afraid that pretending that regimes aren’t involved will not make them go away.
I’m not doing that.
What is the point that you are trying to make Adrien?
Did I say read a book? I meant learn how to read.
What policy is that?
WHAT POLICY IS THAT?
Look Adrien you are just a fuckwit.
WHAT POLICY IS TOO AGRESSIVE!!!!
Oh did I say you were being aggressive? Silly me. What made me say that?
What policy are you talking about you fucking liar.
What is the point you are making you fuckwit.
I’m saying that pretending the regimes aren’t involved won’t give us the strategy to allow us to win and your point is………..
WHAT IS YOUR POINT YOU MORON?
What point are you making?
What is your point?
What policy do you claim is too agressive?
This is very strange what you appear to be saying. You appear to be saying that wars are won through policies of non-aggression or middling aggression.
Can you name a war won with this attitude or tactic?
THE WAR OF MIDDLING AGGRESSION 1476.
Do you think its likely you’ll find this war in the history books?
Now what is your point you fuckwit?
That Pakistanis now are just too useless to go and close their own terrorist training camps?
What policy do you claim is too agressive?
The ‘policy’ (I use the term with my tongue exploring the insides of my cheeks) I am referring to is where you claim that we are at war with Pakistan.
Are we? Have we declared war on Pakistan? No. Has it declared war upon us? No. Are our troops fighting Pakistani troops or vice versa? No.
Now I know you’re not saying this.
What you are saying, and please correct any errors, is that Pakistan is de facto aiding Jihadism. That there are Jihadist training camps in Pakistan’s borders and the state has cracked down on them; that there is support for Jihadism amongst the Pakistani people and that the troops against our forces fight in Afghanistan are trained and aided by elements of the Pakistani military(?) or other within it.
So far I’m not disagreeing with you.
My point is simple. That there is a subtle and yet significant difference between the above situation and endorsement of Jihadism by the Pakistani state. My argument with you is that cutting off Pakistan is going to achieve the exact opposite of what is desirable. We will be aiding the JIhadists and we will be helping them get what they want: the bomb.
Now see here an MSNBC interview with Daniel Pipes and Azzam Timimi. The two points of view are laid out quite clearly in this interview as is the pigheaded gap that moderates on both sides refuse to close.
Pipes says:
Now fundamentallay I agree with this assessment. Altho’ considering that radical Jihadists only win 5% of the election I’m not sure to what extent you can regard their ideology as ‘popular’ with Pakistanis. 5% is significant however. 1 in 20 people can do a lot of damage.
Anyway Timimi says:
What follows is an argument in which, Monica Crowley the interviewer, disgracefully and blatantly takes sides. Pipes says its an ideologically motivated Jihadist crusade based on hate; Timimi says it’s an understandable reaction by disenfranchised people who are oppressed by unreasonable and irrational governments and that the ideology has spread throughout the Muslim world. ‘Jihad’ in the context of war denotes a battle in defence of Islam.
They’re both right. Yet each of them is only emphasising that part of the truth that is convenient to their case. In the gap dividing their discourse lies what is missing from the strategems of various players dealing with this issue.
In the Muslim world you have three forces:
1. The forces of modernization and liberalization.
2. The reactionary forces of radical religious war.
3. The entrenched authorities wielding the apparatus of a police state.
I’ve said this before. And, as you then pointed out, these three forces are not discreet. They overlap and intermingle.
Musharaff, the House Saud etc are caught between the need to modernize their countries, the need to act in the interests of their countries, the need to preserve themselves, the pressures from the QWest particularly the USA which is acting in its own interests and the growing revolutionary/reactionary forces of Jihad.
This is a complex situation. It is too simple-minded just to say Oh We’re at War with Pakistan. Withdraw the aid, isolate ‘em.
Then what? They side with China, they side with Iran, they side with Saudi Arabia and you’ve got a resource rich power base that is aligned on the basis of a common anti-Western ethos.
Fantastic Graeme. You are turning people who are friendly into deadly enemies. You say:
You appear to be saying that wars are won through policies of non-aggression or middling aggression.
No. I am not talking about fighting wars. I’m talking about making peace. An activity which is both much more honourable and much more difficult.
Don’t keep writing when you’ve made an idiotic claim. Just stop writing and wait.
CLAIMING THAT WE ARE AT WAR WITH PAKISTAN IS NOT A POLICY.
So what policy of mine are you claiming is too aggressive.
TRY AGAIN YOU FUCKWIT!!!
So in fact you are lying. You are lying because you cliamed I had a policy that was too agressive.
