Breaking news from the BBC..



Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack, a military spokesman has announced on TV.
Earlier reports said Ms Bhutto had only been injured and taken to hospital.

Ms Bhutto had just addressed a pre-election rally in the town of Rawalpindi when the bomb went off.

At least 15 other people are reported killed in the attack and several more were injured. Ms Bhutto had twice been the country's prime minister.

She was campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

'She expired'

The explosion occurred close to an entrance gate of the park in Rawalpindi where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.


The blast caused carnage at the rally

PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar initially said that Ms Bhutto was safe. But later he told the BBC that Ms Bhutto had died.

Another member of the PPP, Wasif Ali Khan, told the Associated Press news agency from the Rawalpindi General Hospital: "At 6:16 pm (1316 GMT) she expired."

Ms Bhutto returned from self-imposed exile in October after years out of Pakistan where she had faced corruption charges.

Her return was the result of a power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf in which he granted an amnesty that covered the court cases she was facing.

Since her return relations with Mr Musharraf have broken down.

On the day of her return she led a motor cavalcade through the city of Karachi. It was hit by a double suicide attack that left some 130 dead.

The PPP has the largest support in the country.

Earlier on Thursday at least four people were killed ahead of an election rally that Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was preparing to attend close to Rawalpindi.

I heard about that earlier. Not the best of news, and will certainly cause more trouble in that part of the world as she was highly regarded by many and whatever your take on her the woman had some guts and spent 5 years in prison, almost always in solitary :yikes:

as long as Muslims believe that they will go to heaven if they kill people in a suicide attack, this sort of thing is going to keep happening... :( :shrug:

a sad situation made sadder :(

Sadly, too true. Makes you realise how civilised the western world actually is, even though certain elements try to bring it down. RIP Gutsy Lady :bow:

I won't comment on how civilised I think the Wetsern world is as I think we voer estimate ourselves in that department. But I do take your point cos I guess we don't have too many political murders or disaters of this kind. Having said that, we've had terrorist acts in London in recent years, plu sall the problems in the past with the IRA and stuff so it isn't a picnic, but we don't have it as often as tsay the Middel East thank god. I'm glad my local RAF base is to close actually in soem ways cos it makes us less of a target now so they say.

That's exactly what I meant by civilised. Suicide bombing surely can't be seen as martyrdom - it's premeditated random murder by proxy. You would think that whoever the "Supreme Being" is, he or she would surely not advocate such action. When I say we're civilised I mean we are relatively safe in comparison to those in war-zones across the globe. I know we have our share of undesirable elements but they are largely contained to some degree.

Yeah I know what you mean :ok:

That's one of the issues with religion and acts of terrorism, these acts seem to go against the religion. But then again, some of these people really believe that what they are doing is right and in the name of their beliefs. I'm not saying that makes it OK, but if you hold the beleifs that such people have then you will see such acts as martyrdom.

Like her or not she was an icon, and at least she was trying to bring democracy to Pakistan.
It's hard to see any good coming out of this tragedy, but maybe if the PPP have a leader who is not part of the Bhutto dynasty it may be a positive thing.

I agree absolutely.
The interesting thing about supreme beings is you take any of them, lets take the Christian one for example, almost anything can be justified in his name.
Burning people, torturing people, loving people, phenomenal acts of courage, the subordination of women, women's equality just about anything -it's just a case of finding the bit of text in the bible, it's all about interpretation.

Here is her Obituary

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2228796.stm

Love her or hate or yo have to agree that sh ewas very influential and had a very difficult path to tread compared to what she might have had in many countries, esp beign female and in the Muslim world.

It is indeed. You can find a bi to fthe Bible to back up almost anything you like and also one to contradict it.

Ouch!!! That's what I call selective or short memory. The Western world has a lot of work to do to prove it has a more developped form of civilisation!

Not only it has the most violent wars of human history with the worst of the lot just 60 year old, but we are also very much at the origin of the mess going on over those Middle East regions.

