PDA

View Full Version : Benazir Bhuto Killed By A Religious Monkey


my-rifle
12-27-2007, 09:09 AM
Well, there goes Pakistan's hope for a return to secularity. The more time goes by the more I'm coming to believe that Pakistan is a lost land. It seems like it's been in a state of civil war pretty much ever since the British were there. I was hoping that the return of democratic candidates in the upcoming election would steer the country away from the trend towards right-wing religious anarchy, but this is certainly going to put fear into the hearts of Pakistan's potential leaders.

VALMET_M76
12-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Like nobody saw that coming.

Pakistan is the home of the Taliban and Al-queda.
Pakistan is the sword of ALLAH financed and encouraged by the Saudis.

KILL THEM ALL, every last man, woman and child. Burn them with nuclear fire before they do it to us.

my-rifle
12-27-2007, 10:52 AM
You seem like a really angry ideological person, Valmet. Isn't that what's wrong with Pakistan? The people are angry and ideological?

CPO TED
12-27-2007, 10:57 AM
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, shot in the neck and chest at a campaign rally before a homicide bomber blew himself up, killing at least 20 others.

Bhutto's supporters erupted in anger and grief after her death, attacking police and burning tires and election campaign posters in several cities. At the hospital where she died, some smashed glass and wailed, chanting slogans against President Pervez Musharraf.

The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and created fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

Musharraf convened an emergency meeting with his senior staff where they were expected to discuss whether to postpone the election, an official at the Interior Ministry said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

CPO TED
12-27-2007, 11:11 AM
Interesting op. A shooter AND a bomber.

Early reports indicated she was running away from the bomber...and towards the shooter. Don't have all the facts yet.

Anyoldways...Pretty slick.

So who done it?

Musharraf? He's got the power and the military...finding some nut to be the bomber can't be THAT hard over there. Also LOTS of motive.

al-Qaeda? Got the skills and equipment for the job. Big motives. Having a shot at possible Nuke owner ship is pretty enticeing.

Religious nuts? Could be. There's a BUNCH of them over there.

India? Keep Pakistan off balance. Revenge killing for all the stuff going on between India and Pakistan. They kill each other so oiftenb its hard to keep track of who's ahead. Big Maybe.

Isreal? Not as far fetched as you might think. They play a long game of chess.

CIA? Keeping Musharraf on our side (?) and alive has been a full time job. Again not really all that far fetched. I don't know how much "Hi Profile" wet work we'd want to take on these days.

I'm sure Musharraf is "rounding up the usual suspects" even now as we speak.

Most will be "shot trying to escape".

We'll probably NEVER know the real deal!

CPO T

CPO T

ralphtango1
12-27-2007, 11:16 AM
for those that do not understand,islam like nazism is a form of goverment...that cannot an is not open to interpitation......democracy womans rights...toilet paper..shaving legs are things of the west.most moderate of all islam.is modern day turkey..........

pakistan is home to those that killed gandi.......that gandi wanted a secular india

here some quotes quran translated(Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites," those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.)

VALMET_M76
12-27-2007, 11:21 AM
I am not angry or ideological.

I just recognize a deadly threat and that threat is PAKISTAN. SAUDI ARABIA. IRAN.

CPO TED
12-27-2007, 11:32 AM
I am not angry or ideological.

I just recognize a deadly threat and that threat is PAKISTAN. SAUDI ARABIA. IRAN.

+1

Maybe not in that order...but you got almost all of them.

Most folks forget that the Saudi's only need us to help guard their MONEY...

Its good to know who the enemy is! Truth is we just ain't got many friends over there.


Not to hijack this thread...but...

The population of that reason is real tiny compared with other parts of the world...it is amazing that so few people command so much attention.

And then think about Isreal/Palestine...

amazing.

CPO T

Mandaree36
12-27-2007, 11:40 AM
One thing is certain, the region is now as explosive as ever.

That aside, the lady had balls, big balls that clanked. She told the world they would kill her, that it was a matter of time. She had asked her followers to carry on when she was killed.

She knew it, she stayed. She will surely be a martyr. Either way...I can respect her for holding the course.

ralphtango1
12-27-2007, 11:44 AM
here ten reasons...........chrismas eve had a conversation with some one from united arab emerates.....i thought was not as radical.....i had hope wronggggggggg

Ten Obvious Reasons Why
Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace



#1 10,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last six years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so).


#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.


#3

Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that.

Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.


#4

After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other.

Muhammad's favorite daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali (the second convert to Islam, who was raised like a son to Muhammad) fought a war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was the "perfect woman."

Not only was her husband, Ali, eventually murdered, but Fatima (who survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound) died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only three months after her father died.

Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by the son of the first. The fourth caliph was killed by the fifth, who subsequently poisoned one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. Muhammad's other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.

Within 50 years, the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war.


#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.


#6

Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.

None of these other religions are at war with each other.


#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.


#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.



#9
The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.


#10

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

(The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93

VALMET_M76
12-27-2007, 11:49 AM
Pakistan has Nukes. Pakistan will be the source of Terrorist nukes that explode in the USA and the other Western nations.

It is simply a matter of time.