Then when asked to tell me what policy that was you couldn’t so much as come up with a policy I was advocating that was too aggressive.
Don’t waste time making ten points when your first point is crap.
Now in fact pretending that we are not at war with Pakistan. Or that Pakistan is not at war with us isn’t going to make the reality of that change is it?
Here we have our blokes, in the field, fighting actual battles, getting hurt injured and killed….
… And you are advocating a “no-regimes-to-see-here” way of dealing with the situation.
Now how will that ensure victory?
It won’t will it!!!
I can see I’ve got another filibuster on my hands with this fucking idiot Adrien.
What policy are you saying is too aggressive?
If no regimes were involved in the Vietnam war save America, South Vietnam and North Vietnam… and if the South, with American backing, had decided to destroy the communist leadership THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO IN A MATTER OF A FEW WEEKS.
So what went wrong?
Precisely what went wrong is this dysfunctional thinking that we are seeing here from Adrien.
Its the idea that we cannot acknowledge the fact of regime involvement and if we all pretend it isn’t happening it might go away.
Now notice he’s not SAYING THAT OUTRIGHT. He’s rather saying it between the lines.
I keep on explaining the problem here with reference to this link:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/war-and-occupation-in-richmond-melbourne/
Thats why the Americans didn’t win Korea and lost Vietnam. It was this continual denial. We can lose this fight we are in if we go down this track again. This despite the fact that our opposition is totally pathetic.
Yep you’re right Graeme we should’ve got into an all-out war with the Sovs over Vietnam. Great idea there man. It would’ve daved us HEAPS of hassle.
For example the hassle of having to communicate with you. We’d all be biding our time now as filler in the edge of a crater somewhere. You’d still be around however. I’ve heard Nukes are good for cockroaches.
I didn’t say that. We had to wait 20 years for Reagan to apply the right policies that would have destroyed the Soviet Union no matter when it was applied.
Now how do you imagine that pretending the regimes aren’t involved helps strategy???
Note well that when the right strategy is employed LESS PEOPLE DIE ON BOTH SIDES.
So had the policy of non-denial been applied…. lets say…. halfway through the Korean war… then the communist menace would likely been over by about 1960 with very few deaths on either side.
There seems to be some misapprehension going on that strategy based on denial is cheaper.
This is not the case.
With regards to the last sentence sometimes I use understatement for effect.
Here’s someone talking about taking down the Iranian regime with soft power.
In passing I’ll mention that HE mentions that Iraqis are being trained in terrorist training camps in Iran by the Iranian revolutionary guards and then they are sent back to Iraq to kill people.
Now do I need to point out that this has been going on for almost 5 years and that DENYING IT HAS NOT MADE IT GO AWAY.
I have to introduce this business of SOFT POWER as a way of countering this automatic assumption that acknowledging regime involvement means having to defeat all these people outright through force of arms alone.
In fact one way of looking at matters is that our military arm needs to simply be strong enough for us to engage soft power with impunity.
Reagan established proxy war pressure points globally and built up the forces so strong that he could take down the Soviet Union largely through soft power.
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Michael+Ledeen&image1.x=31&image1.y=3
The top recording.
I go on holidays for a few weeks and what do I come back to?
The same nonsense gobbling from the turkey and adrien baiting him on.
Some things never get old.
John
Ditto !
Spiv and Z, welcome back guys. Hope you enjoyed the holidays.
Graeme (sigh):
No-one is saying the regimes aren’t involved. Learn to read. Your nonsense about the Korean War is a case in point. We didn’t know the PRC was involved, we pretended they weren’t? That’s a little difficult when the Chinese troops are lining up at the front innit?
What we have here is (surprise surprise) failure to communicate. You are talking with all the sophistication of the grade 9 Dungeons and Dragons/Chuck Norris fan club. I actually read books.
Books too long for you? Consider a magazine:
Altho’ I raise my eyebrows at the idea that Pakistan should be ‘kept’ democratic the phrases above are fundamentally correct. You’re ideas about cutting off aid to Pakistan and shaking the finger in its direction will only serve to cement alliances with anti-Western sections of the Nuke club. Pakistan already is part of a network that includes South Africa, North Korea, China, Iran etc. There’s even a theory that Pakistan is actively aiding North Korea’s nuclear programme. If you cut them off you don’t cut them off at the knees, you drive them into other arms.
At the moment Pakistan is developing fast economically. The best bet for us is to see a strong well-educated middle class and modernized, secularly educated and employed people. That might not happen, but it certainly has less chance of happening if we alienate them.