Suicide bombing is certainly ugly but looking at it, not worse than killing poorly equipped humans with ultra sophisticated weapons. It is not surprising after all that those people who get killed so easily with modern weapons decided to die this time for a cause they believe in. Faith in going to heaven helps, but it is certainly not the reason they kill themselves. Suicide bombing is a very recent phenomenon, Islam is much older so we should treat both separetely.

well it may be a very recent phenomenon but at the end of the day Islam and suicide attacks are invariably linked together, if you tell people that they will be going to Paradise if they kill themselves and umpteen others you can bet your last dime that there will be queues of people lining up to do this sort of thing especially if their life's circumstances aren't exactly a barrel of laughs... :shrug:

Nothing selective or lacking in my memory at all. I was referring to day to day life. I don't feel any fear when I leave the comfort of my home. I don't have to check out every stranger that I see in case they might set off a bomb. I know it is obviously a possibility but not, unlike the Middle Eastern regions, a probability. Also, the origins of the problems in the Middle East today are frimly entrenched in tyranny, despotism and terrorism. Yes, the West has played it's part but that has been reactionary. The insurgents in the main areas of conflict ie Iraq & Afghanistan are supporters of Hussein & Bin Laden and as such see Westerners as the enemy. I have friends in the Armed Forces. One has just returned from a 6 month stint in Basra. The people there want peace from their own kind and accept the feasiblity of having Allied Forces there to assist them with this. I wish they weren't there but for now they are. Whether you agree with the use of Allied Forces or not is immaterial - they will remain until it's relatively safe to withdraw. It is also the duty of every country to assist the people in war-torn areas across the globe.

Selective or short term memory loss - glass houses/stones/people who live in :angry:

Defineteley a short memory Roysie or very selective! :shrug: I remember not so long ago having to rush out of the tube or a bus because of bombs scare ... and "Christians" faiths, not Islam, were at the origin.

SO yes there has been a bomb yesterday "over there" but 99.99% of the people in Pakistan feel very safe. Following Bhutto, certainly wasn't but we knew that. If Bush had not been ultra protected, chances are that he may have been blown out.....like Reagan closely escaped, like Kennedy didn't.

Here's an interesting twist n the suicide thing. I was watching a load of programmes recently on this and spent a lot of time studying WW history.

Back in WW1 those in charge of the British forces, like the contraversial Field Marshall Haig, effectively pushed our troops into committing suicide. Sending men over the top knowing that they were almost certain to die was part and parcel of trench warfare. To me, and many war hsitorians, that is effectively asking people to go kill themselves for a 'cause'. And what happened if these men refused to go over the top, either because they saw the futility of this act and did not want to die, or because they were too mentally ill/scared to do it? Well that is simple - we killed them anyway by branding them cowards and shooting them at down with a blindfold and a handerkerchief in their pocket to aim at. Our army was ordered to kill men who were no more than boys and men who were mentally or phsyically ill - shell shock was not recognised then. Or just killing people who sense. And this was covered up for many years too. And they still haven't granted pardons!

Just a thought on how civilised we've been in the past.

Not an everyday occurence though is it? And you're saying it was Christians responsible for 7/11? 9/11 too? And was it a bus or a Tube you rushed out from that fateful day? roflmao roflmao roflmao

And how the hell can you say that 99.99% of people in Pakistan feel safe?? Certainly don't want to insult you but you're making it very tempting :shrug:

This is terrible for Pakistan and democaracy. she survived a assination attempt before apparently that killed 140 of her supporters. It's a shame.

All I am saying Roysie is that if you look at our history and its wars and crimes, you will have a lot of difficulty to prove that we are more civilised than the East. Now you can pick up a few recent events there and then but they weight very little in comparison to ours and they are only one side of the picture. Without googling please list Middle East wars prior to 1945 you are aware of ...then how do they compare with ours? Also look as well at how ugly, sophisticated and efficient our WMDs are and tell me they are not a facet of our personas?!?. The Muslims, until recently haven’t sat down and engineered ways of killing to the scale we have. I grant you that they are however catching up, some for sure, but we started the race a long time ago and that says a lot about the West. So now looking at yesterday event and say we are more civilised just isn't quite right.

