Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

[LChoy]

Cool, I knew I remember something like that
Al Qaeda is also very convenient to blame since everything and everyone involved in terrorism and violence are given that label.

An interesting analogy my prof used was that Al Qaeda is a university, and Osama the Dean and Chief Financer. With the backing of the Taliban in Afghanistan (I’m not sure what the Taliban got in return, but Bin Laden got sanctuary and a place to build), Osama built training facilities, came up with terrorist curriculum (from experience and old CIA training materials left over in the 80s), and recruited veterans that he fought with against the Russians to teach new students in various topics (explosives, guns, religious views,…etc). Once “Terrorist University” was established, students came from all over the world to train. The brightest students were identified, and received additional training (a so called honours or Masters) where they would become cell leaders. Once trained, students are sent to where they were needed depending on their classification (action or some type of logistics), and to set up independent cells. Osama and the elites of the organizations may suggest targets or ideas for terrorist actions, but they mainly impart their view that each student should in their own way actively resist the occupation of Western forces on Arabs lands, and that they have the responsibility to help their fellow Muslims anywhere in the world. While it remains debated if Osama had any direct planning with 9/11, the terrorists did receive their training from Osama. This structure makes it extremely difficult to completely destroy Al Qaeda as cells are so independent of each other. Also, it is something people need to understand if they are frustrated how Osama can supposedly plan all this stuff while hiding in some cave somewhere.

In the present War on Terror, the terrorist infrastructure has been pretty much uprooted in Afghanistan, but they exist in other places now like Sudan, Pakistan, (*whisper* Saudi Arabia). Al Qaeda is now different from the original training institution to a philosophy of any terrorist action against the West. It’s entirely possible that Bhutto’s assassination was done by someone who graduated from Al Qaeda, but more likely than not, it’s by some faction that identifies with the original vision of Osama and Al Qaeda. Unless those recordings of Al Qaeda leaders congratulating themselves actually have them say they planned it, it doesn’t necessary mean those leaders were actively involved, but just pleased with the result.

[Vulcan]

Hopefully they can blame this on AlQaeda and Pakistan can move to get rid of their training grounds and havens.

Hilary was just on CNN tearing a strip off of Bush for giving Pakistan massive military aid with no strings attached. They need to be accountable. Goes to show that anyone still thinking that Bush went into Iraq to spread democracy is pretty naive. Bush is like most any other political leader, if not more unfeeling. If you work for or with me, you're my friend. Doesn't matter if you're a dictator or an elected representative.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Hopefully they can blame this on AlQaeda and Pakistan can move to get rid of their training grounds and havens.

Hilary was just on CNN tearing a strip off of Bush for giving Pakistan massive military aid with no strings attached. They need to be accountable. Goes to show that anyone still thinking that Bush went into Iraq to spread democracy is pretty naive. Bush is like most any other political leader, if not more unfeeling. If you work for or with me, you're my friend. Doesn't matter if you're a dictator or an elected representative.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to find a way to blame Bush for what happened.

If Bush would have distanced himself from Pakistan after 9/11 because of their dictatorship he would have been blamed for chasing the Taliban into a nation with Nuclear bombs and a weakening vulnerable government. The fact is that once a country gains weapons of mass destruction that changes how the world needs to treat them. Stability becomes an over-riding preoccupation. Good fair government must take a distant second.

Odds are someone somewhere will eventually use Nuclear weapons again. All we can do is hope to delay it. Obviously limiting the number of nations which have these weapons is the first order of prevention. A close second would be to seek stability within the countries that have already achieved nuclear capabilities.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Not trying to spark a conspiracy theory thread, but when 9/11 happened, Al Queda didn't claim responsibility and even posted a condolense message on their website within a couple of hours (if I recall correctly)...

Honestly, none of us will ever know if Al Queda ever existed. Could be just a Brazil/1984 type phenomenom. Personally, I think it is a name given to a loose collective of islamists that don't necessarily operate under one banner. Makes it a little easier for the public to swallow if they have a clear enemy though.

Assuming Al Queda does exist, it seems like Al Queda takes credit for things based on people's reaction to it. When they know the reaction is going to be severe or the incident perceived negatively by the global community they distance themselves.

When it is likely to win recruits they take credit. So in this instance, this assasination is not going over so well with the Pakistani public and is likely to result in loss of support in one of the biggest muslim nations in the world. Hence they deny any claim to it.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by blankall

Honestly, none of us will ever know if Al Queda ever existed. Could be just a Brazil/1984 type phenomenom. Personally, I think it is a name given to a loose collective of islamists that don't necessarily operate under one banner. Makes it a little easier for the public to swallow if they have a clear enemy though.

Assuming Al Queda does exist, it seems like Al Queda takes credit for things based on people's reaction to it. When they know the reaction is going to be severe or the incident perceived negatively by the global community they distance themselves.