I certainly agree with you that we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand. I disagree with your assertion that we are. Information on Pakistan’s participation in world intrigue is freely available in many publications. You think somehow that the various foreign offices of Western states simply pretend not to see it?
If you want to focus on getting tough the focus should be on the illegal transfer and trade in nuclear materials. That’s the real danger.
Hey Skeptic
Are Bilawal’s minder’s a pain. Keep us posted.
You idiot Adrien. You post stuff the further builds my case… then you don’t admit that I was right and you were wrong.
When I inform you of stuff and you finally find out that I’m right…. You are supposed to say.. My goodness.. Graeme… You are right.
So now that you know that Pakistan is behind sunnie-non-Pashtun fighters in Afghanistan (ridiculously known as AL QUAEDA) and Pashtun fighters in Afghanistan (idiotically described as THE TALIBAN)…….
… Now that you know that what is your point?
Did you have a point?
Or are you just to much of an asshole to admit I am right?
Now what POLICY are you claiming is too aggressive?
What POLICY. POLICY get it?
What POLICY.
In your book then its being aggressive to actually inform people about wrong-doing of other regimes?
Powerfully aggressive in your view?
Is that right.
If you are going to play the constant filibuster thats then you are the one wrecking every fucking thread you go on.
So now you are lying and saying that I’ve got KOREA wrong. You are laying out the filibuster and claiming I’ve got Korea wrong.
So what have I got wrong about Korea you fucking lying KUUUNNNNTTTT.
So you are just talking more shiite aren’t you Adrien?
Yes you are.
Its just constant lying crap from you time after time………(idiot).
“You think somehow that the various foreign offices of Western states simply pretend not to see it? ”
Yes they do. It was news to you. You argued that the tribal areas. That they couldn’t control them. The crowd on this forum have a childish virtually medieval view of terrorism. That its autonomous and that its not war by other means conducted by regimes.
So yes they do ignore these behaviour almost all the time. Since its in non individuals interests to point them out.
Or are you just to much of an asshole to admit I am right?
No I’m too polite to admit you’re an arsehole.
I didn’t exactly claim you got Korea wrong I just said it was nonsense. To say you got it wrong is to assume you said something about the Korean War which made sense. You didn’t.
The Chinese told the Yanks they would get involved. That makes it pretty obvious they were allied with the North Koreans. Apart from the fact that they were all communists. Sure the Yanks didn’t take ‘em seriously until they did get involved but so what?
A lot of the Jihadist activity in Pakistan is in the tribal areas, they are beyond government control. And exactly what was it you said that was ‘news to me’? I can’t recall anything you’ve said that wasn’t the same old tiresome rant.
The trouble with you Graeme is that secretly, deep down there near the core of your brain stem you know you can’t really cut it above the level of a school yard bully. If you could you would.
Hence the childish frustration and tantrum throwing.
And which one of your policies is aggressive, you ask.
None of them Graeme. You don’t have a policy. You don’t even know what a policy is.
“I didn’t exactly claim you got Korea wrong………………….”
Just listen to this lying kkkkkuuuuunnnnnint. Watch what this lying prick says next…..
“…. I just said it was nonsense……”
Right. Thats just what you expect from this lying Marxist filth.
He’s got about 5 filibusters running in parallel.
Well I like the way you collapse the entire war into about one paragraph.
What about the Soviets?
Were they involved too?
Sure it was one big party. The Korean War was part of a series of armed conflicts by proxy between the US and the Sino-Soviet communists. The Vietnam War also. You say that we just pretended the Sovs, the Chinese weren’t involved. We knew they were involved. But what are we supposed to do?
Nuke em?
Then they’d nuke us and the world would be burnt toast.
Well people also knew that the regimes were involved in 9/11 and in terrorism more generally.
But they still, to this day, pretend that they were not.
They blame it on some bearded bloke in a cave somewhere.
They blamed the first World Trade Centre attack on a blind man. If they could have they would have nailed it on some huefarno who slept next to an old unplugged fridge.
No its not true that people at the time blamed China and the Soviets. That only came about after Inchun in the publics mind.
But in Vietnam it was much worse. People generally tended to talk as if the Viet Cong was autonomous and basically South Vietnamese.
They talked as if it was some Police action that they were to be involved in.
Now you ask me what they ought to have done?
They ought to have won and with a strategy that involved not much killing on either side.
But to make up such a strategy you have to not let people talk AS IF certain realities weren’t true.
People might have known that North Vietnam was being supplied from China. But they talked AS IF that wasn’t happening.
People might know that Iraq, the Sauds and Iran were likely involved in 9/11… but they talk AS IF they know for a fact that they weren’t.