But let's leave it there. It's Xmas after all.

That had nothing to do with Christianity... :shrug:

The majority of those killed by Allied Forces have been done so after a declaration of war and as such there was always the threat of attack. What I find uncivilised is the maiming & killing of innocent people going about their business without the threat of attack being acknowledged. I don't really care what the Vikings, Romans et al got up to. I'm talking about today. I don't need to use Google before voicing my opinion on any matter. Look at the women's & children's rights in some ME countries and then tell me we're on a par with them (use Google if you want). Look at Amnesty International's involvement with the governments in the ME and tell me we're on a par with them (again, Google if you wish). See how many times a political figure has been assassinated by a suicide bomber in the West when campaigning for an election and tell me...yada, yada, yada....

I think what I said was quite right and still think so after seeing your offerings. Of course your opinion differs but don't presume that you can present your view to me and then say "leave it there".

:ok:

A footnote to your point Rosyie is the way gays and apostates are treated in some ME countries, literally put to death for their beliefs or actions.
The hard reality concerning many middle eastern countries is that they are quite literally anti-liberal, and I would term Islamism (the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad) as fascist.

I do think we're in danger of moral relativism if we cannot make comment on other regimes or individual miscreants because of the past of the country we live in. All nations have dubious pasts at some point, if we proclude moral comment from anyone in any nation with a dubious past then that would end all moral comment from anyone. So any vile act or regime would have to be accepted because of a prohibition of moral statement, and concomitantly -action, be it military or other.

The problem for us is believing that the past is the past and we have now grown out of it, that we are protected from any form of extremism. This is actually the trap Europe fell in 70 years ago and there is nothing I see around me that convinces me we are any better now. What I see however is that the economical situation is indeed more properous so we are in a position to show our best facet. But should we economically struggle like we did then, I would not be surprised to see our old demons resurface. In fact the main danger comes from people believing they are in the right. Extremists East and West believe they are right! That's why they are dangerous. Let's not fall into that trap!

;) :ok:

True we're certainly not automatically immune from extremism in the West, and we have to be forever watchful for it.
For what it's worth my own view on how to guard against fascism and extremism is robust democracy-by that i mean genuine political choice, and a political infrastructure in which reasonably politically enlightened citizens can engage and influence those who hold power. Power without accountability breeds absolute power-need i say more.
Your point about the link between economics and extremism is interesting given how closely our societies wealth is linked to many oil rich states in the middle east, the relationship we have is at best unhealthy, but given how reliant we are on oil, it's hard to imagine that this will change in the near future.

World war 2 was partly a corollary of World War 1, partly economics, but also significantly brought about by authoritarian governments in Germany and Japan, who were able to use propaganda on a large scale to manipulate the populous. Germany was also paranoid about the idea of Communist revolution like that in Russia, so you have one authoritarian regimes reacting very profoundly to another .
So authoritarianism, which is the antithesis of real democracy is certainly the enemy of tolerance.
There's a real danger of me dragging this subject into World War 2, but to bring back to Pakistan and the present, what i think Bhutto was imperfectly doing was to bring back democracy to Pakistan, the danger now for Pakistan is authoritarianism and all it's attendant dangers.
She may have been seen to many in and out of Pakistan as a conduit of western influence and she was far from perfect when in power, but the potential of destructive instability in Pakistan is great at the moment, democracy there is fragile to say the least-not a recipe for hope, sadly.

I like your posts BT and the style. As much as I understand them, my poor command of English does not allow me to fully debate with you, so I have to concentrate on the content and not the form.