Ding
12-27-2007, 01:48 PM
I agree with valmet..melt the sand

my-rifle
12-27-2007, 02:00 PM
I want to start this by pointing out that religious and political radicals are inexorably driving Christianity and Judaism into conflict with Islam. The document, Rebuilding America's Defenses by the Project For the New American Century (from 2000, before Bush was elected) points out that the authors wanted to create a pretext to go to war in the Middle East to reposition our armed forces to face the Middle East and China rather than to face Russia. It would appear that people weren't satisfied with the global prosperity of the 90s, so they had to go and create a conflict.

Now, with it firmly in mind that a war is coming, here's what's wrong with this post.

here ten reasons...........chrismas eve had a conversation with some one from united arab emerates.....i thought was not as radical.....i had hope wronggggggggg

Ten Obvious Reasons Why
Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace

#1 10,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last six years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so).

Please itemize this list - and remember who it was in 1946 who invented terrorism.

#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.

So did almost every leader of the Christian West up until Napoleon. Oh, wait. Napoleon did it too. So did Ivan the terrible, Most of the Czars of Russia, the Habsburgs in Austria, the Bourbons in France - who wants to talk about King Richard The Lion-Hearted? Then there's Hitler ...

#3

Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that.

Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.

This is from the Sharia, a document of doubtful authenticity - sort of like the Christian Apocrypha.

#4

After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other.

Muhammad's favorite daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali (the second convert to Islam, who was raised like a son to Muhammad) fought a war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was the "perfect woman."

Not only was her husband, Ali, eventually murdered, but Fatima (who survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound) died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only three months after her father died.

Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by the son of the first. The fourth caliph was killed by the fifth, who subsequently poisoned one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. Muhammad's other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.

Within 50 years, the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war.

Shall we discuss the Christian rulers of Rome?

#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.

What about the Crusades? The Albigensian Crusade? Whatever happened to Bogomil Dualism?

#6

Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.

None of these other religions are at war with each other.

I don't think you can blame Islam or Islamic peoples for the conflict between Persia/the Ottoman Empire and Europe that burned for almost a thousand years and which began with what is known in the West as the Crusades. Political leaders on both side at different times fanned the flames of this conflict. Likewise Islam is not at war with the other religions. Nationalists using the fig-leaf of religion are at war pretty much everyone they can find.

#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.

Again from the Sharia.

#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.

Please quote the source for this, but I suspect that again it is from the Sharia.

#9
The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.

Do the gospels of the Christian bible specifically address God's love for members of other religions? The Old Testament is chock-a-block with references to God smiting this one or that one for all kinds of silly things.

#10

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

(The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93



Look, I'm OK with bashing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Lybia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Chechnya but please do so for legitimate reasons, like their primitive societies, hawkish social tendencies, or their likely willingness to use their nuclear weapons, not these ridiculous jingoistic slogans.

partymember
12-27-2007, 02:24 PM
You seem like a really angry ideological person, Valmet. Isn't that what's wrong with Pakistan? The people are angry and ideological?

no. The problem is that they focus that anger on the West. I dont care if they focus it elsewhere, but they sure as hell can't blow up people in my civilization. That makes me angry. And ideological. I think.

festus
12-27-2007, 02:39 PM
Interesting op. A shooter AND a bomber.

Early reports indicated she was running away from the bomber...and towards the shooter. Don't have all the facts yet.

Anyoldways...Pretty slick.

So who done it?

Musharraf? He's got the power and the military...finding some nut to be the bomber can't be THAT hard over there. Also LOTS of motive.

al-Qaeda? Got the skills and equipment for the job. Big motives. Having a shot at possible Nuke owner ship is pretty enticeing.

Religious nuts? Could be. There's a BUNCH of them over there.

India? Keep Pakistan off balance. Revenge killing for all the stuff going on between India and Pakistan. They kill each other so oiftenb its hard to keep track of who's ahead. Big Maybe.

Isreal? Not as far fetched as you might think. They play a long game of chess.

CIA? Keeping Musharraf on our side (?) and alive has been a full time job. Again not really all that far fetched. I don't know how much "Hi Profile" wet work we'd want to take on these days.

I'm sure Musharraf is "rounding up the usual suspects" even now as we speak.

Most will be "shot trying to escape".

We'll probably NEVER know the real deal!

CPO T

CPO T

I like the way you think things out. I tend to believe that there are too many suspects to pick one out in particular.

ralphtango1
12-27-2007, 02:42 PM
The day one of those nut jobs blow up some American city with a nuke?you won t think i am crazy........i been saying this since July 1994 attack on the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association (AMIA), a community center, killed 85 and injured more than 150.
Argentine officials issued arrest warrants for the 11 including former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and Monsen Rabbani -- the former Iranian cultural attache in Buenos Aries, who is allegedly tied to the purchase of a van that was used in the bombing.

its islam against the west..........as we lost comunism created the rise of islamism..

HolyWeapon
12-27-2007, 02:57 PM
I want to start this by pointing out that religious and political radicals are inexorably driving Christianity and Judaism into conflict with Islam. The document, Rebuilding America's Defenses by the Project For the New American Century (from 2000, before Bush was elected) points out that the authors wanted to create a pretext to go to war in the Middle East to reposition our armed forces to face the Middle East and China rather than to face Russia. It would appear that people weren't satisfied with the global prosperity of the 90s, so they had to go and create a conflict.