People might know that our Australian boys are fighting Pakistanis harboured and resourced from Pakistan. But we talk AS IF Pakistan isn’t the relevant enemy and its really that raggedly fellow with the goat and the Kalishnokov that we can see in our reconaisance mini-planes camera.
Its NOT the man with the goat that is the problem here.
The Sauds and Pakistanis can find a million more guys for us to kill and then we ask them what they’ll do next then they will say that they are going to find a million more.
How many dollars per day does it cost these two countries to pay people to send and for our guys to kill these people?
$10 per day for each Pashtun?
LESS OR MORE?
That going to eat into the Sauds oil-revenues you think?
Should we really be killing all these people or should we forge a strategy NOT based on make-believe?
The Americans killed millions in Korea, millions in Vietnam and lost much blood and treasure of their own.
Why not think about things a bit better than that?
There may be a clue to how you go about it in this link. Find the two or three relevant sentences but then you aren’t the least bit fucking fair dinkum:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/who-will-pay-the-blood-tax-crisis-and-anti-leviathon/
Well people also knew that the regimes were involved in 9/11 and in terrorism more generally.
But they still, to this day, pretend that they were not.
Actually to this day they pretend it was Iraq. Obviously it was Canada.
No they don’t pretend it was Iraq you fucking liar. They deny Iraq was involved and they don’t even talk about the possibility that Iran and Saudi Arabia could have been involved.
Fuck off you lying idiot. You are a liar and a threadwrecker so fuck off.
Graeme really you must try and lighten up. It was a joke. Please see reference to Canada. FFS lighten up laddie. I have really tried at times to have a normal, civilized conversation with you about this subject (and others) but it seems to be near impossible.
Really man. What is wrong with you? Why are you so angry all the time? May I suggest ecstasy? Perhaps even a large quantity of sleeping tablets? Drain cleaner? Whatever. Could you at least try and be a civil human being?
No?
Article says Cheney’s funding al-Qaeda types to start a civil war.
Yeah well whats your point Adrien?
What possible enlightenment could such an idiotic link do?
In fact I think we know what you are attempting from the other thread. Ridiculous alleged regime involvement in order to obscure what would be obvious regime involvement or even the very suspicion of it.
Beat it threadwrecker.
RRRIIIIGGGHHHHHTTT.
So instead of actually quoting Seymour Hersch you are quoting a story which is allegedly interpreting what Seymour is claiming.
Seymour is always worth reading. So if you were going to stick around we’d want direct quotes from him.
But fuck off threadwrecker.
Whats really changed in the last few years is the context. Reliable people have concluded that the case is closed but one wonders whether the potential Castro/Kruschev deal got a fair enough shake.
Mailer wrote on it. Gerald Posner. And there is a new book out by one of the guys who went after Charles Manson who purports to have exhaustively studied matters. They all concluded that the case was closed.
What is a little different about this German documentary is that it comes with new papers released from the Mexican government, with alleged confessions by Cuban intelligence people and by a change of context that has happened as more information has come out about what was going on in America at the time:
context” of Kennedy’s sudden death.
From Spiegel Online:
:Award-winning filmmaker Huismann relies on newly declassified documents from the Mexican government as well as interviews with aging, colorful insiders from the Cuban intelligence service, G2, the FBI and a veteran American statesman.
“Oswald volunteered to kill Kennedy”
Oscar Marino, a former Cuban secret agent who has broken with Castro, tells the camera that Havana wanted Kennedy dead because “he was an enemy of the Cuban Revolution” — a sworn and public enemy who had even sent a team of CIA-contracted militants to overthrow Castro in 1961. (That mission failed at the Bay of Pigs.)
“Why did we take Oswald?” he says. “There wasn’t anyone else. You take what you can get … Oswald volunteered to kill Kennedy.”
Ummm about Bhutto….
Shut up idiot.
Go away.
By Allah you try so much on don’t you?
If its not one thing its another. Always trying on some sort of dodge or another. Never following REASON and going wherever the chips may fall.
Move along idiot.
There’s this thread about the assasination of Bhutto. Graeme craps on about the Kennedy assasination, I say “um about Bhutto’. And I’m the one who’s trying the dodge on.
????
Birdbrain I reckon you should be put on permanent 6-a-day moderation. I’ve never advocated censoring you before but it might just force you to say halfway sensible things and actually think before you type.
Some of your comments above were useful you know. But as always the foaming mouth disease takes over and you go all Werewolf on the Moors on us.
Do you howl at lightbulbs at home?