So going back to Bhutto and bringing democracy, it may have been the case, but that does not mean Pakistan was ready for it. If she wanted to bring democracy, she therefore should not have needed the help and push from the West. If our Governments in the West supported her financially and politically, like we supported Musharaf last time around, then we can’t really talk about “democracy”. We were quite happy when 4 years ago, Musharaf was “universally” re-elected as he was clearly an ally to our wars, weren’t we? We knew then that his elections were not so democratic but we certainly did not mind. I actually believe that no country on earth, not even England, is actually ready for democracy and in fact none have a fully democratic institution. People are still gullible, prone to be influenced by the latest surveys or media. We cannot ignore the power of the Sun, Sky or Fox news on people. While in Iraq they have (or had rather) a stick when “voting”, our stick here in the West has a different form…but it is still for me a form of dictatorship as we still have the will of a minority forced upon us. Having followed closely the French elections and the way Sarkozy came to power, I don’t really believe that the French had an honest choice on who to vote for. He was really pushed down their throats, like we feed our geese. Blair would have had an even tougher job going to Iraq if the Sun had not supported him. We saw what happened to the BBC bosses when they started voicing their doubts about the whole legality of this war. They got sacked!...and Blair was re-elected. I could talk about the US democracy as well but I don’t think I need to.

Anyway, I certainly don’t support those coups and I am also saddened to see violence everywhere, but I don’t believe we are more civilised, we have a different form of civilisation, certainly, but not a better or worse one. Maybe we put on gloves for killing and can pretend we haven’t done anything as we don’t leave obvious fingerprints. It seems this is what some believe anyway.

I agree you can't impose democracy, it's something that evolves-like it evolved here in the UK, but you can help those who are broadly pro-democracy, in their fight against anti democratic forces.
How much of a role the west should play in pushing one figure or another is hard to say-with Bhutto for example it could have been counter-productive, she was perceived as something of a western puppet, but she was still popular despite this.
I think the west is to some degree be tacitly happy with Musharaf, at least he does not represent Islamic extremism, and that may suite us, what's that phrase 'my enemies enemy is my friend'. To be honest anything short of anarchy might be the best we can hope for there-lets hope it doesn't come to that.

Regarding your other point about democracy in general.
In my earlier post i mentioned 'a political infrastructure in which reasonably politically enlightened citizens can engage and influence those who hold power'
what i mean by political infrastructure is a fan even-handed media, well informed citizens free to engage at various political levels in a non hostile, ideas rich environment .
We understand our elected representatives through the media-so it's crucial that the media isn't corrupt or overwhelmingly partisan. Now i agree that the media is very far from perfect in this country, or any country-in a sense part of democracy is to strive for that too-it doesn't just happen. Democracy is the end game of nation states evolution, for it to work well a lot of things have to be in place.
Democracy isn't a panacea it can't bring utopia, but it's worked reasonably well in the west and i'ld rather live in an imperfect democracy than a perfect totalitarian regime.

Does anyone have, or has ever had, real democracy? I think even going back to Plato the democracy wasn't complete democracy but democracy for selcted people?

Just a thought as I am not really sure, but I doubt it has ever really existed. Also I think in the Western world we tend to think that just because we have a vote and an elected leader, and becaase we don't have military coups or extreme polictical unrest and violence that we are in a total democracy. I don't believe we are but we clearly have greater democracy than some.

No the ancient Greeks had a degree of democracy, in Athens mainly, the other city states had a kind of democracy, but we wouldn't call it democracy.
Interestingly Plato was anti democratic advocating the philosophers should rule, because only trained philosophers could know the truth., and Socrates' views (via Plato) have been the basis of many anti democratic thinkers.
I don't think you can have absolute democracy that would mean voting on virtually everything-well you could have it in theory but it would chaotic i guess.

I saw BTs post about sexuality and agree with Roysie. I some middle east countries (pakistan included) homosexuality carries the dealth penalty by stoning and in Afghanistan the methods are
throwing the homosexual down from a high roof or hill or by burying
them beside a wall which is then toppled on to them or being burned at the stake. Yes there are some crazy people people on our streets, but in this day and age society in general is much more tolerant towards fellow man and civilised.