Now, with it firmly in mind that a war is coming, here's what's wrong with this post.

Please itemize this list - and remember who it was in 1946 who invented terrorism.So did almost every leader of the Christian West up until Napoleon. Oh, wait. Napoleon did it too. So did Ivan the terrible, Most of the Czars of Russia, the Habsburgs in Austria, the Bourbons in France - who wants to talk about King Richard The Lion-Hearted? Then there's Hitler ... This is from the Sharia, a document of doubtful authenticity - sort of like the Christian Apocrypha. Shall we discuss the Christian rulers of Rome? What about the Crusades? The Albigensian Crusade? Whatever happened to Bogomil Dualism? I don't think you can blame Islam or Islamic peoples for the conflict between Persia/the Ottoman Empire and Europe that burned for almost a thousand years and which began with what is known in the West as the Crusades. Political leaders on both side at different times fanned the flames of this conflict. Likewise Islam is not at war with the other religions. Nationalists using the fig-leaf of religion are at war pretty much everyone they can find. Again from the Sharia.Please quote the source for this, but I suspect that again it is from the Sharia. Do the gospels of the Christian bible specifically address God's love for members of other religions? The Old Testament is chock-a-block with references to God smiting this one or that one for all kinds of silly things.



Look, I'm OK with bashing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Lybia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Chechnya but please do so for legitimate reasons, like their primitive societies, hawkish social tendencies, or their likely willingness to use their nuclear weapons, not these ridiculous jingoistic slogans.

Your post compares a Prophet to Leaders of Nations, Kings, and Dictators. While Muhammad was a leader, in the context, we are discussing him as an example for religious followers, like Jesus in the Christian religions.

The argument is not on point with the discussion. I'd really like to see where you place Jesus on the list amongst Ivan the terrible, Czars of Russia, the Habsburgs in Austria, the Bourbons in France, King Richard The Lion-Hearted and Hitler.

You are pointing fingers to alot of individuals who merely claimed a religion, while everyone else is looking at the source.

No offense of course, I'm just trying to clarify.

festus
12-27-2007, 03:03 PM
If they can ship one of those nukes to Mexico, they can just drive it across the non existent border. But why wouldn't they just nuke Israel? It's a lot closer and they hated the Jews first.

my-rifle
12-27-2007, 03:04 PM
Your post compares a Prophet to Leaders of Nations, Kings, and Dictators. While Muhammad was a leader, in the context, we are discussing him as an example for religious followers, like Jesus in the Christian religions.

The argument is not on point with the discussion. I'd really like to see where you place Jesus on the list amongst Ivan the terrible, Czars of Russia, the Habsburgs in Austria, the Bourbons in France, King Richard The Lion-Hearted and Hitler.

You are pointing fingers to alot of individuals who merely claimed a religion, while everyone else is looking at the source.

No offense of course, I'm just trying to clarify.

Actually what I said was the claims of Muhammed saying this or that are unsourced, and several of them sound like they come from the Shria which is another unsourced apocryphal document - not a part of the religion of Islam.

The original author was discussing leaders of the Muslim world and their behavior, so it is correct to compare them to leaders of the Christian world and their behavior. Their positions as a representative of the Muslim faith is perfectly balanced by the "Divine Right Of Kings" doctrine of Christianity in the past in which the king is granted his position by the leader of Christianity, and therefore acts in the Name Of God.

No again, I do not have a problem with bashing nations like the ones in question - just use good reasoning, not jingoism.

And no offense taken. I think we're all on the same side here.

mitchstoner
12-27-2007, 06:29 PM
my-rifle, let me say first, yes I think we are on the same side.

If you are going to compare actions of Muslims with actions of Christians, that is valid, because all are human and frequently fail to live up to the teachings of their respective religions. And angry, hateful, and selfish action is unfortunately a part of human character.

However, in comparing the teachings of Islam with the teachings of Christianity, you are mistaken imho that the two faiths are similar in their directions for treatment of those outside the faith. The killings ordered by God in the Old Testament, The Old Testament is chock-a-block with references to God smiting this one or that one for all kinds of silly things. are neither the prime message of the Bible (Either Old or New Testament) nor are the killings ordered for no reason other than "they are not of us."

In fact, the PRIME message of both Old and New Testaments is God's forgiveness and mercy, extended to all, whether believers or not, whether deserving or not. (for the record the Bible plainly says in many places that none of us are deserving of that mercy)

You ask, Do the gospels of the Christian bible specifically address God's love for members of other religions? John 3:16 says in unequivocal language, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes might have everlasting life." Whosoever does not distinguish between members of any in-group or those in the out-groups. And John 3:16 is hardly the only example of Bible teaching about the love of God for all mankind.

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament makes it evident that a huge number of early believers in Jesus Christ gave their lives in their efforts to carry the message to the "whosoevers" outside of the original group.

