Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

[JohnnyFlame]

I'm not sure a weak democracy wouldn't just be exploited by the fanatics. The one positive thing about having a dictator who relies on the military for power is he can ramp it up at anytime. Osama methinks better think very carefully before forcing the guys hand. He is already pushing at them. Next step is he teams up with the Americans and they hit them from both sides.

The terrorists are already taking a lot of hits in IRAQ. If circumstances force a combined Pakastani/American surge they will take a huge hit there as well.

They already blew it by cheezing off the Sunni's in Iraq. They could make another big mistake in Pakistan.

[Ozy_Flame]

Well, one things for sure - the methods for political assassinations are definitely not as covert as they used to be back during the Cold War. Much to the chagrin of the world over, they appear to be much easier to carry out when you strap bombs to your waist or drive an explosive-ridden car into a crowd. And then if that doesn't get the job done, the job can certainly be finished in the ensuing chaos.

For me, that is far more terrifying than say, a CIA-backed operation.

I guess poison-tipped cigars have gone the way of the Dodo bird....

[LChoy]

I have always been impressed by the political knowledge CP has, especially since it is a sports forum. Sometimes, I like reading the OT forum more so than the Flames forum.

Pakistan is one of those “special cases” (how common these exceptions are for another topic) for US foreign policy. Pakistan is a military dictatorship, harbours anti-western elements, does business with unfriendly nations, formerly (not sure if still) took part in nuclear proliferation, dodgy human rights record, and politically corrupt and non transparent. However, Pakistan was able to identify early post 9/11 that the US needed allies, and have been able to cultivate an understanding with the US government. They might have had one of the most to gain in this war on Terror, as the India traditionally got all of the love from the Americans.

Bhutto’s assassination was bold but counter-productive to the whole process. Sadly, assassinations and mass suicide bombings are tragically common in these regions. Timing is bad, with most of the Western world celebrating peace through the holidays, although the elections are weeks away. With her death, the current leader President Pervez Musharraf probably has the upper hand to lead his party, although if the PKK can get a new leader quickly, they may get the sympathy vote. It’s going to be a spin doctor’s circus in the next couple of weeks for all the major players trying to look innocent and jockeying for position. Although Bhutto isn’t as angelic as some in the media makes her out to be, she has the elements which could have brought change to the country. She’s a woman and a champion for human and gender rights, a former exiled politician with a reformist platform, and she has popularity from her message not by force. Personally, I think the biggest good is that she at least provides a choice for people in the upcoming election besides status quo military rule or hard core Islamic rule. The whole power sharing and coalition government would have been a big step for Pakistan. Sadly, the biggest casualty of her death is the people of Pakistan as they won’t be getting any stability anytime soon.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by fotze

Well if Syriana or Bourne Ultimatum taught me anything, this was a CIA attack. They just notified the bomber (asset) via cellphone to carry out this attack. they can do it within seconds.

If you watch Spygame. sometimes the more common sucide bombing is more covert than "mysterious circumstances"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well, one things for sure - the methods for political assassinations are definitely not as covert as they used to be back during the Cold War. Much to the chagrin of the world over, they appear to be much easier to carry out when you strap bombs to your waist or drive an explosive-ridden car into a crowd. And then if that doesn't get the job done, the job can certainly be finished in the ensuing chaos.

For me, that is far more terrifying than say, a CIA-backed operation.

I guess poison-tipped cigars have gone the way of the Dodo bird....

One of the first rules of assassination is to keep things simple, sometimes and I'm talking in the earlier days of the CIA their plots were convoluted and overly complex, and involve too many people. Trying to use poison against Castro, and hiring the Mob to execute the Bay of Pigs invasions were doomed to failure because there were just too many things that spin beyond your control.

If your going to admire anything about these terrorist groups is that their Assassination plots are simply a guy with a bomb vest, a person with a rifle, or a mine set in the road. It certainly makes the required intelligence simpler as all you need to know is their travel schedule and their security. You don't care about what they eat, or who they sleep with or anything like that.

The second rule is to always make sure that the assassin ends up dead so that you can't track back to the responsible group or person.

The Bhutto assassination was well executed. Take your shot with a pistol which is easy to conceal in a crowd, and then detonate a bomb to make sure your target is dead, and the assassin is dead.

