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