I would challenge you to find comparable beliefs or actions among any Muslim sect.

mitchstoner
12-27-2007, 06:33 PM
And yes, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto does not bode well for Pakistan, the Mid-East as a whole, the Muslim world as a whole, or the prospects of peace between them and the non-Muslim West.

my-rifle
12-27-2007, 06:47 PM
Nowhere in the koran are there any passages that can be interpreted to suggest that outsiders or non-believers be killed. What everyone here is referring to are passages from the Sharia, a piece written after the death of the prophet in which everyone with an axe to grind for a thousand years has been beavering away adding passages that support their political beliefs. None of it came from the prophet.

Again "Whoseoever" does not expressly refer to people of other faiths, AND the ehortations to carry the word to peoples of other faiths

a) is an exhortation to convert them away from their beliefs and

b) has been used by Christians throughout the ages to justify killing people who didn't believe in Christianity.

I think Islam is being hijacked these days by militant nationalists twisting it from its core beliefs to support all kinds of atrocities, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims are just as peaceful as me, and want the same things as we do. The do not want war with us, and they are appalled as they see the militants on their side who are easily able to influence the militants on "our" side to push towards war. The majorities are being forced by vocal extremist minorities into a conflict they and we do not want.

CPO TED
12-27-2007, 06:58 PM
OK conspiracy freaks…I figured it out.

The CIA did it.

Musharraf has weakened and become somewhat of a liability. He doesn’t always play ball with the US.

The guy that just took over the Army…is a moderate, and he has a history of getting along with the US (and the CIA) (I forget his name).

Bhutto was a shill…she really didn’t have the power to overcome Musharaf. But was very hi-vis. The US encouraged her to run for office…and promised support.

The CIA recruited some Muslim wack job at one of the Mosques we have infiltrated for the wet work.

The wack job does the hit and conveniently blows himself up.

Now, everybody thinks Musharraf did it...or is too weak to have stopped it from happening…either way Pakistan is falling out of love with him. Which we fan the flames of.

I wonder if Musharraf knows yet how screwed he is...even if he figures this out...he can't do NOTHING about it...who'd believe him?

Next…either Musharraf gets wacked…or the military runs a coup and removes him.

The current head of the military is the new boss Pro-American, Moderate Muslim boss man in Pakistan.

I left out the best part...Why...


This was done largely to get Bin Laden before George Bush leaves office.

Pervez Musharraf was always a stumbling block...he owed too much to the tribal leaders in the mountains. Or didn't want to loose favor with the radical Muslim Clerics.

All bets are off now. Bin Laden is dead within a year.

...and we end up with a reasonably strong ally in Pakistan...it balances out the Iran mess.

Lots of plusses...very low cost.


You read it here first…….

CPO T

mitchstoner
12-27-2007, 07:06 PM
my-rifle, you are absolutely correct.

"whosoever" (in John 3:16) does not expressly refer to people of other faiths. It expressly refers to ALL PEOPLE, which includes people of other faiths and people of no faith.

And whether The Koran suggests non-believers be killed, or those teachings come from the writings of Sharia, both are considered valid instruction by millions of Muslims, if not all. The effect on world events is the same.

If I am not mistaken, teachings of the Bible have also been used in the past to justify extermination of the Native Americans in the New World, enslavement of Africans, denying women the right to vote, beating children and wives, and many other evils. The fact that teachings are misinterpreted and misused, does not invalidate those teachings.

However you might misinterpret Christianity's message and teachings, it is still hard to imagine that you are willing to say those teachings are not much different from the teachings of Islam, whether Koran, Sharia, or others.

mitchstoner
12-27-2007, 07:07 PM
Ted, I hope you are wrong, but you could be right.

drjarhead
12-27-2007, 09:45 PM
OK conspiracy freaks…I figured it out.

The CIA did it.

Musharraf has weakened and become somewhat of a liability. He doesn’t always play ball with the US.

The guy that just took over the Army…is a moderate, and he has a history of getting along with the US (and the CIA) (I forget his name).

Bhutto was a shill…she really didn’t have the power to overcome Musharaf. But was very hi-vis. The US encouraged her to run for office…and promised support.

The CIA recruited some Muslim wack job at one of the Mosques we have infiltrated for the wet work.

The wack job does the hit and conveniently blows himself up.

Now, everybody thinks Musharraf did it...or is too weak to have stopped it from happening…either way Pakistan is falling out of love with him. Which we fan the flames of.

I wonder if Musharraf knows yet how screwed he is...even if he figures this out...he can't do NOTHING about it...who'd believe him?

Next…either Musharraf gets wacked…or the military runs a coup and removes him.

The current head of the military is the new boss Pro-American, Moderate Muslim boss man in Pakistan.

I left out the best part...Why...


This was done largely to get Bin Laden before George Bush leaves office.

Pervez Musharraf was always a stumbling block...he owed too much to the tribal leaders in the mountains. Or didn't want to loose favor with the radical Muslim Clerics.

All bets are off now. Bin Laden is dead within a year.

...and we end up with a reasonably strong ally in Pakistan...it balances out the Iran mess.

Lots of plusses...very low cost.


You read it here first…….

CPO T

Interesting.
The weak link in this chain would have to be Musharraf. He has fended off this sort of thing before. His only answer is to clamp down and that is what he has done in the past.