Its tragic, but you have to admire how effective it was in getting rid of a high profile and probably well protected target.

And it probably only cost a couple of thousand dollars to pull off.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by fotze

Plus the highly unlikely possiblility of virgins in another dimension.

Now now, that's putting a religious spin on the entire thing!

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of the first rules of assassination is to keep things simple, sometimes and I'm talking in the earlier days of the CIA their plots were convoluted and overly complex, and involve too many people. Trying to use poison against Castro, and hiring the Mob to execute the Bay of Pigs invasions were doomed to failure because there were just too many things that spin beyond your control.

If your going to admire anything about these terrorist groups is that their Assassination plots are simply a guy with a bomb vest, a person with a rifle, or a mine set in the road. It certainly makes the required intelligence simpler as all you need to know is their travel schedule and their security. You don't care about what they eat, or who they sleep with or anything like that.

The second rule is to always make sure that the assassin ends up dead so that you can't track back to the responsible group or person.

The Bhutto assassination was well executed. Take your shot with a pistol which is easy to conceal in a crowd, and then detonate a bomb to make sure your target is dead, and the assassin is dead.

Its tragic, but you have to admire how effective it was in getting rid of a high profile and probably well protected target.

And it probably only cost a couple of thousand dollars to pull off.

Terrorism in general - i agree.

I find it fascinating that terrorism seems to simply be the most logical response to fighting an enemy (America/'the west') that is so much more advanced in terms of military technology, etc.

The crude effectiveness of terrorism is the perfect 'opposite face of the coin' to America (Western Worlds) control of military tech, communications tech, satellites, etc. It is interesting...





Claeren.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Terrorism in general - i agree.

I find it fascinating that terrorism seems to simply be the most logical response to fighting an enemy (America/'the west') that is so much more advanced in terms of military technology, etc.

The crude effectiveness of terrorism is the perfect 'opposite face of the coin' to America (Western Worlds) control of military tech, communications tech, satellites, etc. It is interesting...

Often times, the terrorists seem to follow the mantra of "the best answer is the simplest one."

Of course, Bush followed the same mantra going into Iraq to track terrorists, but I digress....

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Terrorism in general - i agree.

I find it fascinating that terrorism seems to simply be the most logical response to fighting an enemy (America/'the west') that is so much more advanced in terms of military technology, etc.

The crude effectiveness of terrorism is the perfect 'opposite face of the coin' to America (Western Worlds) control of military tech, communications tech, satellites, etc. It is interesting...





Claeren.

Oh I agree, lets be honest, I'm old school, I firmly believe in the code that if your going to fight, you fight, you stab or shoot your opponent in the face, but at least you to some extent allow your intentions and give your opponent a chance to fight back.

I also believe that if you have a technological advantage on the battle field that your obliged to use it to save the lives of your men.

I don't believe in the deliberate destruction of civilian personal with no goal except to foster terror, and with no target except for civilians. So I do find terrorist methods to be cowardly. I just don't understand the mindset of someone who can walk into a crowd, look at woman or young children and pull the pin.

But there was a certain elegance in the way that they got to Bhutto today. In terms of sheer organization and efficiency it was hideously well done.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Terrorism in general - i agree.

I find it fascinating that terrorism seems to simply be the most logical response to fighting an enemy (America/'the west') that is so much more advanced in terms of military technology, etc.

In Political Science speak, Terrorism/asymmetrical Warfare is the old school response to the "Revolution of Military Affairs (RMA)"
Armies of mainly Western states are so over powerful, that states/agents just don't go miliary vs military anymore.

Terrorist or Guerilla (debatable if they are the same term, or one falls under the other) tactics have worked since man started fighting. If hearts and minds battle didn't matter, Western nations would just nuke any threat they had. In weaker countries, if they can win the hearts and minds of your enemy's populace, you can force our attackers to withdraw or cave to public pressure. In addition, if you can completely terrify your enemy's populace with bombings and terrorist actions, your attackers may hestiate as well.
The greatest challenge use to be supplies in warfighting. Terrorism makes it easy with small cells, and common resources. A 2.5 lb explosive made from an anti-tank mine can take out a 12.5 million dollar abram tank. Scary times

(In some ways, if we didn't have Terrorism and 1 nation decides they have nothing to lose, watching WW3 from the moon would be kind of cool )

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by gildo

No matter what you say abut her or her family she was an incredibly well educated person being raised in a country and era that "shunned" women to be bold, educated and involved in the wrokforce not just Pakistan but the entire world just lost someone who wanted to try to make positive changes in a country filled with turmoil on a regular basis. It makes me sad sometimes that people like this are killed so easily and morons like George W. Bush continue to walk around like they have done nothing wrong and run a country like the U.S. who's economy is facing great deprssion, there future / youht are dying everyday in a war that has exceeded $billlions +++++ in cost.