When it is likely to win recruits they take credit. So in this instance, this assasination is not going over so well with the Pakistani public and is likely to result in loss of support in one of the biggest muslim nations in the world. Hence they deny any claim to it.

They exist. The real questions are who created it. And who is pulling the strings.

In responce to the question, does al Quada benefit from this if they claim responsibility. The answer is yes*. Its like politics here, whenever a government does something, a portion of the population likes it, a portion hates it, and some don't care. Same thing works for the muslims. The fundamentalists love it, the moderate hate it (but they're marginalize, so who cares).

Of course this doesn't really matter because the operation was almost certainly done by the Pakistani intel people. Whether it was done by a rogue faction or on orders from high will be the sticking point.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to find a way to blame Bush for what happened.

If Bush would have distanced himself from Pakistan after 9/11 because of their dictatorship he would have been blamed for chasing the Taliban into a nation with Nuclear bombs and a weakening vulnerable government. The fact is that once a country gains weapons of mass destruction that changes how the world needs to treat them. Stability becomes an over-riding preoccupation. Good fair government must take a distant second.

Odds are someone somewhere will eventually use Nuclear weapons again. All we can do is hope to delay it. Obviously limiting the number of nations which have these weapons is the first order of prevention. A close second would be to seek stability within the countries that have already achieved nuclear capabilities.

Who said anything about distancing themselves from Pakistan. The issue brought up by Hillary is that they have to be accountable for the money doled out to them. More pressure could be brought to clean up the Al Queda camps and to encourage democracy.

As for blaming Bush goes, [I'm not blaming him for this assassination but he can take some of the heat for the situation in Pakistan] he's such a screwup and easy target, it's hard to resist. It's too bad he didn't take your advice about stability with Iraq.

[CaptainCrunch]

Al Queda exists and exists in a big way. But its not an organization or an army. Al Queda is basically a phone book of Muslim extremists who trained in or fought in Afghanistan during the occupation by the Soviet Union. There is a leadership structure headed by Osama Bin Laden, but he doesn't issue attack orders world wide. But he does provide monetary and logistical expertise.

He makes target suggestions, and then makes sure that they're bankrolled and the right extremists are contacted and bought into play.

Its most likely that the only person or person's that know of everyone involved in Al Queda is Bin Laden himself, and only he knows how to communicate with them.

You can start up an Al Queda cell without his permission, as Al Queda in Iraq was formed and then later attached to Bin Laden.

Born in Afghanistan trained in Pakistan and then let lose on the world.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Who said anything about distancing themselves from Pakistan. The issue brought up by Hillary is that they have to be accountable for the money doled out to them. More pressure could be brought to clean up the Al Queda camps and to encourage democracy.

As if Hillary would do any better.

As for blaming Bush goes, [I'm not blaming him for this assassination but he can take some of the heat for the situation in Pakistan] he's such a screwup and easy target, it's hard to resist. It's too bad he didn't take your advice about stability with Iraq.

What situation? What should he do, send in the troops?

Sure, be accountable, but in the end its either you try to push Pakistan to root out the extremists or you leave the country alone and possibly let nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

As if Hillary would do any better.



What situation? What should he do, send in the troops?

Sure, be accountable, but in the end its either you try to push Pakistan to root out the extremists or you leave the country alone and possibly let nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.

Look at it this way Azure, Bush gives Pakistan money to clean up their part of the terrorist problem. Next month the job isn't finished so Bush gives another $50M and the next month, same thing, no questions asked. It doesn't take long for the dictator to realize he's on to a good thing by keeping the Taliban handy and active. When the money is only given out for results and you require a paper trail for the spending, maybe things in Afghanistan will improve.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Look at it this way Azure, Bush gives Pakistan money to clean up their part of the terrorist problem. Next month the job isn't finished so Bush gives another $50M and the next month, same thing, no questions asked. It doesn't take long for the dictator to realize he's on to a good thing by keeping the Taliban handy and active. When the money is only given out for results and you require a paper trail for the spending, maybe things in Afghanistan will improve.

Like I said, be accountable.

But if money buys some sort of stability, by all means spend it. Especially if 'said' country has nuclear weapons.

[Daradon]

That's not stability, it's just buying time. Plus adding the increasing damage that, that money might be used for terrorism or other unlawlessness.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

That's not stability, it's just buying time. Plus adding the increasing damage that, that money might be used for terrorism or other unlawlessness.

Like CalgaryBorn said, chances are someone is eventually going to use a nuclear weapon. All we really can do is 'buy' time.

Yes, the US should be more accountable with their foreign aid, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should stop giving Pakistan money.

But I do believe they went about it wrongly from the get-go. Like Vulcan said, the US should have demanded certain results in exchange for more aid.