I think you are also wrong about the idea that a moderate pro-US leader ends up in power. Why do you think Bin Laden is there?
Bin Laden might die but I doubt his capture.

But I could see the CIA trying it.

my-rifle
12-27-2007, 11:28 PM
My point is that the militancy being attributed to the teachings of Islam isn't part of the teachings of Islam. Just as most Christians don't follow the gospel of, say Phillip, or any of the other writings cobbled onto the religion after the gospels were written in 200 AD, true Muslims do not adhere to the teachings of writings cobbled onto their religion. Very few Muslims do adhere to that militant brand of Islam that is gleaned from a very small number of obscure passages in a book written after the prophet's death. The Koran, which is the entirety of the teachings of the prophet, is about peace and love, and NOT about violence.

Now if you're going to say that the Sharia, as a part of some version of the culture of Islam, teaches a rule of violence and intolerance, then I will direct you to the following apocryphal statements:

So is "Let he who has a cloak and no sword sell his cloak and buy a sword."

and

"Think not that I come to bring peace into the world for I come to bring the sword."

These statements attributed to Jesus in the Apocrypha cannot be directly linked to the teachings of Jesus, yet they are part of the teachings of some forms of Christianity. If you were to judge Christianity based on these statements it wouldn't sound anything like what it really is.

mitchstoner
12-28-2007, 12:58 AM
Well, my-rifle, those 2 statements that you say come from the Apocrypha are actually attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.

Matthew 10 recounts Jesus teaching his disciples, "If you follow me, there are plenty of people who will hate you. For if they hate me, why should they like my followers any better?" He says, metaphorically, I did not come to bring peace but a sword, for I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, etc., meaning even the families of believers are liable to turn against them.

And in Luke 22, just before the soldiers of Pilate come to arrest Jesus, he tells his disciples--figuratively and somewhat sarcastically I think--"It's about to get hot boys, better buy a sword if you don't have one," and his disciples reply "here are two swords, Master." His reply?--"It is enough." I think He is basically throwing up His hands in exasperation--as if to say OK, you guys just don't get it yet, but I know you will when the time is right.

Despite quotes like these attributed to Jesus, I do not know ANY Christian who seriously thinks that Jesus taught any sort of violence. BECAUSE we also know full well that Jesus taught a lot of very-difficult-to-live-buy stuff like "if a man strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek to him and allow him to strike that also." And, "if a man takes your coat, give him your cloak as well."

Now let me ask you some questions: We in the United States fought Germany twice in World Wars. They were our enemies. Why are we friends with them now? We fought Japan in the second World War. Their soldiers committed atrocities on everyone they fought, including our soldiers. Why are we friends with Japan now? We fought against the Communists in VietNam, and they treated American P0Ws with incredible brutality and cruelty. Why are we now willing to be friends with VietNam, now united under those we fought against?

Looking at the Middle East, why do the enmities formed around 4000 years ago between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael, both sons of Abraham, persist today? Why do the Muslims seem to have an attitude "My enemy today, my enemy forever. This evil thing you have done to me today, I and my descendants will never forget and will someday avenge, no matter if we may at times cooperate or help each other."

ftierson
12-28-2007, 03:18 AM
Interesting.
The weak link in this chain would have to be Musharraf. He has fended off this sort of thing before. His only answer is to clamp down and that is what he has done in the past.

I think you are also wrong about the idea that a moderate pro-US leader ends up in power. Why do you think Bin Laden is there?
Bin Laden might die but I doubt his capture.

But I could see the CIA trying it.

Perhaps...

But, given recent history, the problem I have with this theory is believing that they could pull it off...

:)

Forrest

the eXiLe
12-28-2007, 06:21 AM
I have just heard on the radio that a phone call has been received from Al-queda claiming that they carried out the attack on a 'most important American asset'.

Still no confirmation as to the authenticity of the call.

the eXiLe
12-28-2007, 06:37 AM
'We assassinated America's precious asset,' boasts top al Qaeda commander



One of Osama bin Laden's warlords today claimed responsibility for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, an al Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, said that in murdering her it had killed "the most precious American asset".
A death squad, made up of Punjabi associates of the anti-Shia militant group Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, carried out the killing under al Qaeda orders, he said.

He reportedly told several news outlets: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat Mujahideen. "This is our first major victory against those [eg, Bhutto and president Pervez Musharraf] who have been siding with infidels [the West] in a fight against al Qaeda and declared a war against Mujahideen."
According to one report, al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri gave the orders for Ms Bhutto's killing. Experts have questioned claims of al Qaeda involvement and Pakistani government sources were unable to confirm that the group was involved in Ms Bhutto's murder.
Bin Laden, though, is reported to be issuing a video broadcast shortly
During her campaign to drum up support for her Pakistan Peoples Party, Ms Bhutto had vehemently condemned al Qaeda and vowed to crack down on militant groups.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_04/bhuttogun2812_228x300.jpg

Found at the scene: The gun which killed Benazir Bhutto yesterday

Al-Yazid mentioned a recent speech in which she spoke out against Islamic extremism, urging people to stand up against it.
Al Qaeda is believed to have been plotting the murder for months.
Earlier this month, Pakistani intelligence agents reportedly tracked a mobile phone conversation between a militant leader and a local cleric in which a man called Maulana Asadullah Khalidi was named.