I'm confused are you saying Bush should be killed?

[BCReefer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I agree, lets be honest, I'm old school, I firmly believe in the code that if your going to fight, you fight, you stab or shoot your opponent in the face, but at least you to some extent allow your intentions and give your opponent a chance to fight back.

I also believe that if you have a technological advantage on the battle field that your obliged to use it to save the lives of your men.

I don't believe in the deliberate destruction of civilian personal with no goal except to foster terror, and with no target except for civilians. So I do find terrorist methods to be cowardly. I just don't understand the mindset of someone who can walk into a crowd, look at woman or young children and pull the pin.

But there was a certain elegance in the way that they got to Bhutto today. In terms of sheer organization and efficiency it was hideously well done.

We might not agree on some hockey discussions, but I agree 100% in what you wrote here. Good on ya!

[Hakan]

One of my professors was very good friends with Benazir Bhutto thanks to working with her for the past 3 years on democratic reform in Pakistan. I talked to him today and he is very upset and sad.

Terrible situation.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by fotze

The most disturbing part of this is that not one person I mentioned this today, had the foggiest clue of who she (most think its a he) is/was. Don't people ever watch the news, like ever?

When a friend of mine thinks Winston Churchill is a black guy in Star Wars, that pretty much sums it up for me. People are idiots.

[feartheflames]

Bhutto was ill advised to come back- she and her family were well known for thr corrupt political ways, she had multiple threats,simply said people hated her like they hate Hitler sadly it was only a matter of time

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'm confused are you saying Bush should be killed?

I think he edited it out.

Regardless of what one might think of Bush, assassinations usually aren't the best way to promote stability within ANY country.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by lchoy

In Political Science speak, Terrorism/asymmetrical Warfare is the old school response to the "Revolution of Military Affairs (RMA)"
Armies of mainly Western states are so over powerful, that states/agents just don't go miliary vs military anymore.

Terrorist or Guerilla (debatable if they are the same term, or one falls under the other) tactics have worked since man started fighting. If hearts and minds battle didn't matter, Western nations would just nuke any threat they had. In weaker countries, if they can win the hearts and minds of your enemy's populace, you can force our attackers to withdraw or cave to public pressure. In addition, if you can completely terrify your enemy's populace with bombings and terrorist actions, your attackers may hestiate as well.
The greatest challenge use to be supplies in warfighting. Terrorism makes it easy with small cells, and common resources. A 2.5 lb explosive made from an anti-tank mine can take out a 12.5 million dollar abram tank. Scary times

On that note, an interesting article at Slate.com today on some USA commanders worried that the US Army may have adapted so well to counter-insurgency and gone so far "in country" that it may be forgetting how to fight the big wars it was designed for.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180883/nav/tap3/

Cowperson

[Mike F]

For any who might be interested, TIME magazine has a decent thumbnail sketch of her political career in all of its stuttering and ineffective glory (still too bad she's dead, though).

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

On that note, an interesting article at Slate.com today on some USA commanders worried that the US Army may have adapted so well to counter-insurgency and gone so far "in country" that it may be forgetting how to fight the big wars it was designed for.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180883/nav/tap3/

Cowperson

Unless there is some exteme upset in the military balance of this universe, those great, massive wars fueled by manpower are, IMO, part of a bygone era.

Counter-insurgency is the name of the game for today's modern armies. There are far, FAR more militaries in this world that have that as a higher priority than a conventional military buildup.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

On that note, an interesting article at Slate.com today on some USA commanders worried that the US Army may have adapted so well to counter-insurgency and gone so far "in country" that it may be forgetting how to fight the big wars it was designed for.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180883/nav/tap3/

Cowperson

What is with the US army? Short term memory problems?

Before they couldn't fight the small dirty wars, now they can't fight the big ones. What about the mid-size and short-term economical wars?