Within hours Khalidi was arrested during a raid in Karachi and soon afterwards a very senior non-Pakistani militant leader was detained.
The arrests are said to have led to the revelation of plans to wipe out "precious American assets" in Pakistan, including president Musharraf and Ms Bhutto. Baitullah Mehsud, a militant leader who was recently made head of Tekrik Taliban-e-Pakistan, a coalition of Pakistani Taliban groups, had reportedly issued threats that he would send suicide bombers to target Ms Bhutto.

She died yesterday after being shot in the neck and chest by a man who then blew himself up near her armoured vehicles just after she had addressed an election rally at Rawalpindi.

She returned to Pakistan from exile two months ago and survived a suicide attack on her homecoming procession in Karachi on October 18 that killed 140 people and injured hundreds more. Pakistan's interior ministry said today it was "unaware" of al Qaeda claiming a link to Ms Bhutto's killing but said "extremist elements" behind a wave of attacks this year could be responsible.

Asked about a report on Pakistan's ARY TV network that the militant group founded by Bin Laden was to blame, interior ministry spokesman Javed Cheema said the government did not know about that claim.

But he said the likely culprits were "the same extremist elements who have been perpetrating acts of terrorism in the country in the past."

Pakistan has repeatedly said Taliban and al Qaeda-linked groups are behind the unprecedented wave of attacks this year that has left more than 800 people dead. President Musharraf blamed al Qaeda when he survived two assassination attempts in 2003 in Rawalpindi.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=504838&in_page_id=1811

allesennogwat
12-28-2007, 09:48 AM
http://www.steyr-aug.com/m_series_pistols.htm


'We assassinated America's precious asset,' boasts top al Qaeda commander



One of Osama bin Laden's warlords today claimed responsibility for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, an al Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, said that in murdering her it had killed "the most precious American asset".
A death squad, made up of Punjabi associates of the anti-Shia militant group Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, carried out the killing under al Qaeda orders, he said.

He reportedly told several news outlets: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat Mujahideen. "This is our first major victory against those [eg, Bhutto and president Pervez Musharraf] who have been siding with infidels [the West] in a fight against al Qaeda and declared a war against Mujahideen."
According to one report, al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri gave the orders for Ms Bhutto's killing. Experts have questioned claims of al Qaeda involvement and Pakistani government sources were unable to confirm that the group was involved in Ms Bhutto's murder.
Bin Laden, though, is reported to be issuing a video broadcast shortly
During her campaign to drum up support for her Pakistan Peoples Party, Ms Bhutto had vehemently condemned al Qaeda and vowed to crack down on militant groups.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_04/bhuttogun2812_228x300.jpg

Found at the scene: The gun which killed Benazir Bhutto yesterday

Al-Yazid mentioned a recent speech in which she spoke out against Islamic extremism, urging people to stand up against it.
Al Qaeda is believed to have been plotting the murder for months.
Earlier this month, Pakistani intelligence agents reportedly tracked a mobile phone conversation between a militant leader and a local cleric in which a man called Maulana Asadullah Khalidi was named.

Within hours Khalidi was arrested during a raid in Karachi and soon afterwards a very senior non-Pakistani militant leader was detained.
The arrests are said to have led to the revelation of plans to wipe out "precious American assets" in Pakistan, including president Musharraf and Ms Bhutto. Baitullah Mehsud, a militant leader who was recently made head of Tekrik Taliban-e-Pakistan, a coalition of Pakistani Taliban groups, had reportedly issued threats that he would send suicide bombers to target Ms Bhutto.

She died yesterday after being shot in the neck and chest by a man who then blew himself up near her armoured vehicles just after she had addressed an election rally at Rawalpindi.

She returned to Pakistan from exile two months ago and survived a suicide attack on her homecoming procession in Karachi on October 18 that killed 140 people and injured hundreds more. Pakistan's interior ministry said today it was "unaware" of al Qaeda claiming a link to Ms Bhutto's killing but said "extremist elements" behind a wave of attacks this year could be responsible.

Asked about a report on Pakistan's ARY TV network that the militant group founded by Bin Laden was to blame, interior ministry spokesman Javed Cheema said the government did not know about that claim.

But he said the likely culprits were "the same extremist elements who have been perpetrating acts of terrorism in the country in the past."

Pakistan has repeatedly said Taliban and al Qaeda-linked groups are behind the unprecedented wave of attacks this year that has left more than 800 people dead. President Musharraf blamed al Qaeda when he survived two assassination attempts in 2003 in Rawalpindi.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=504838&in_page_id=1811




http://www.steyr-aug.com/m_series_pistols.htm

my-rifle
12-28-2007, 12:02 PM
Sorry - I always think of Luke and John as being pretty whacky, but you're right - the call to violence is right there in the gospels. I think those people bombing women's health clinics think Jesus wants them to do it. I think out society is rife with examples of people who say we should fight so and so, because Jesus is on our side.

"The Muslims" do not have the attitude of "My enemy today, my enemy forever." Some peasants who never got past second grade have that enmity. It's not a Muslim thing. It's a stupidity thing, and there are people in the United States who have not forgiven Japan even today.

The whole thing that I'm trying to point out (poorly) is that uneducated people without opportunities to better themselves tend to hold grudges. Educated wealthy ones tend not to. Islam was the center of education and knowledge for 1000 years while Europe was rolling in its own filth. During that time the Islamic peoples were asking the same things about your antecedents as you are now asking about their descendants. The wheel turns, does it not? This is not an Islam vs Christianity thing. It's an educated vs uneducated thing.

partymember
12-28-2007, 01:30 PM
and there are people in the United States who have not forgiven Japan even today.


damn right!

remember Nanking? Yeah. Don't think it couldn't hapen again!










;)

3 weelin geezer
12-28-2007, 01:30 PM
I am not angry or ideological.

I just recognize a deadly threat and that threat is PAKISTAN. SAUDI ARABIA. IRAN.Not everyone is how they show you on tv on cnn. Thats only the nuts that help them sell newspapers and keep you tuned in so their ratings dont suck. Like the US, there are immigrants there trying to earn a living instead of blowing themselves up or going shooitn

mitchstoner
12-28-2007, 02:57 PM
Interesting thought processes, my-rifle. Jesus plainly speaking in a metaphorical or ironic sense,you see it as the call to violence is right there in the gospels you should obtain a Bible and read the cited passages in context, my friend. Just the chapter for each citation will clear it up for you.

And there have been what? 4 or 5 abortion clinics bombed by wack jobs in the U.S. in the last 20 years? Those bombings publicly and vehemently repudiated by both ordinary Christians and Christian leaders of all stripes?

And you not only appear to be saying the mindset that led to those bombings is characteristic of those who follow Christ, but comparable in scope and significance to the bombings perpetrated by Muslims?

Man, your bias is more than evident.

One more item: Yes, there are individuals in the U.S. who find forgiveness of Germany, Japan, and VietNam an impossibility. The point I would like to make--that attitude is not, overall, characteristic of U.S. sentiment or policy. Most people (not just the "educated") in the Western world (not just the U.S.) share a particular worldview--our perspective or philosophy through which we view many aspects of life including our relationships with our fellow man and other nations. In the West our worldview is shaped and tempered by centuries of being exposed to the primary tenets of Christianity: A loving and forgiving God; value of each individual; the love and forgiveness of God being made available to each individual through Christ; and the need to follow the divine example and extend love and forgiveness to our neighbors, deserving or not.

In the West, even those who reject Christianity in any form are likely to have at least 2 of those tenets embedded in their worldview from childhood onwards: the value of the individual, and the desirability of forgiving enemies and moving them into our circle of friends.

Where in Islam are comparable views?

I realize that at this point I have exhausted my pitiful reasoning ability, and will not hammer you any more with my views that those raised in the Christian-influenced West have significantly different views from those raised in the Muslim-influenced Mid-East. But I will pray for you, friend.

sam smelt
12-28-2007, 03:46 PM
OUR thug killed her to keep power.

festus
12-28-2007, 04:08 PM
OUR thug killed her to keep power.
Well, maybe he didn't actually kill her, but he didn't actually prevent her from being killed either. Now he can get on with the business of running his dictatorship without any annoying elections, supreme courts challenging his actions, and carte blanch for the military to stifle any dissent.

Mandaree36
12-28-2007, 06:29 PM
Video Released

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=2be_1198873248"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=2be_1198873248"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

RG Coburn
12-28-2007, 07:34 PM
OUR thug killed her to keep power.

or to expand it a little....

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html

Ash, Housewares
12-28-2007, 09:41 PM
She had a big ass target on her from day one. Still went back (big nads). Al Gore won the what for what? :confused:

VALMET_M76
12-28-2007, 10:24 PM
She was a wannabe liberal democrat.

She didn't have the fucking brains to be able to tell that the world has CHANGED since the late 1990s.

Pakistan is a far more dangerous place since the advent of AlQueda. AlQueda itself is an offshoot inspired by the TALIBAN who were a PAKISTANI creation with the goal of securing AFGHANISTAN with a political unit owing allegience to PAKISTAN.

It did NOT work out like the Pakis imagined.

Pakistan has ZERO control over Wasaristan aka the "tribal areas" of Pakistan's Northwest. ZERO CONTOL, it is AlQueda/Taliban central and now Alqueda threatens Pakistan itself.

Bhutto was a fucking fool to return to Pakistan.

Mandaree36
12-28-2007, 10:50 PM
Or maybe she gave a damn and thought she could make a difference....

Just a thought.

partymember
12-29-2007, 12:36 AM
she was SMOKING back in the 70's...

CPO TED
12-29-2007, 12:08 PM
Or maybe she gave a damn and thought she could make a difference....

+1

Tough place to:

A) give a damn

2) have an independent thought

...I thought it was bound go bad from the start.

Her death MIGHT get the moderates to take a bigger hand in whats going on over there....but, like my Daddy told me...Mites are found on a chicken's rear end!

...Somehow I doubt that place (read: the WHOLE M.E.) will EVER change.

I think things are far too polarized. No room anywhere for compromise.

The extremists at either end are WAY too wacky.

CPO T

the eXiLe
12-29-2007, 12:13 PM
Or maybe she gave a damn and thought she could make a difference....

Just a thought.

+1


She thought she could make a difference for sure, she knew the risks involved with going back.

VALMET_M76
12-29-2007, 12:55 PM
Pakistan is beginning to disintergrate. Bhutto didn't understand that.

For that matter, neither does the rest of the world.

Bhutto didn't give a shit about her country. She just went back hoping to cash in again.

She was thrown out twice over corruption charges. They jailed her husband for criminal fraud and SHOT her father for his corrupt regime.

Islamic countries all demand an Iron Fist rule. Otherwise it is the Inmans who rule. As we will see in Iraq.

drjarhead
12-29-2007, 06:23 PM
Pakistan is beginning to disintergrate. Bhutto didn't understand that.

It has never been a stable nation. I'm not even really sure you could call it a nation. It has been flirting with anarchy since its inception.

For that matter, neither does the rest of the world.

I think there are a lot of us who realize that, we are just small percentage wise.

Bhutto didn't give a shit about her country. She just went back hoping to cash in again.

I agree that her primary motivation was self interest.

She was thrown out twice over corruption charges. They jailed her husband for criminal fraud and SHOT her father for his corrupt regime.

True that is.

Islamic countries all demand an Iron Fist rule. Otherwise it is the Inmans who rule. As we will see in Iraq.

Musharraf has come down with the iron fist a couple of times to restore order, thereby saving what is left of his teetering nation.

my-rifle
12-30-2007, 09:14 PM
Interesting thought processes, my-rifle. Jesus plainly speaking in a metaphorical or ironic sense,you see it as you should obtain a Bible and read the cited passages in context, my friend. Just the chapter for each citation will clear it up for you.

And there have been what? 4 or 5 abortion clinics bombed by wack jobs in the U.S. in the last 20 years? Those bombings publicly and vehemently repudiated by both ordinary Christians and Christian leaders of all stripes?

And you not only appear to be saying the mindset that led to those bombings is characteristic of those who follow Christ, but comparable in scope and significance to the bombings perpetrated by Muslims?

Man, your bias is more than evident.

One more item: Yes, there are individuals in the U.S. who find forgiveness of Germany, Japan, and VietNam an impossibility. The point I would like to make--that attitude is not, overall, characteristic of U.S. sentiment or policy. Most people (not just the "educated") in the Western world (not just the U.S.) share a particular worldview--our perspective or philosophy through which we view many aspects of life including our relationships with our fellow man and other nations. In the West our worldview is shaped and tempered by centuries of being exposed to the primary tenets of Christianity: A loving and forgiving God; value of each individual; the love and forgiveness of God being made available to each individual through Christ; and the need to follow the divine example and extend love and forgiveness to our neighbors, deserving or not.

In the West, even those who reject Christianity in any form are likely to have at least 2 of those tenets embedded in their worldview from childhood onwards: the value of the individual, and the desirability of forgiving enemies and moving them into our circle of friends.

Where in Islam are comparable views?

I realize that at this point I have exhausted my pitiful reasoning ability, and will not hammer you any more with my views that those raised in the Christian-influenced West have significantly different views from those raised in the Muslim-influenced Mid-East. But I will pray for you, friend.


OK, I'm not going to pursue this much further. Islam does not teach violence. It forbids it. It is a religion of peace and love just like Christianity. The passages in the Sharia (not an official part of Islamic teaching) are no more important than the passages in the Christian literature which seem to encourage the same thing. What you are seeing in Pakistan as well as in Iraq is nationalism masquerading as religion and which can twist any religion into fear, violence, and hatred. If you think it hasn't happened in Christianity you are deluding yourself. It will happen again in Christianity. The violence and hatred being fomented among some in Muslim countries will ebb and flow as it always does if you take a long view of history. The fact that people in the "Muslim-influenced" East have different views from those raised in the "Christian-influenced" West has more to do with nationalism than religion.

my-rifle
12-30-2007, 11:33 PM
Angry and ideological, Valmet? You do sound like them.

partymember
12-31-2007, 12:29 AM
you ever hear that quote "The greatest trick Satan ever played was convincing the world he wasn't real"?

3 weelin geezer
12-31-2007, 10:40 AM
When was the last time you saw a sane person praying to their god? They never show those. Just the nuts running around in the square yelling god is great and blowing themselves up. Gives a black eye to the religion for that. What did mcveigh say before he blew up the truck? Bet you my mac that other religions would say christians are a bunch of nuts for that. (if he was christian) How about mall and school shooters? Watch how many will question their God if these people rant about how God made them do it while they kill everyone they see. Of course, here in the west, they are not fanatics....just mentally disturbed.

Every religion is a false religion to those who don't believe in it. They are all headed by false Gods. When was the last time you were able to talk to any of them? ----Its all about FAITH that yours is the one true religion. No matter what anyone else says.

ColonelKorn
01-01-2008, 09:55 AM
Side note: gas prices went up immediately!