Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack

[roshan]

It is. And as the Jemima Khan piece I posted earlier pointed out, there is a tendency when someone dies to dwell on their good points rather than give a balanced account of their achievements. Nevertheless, if Bhutto stirred up anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan, I doubt she was unique in doing so.

 

If you read the article carefully, its much more than just her stirring up anti India sentiment. It deals with her perspective on a lot of issues, such as nuclear weapons (the ultimate weapon for asserting the moral superiority of Islam? WTF? Is this woman insane?), denial of the genocide in Bangladesh, sacrificing the welfare of the Pakistani people in order to maintain the conflict with India, her bigoted views of history (Pakistan and India were never one country), her incompetence and corruption, her desire to ferment terrorism in India, her role in the formation of the Taliban, encouragind jihad and radical Islam and so on.

 

But you are free to gloss over all these things if you wish.

Edited December 31, 2007 by roshan

[samm]

What inaccuracies?

This for example (and really only one of many!):

Secondly, under Bhutto, the Taliban formed and, helped by Pakistan's intelligence service, swept across Afghanistan and later hosted Osama bin Laden. It is a bit of an irony that she may have been killed by the very people she helped foster if at all she was murdered.

What's the meaning of "under Bhutto"? It is implied that she helped forming "the Taliban" (as if "the Taliban" were a couple of people coming from Pakistan that later emiigrated to Afghanistan), but it could just as well be "during her time as prime minister" and not being related with her personally all. It also implies to the reader a connection between her and Bin Laden, something that makes her the devil in every sincere american citizen's eyes. It then implies that she probably was not even murdered at all. Coupled with highly subjective and suggestive statements, in these two senteces "it is a bit of an irony that she may have been...", it clearly marks the article to be read with great caution.

This does not mean I'm a fan of Bhutto's politics - in fact, I'm not very informed about her. This article however doesn't inform very much, it mostly raises doubts and evokes negative feelings.

 

[Edited for better English...]

Edited January 2, 2008 by samm

[jaguars4ever]

Nice to see that Scotland Yard is getting involved: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/0...ions/index.html

 

The police/government officials in that region are so corrupt, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.

[Walsingham]

It is. And as the Jemima Khan piece I posted earlier pointed out, there is a tendency when someone dies to dwell on their good points rather than give a balanced account of their achievements. Nevertheless, if Bhutto stirred up anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan, I doubt she was unique in doing so.

 

If you read the article carefully, its much more than just her stirring up anti India sentiment. It deals with her perspective on a lot of issues, such as nuclear weapons (the ultimate weapon for asserting the moral superiority of Islam? WTF? Is this woman insane?), denial of the genocide in Bangladesh, sacrificing the welfare of the Pakistani people in order to maintain the conflict with India, her bigoted views of history (Pakistan and India were never one country), her incompetence and corruption, her desire to ferment terrorism in India, her role in the formation of the Taliban, encouragind jihad and radical Islam and so on.

 

But you are free to gloss over all these things if you wish.

 

When one makes alliances one rarely gets to choose the perfect partner. But I agree it is only sensible to recall that she was not perfect. But then I think the dynastic progression in her political party should have done that.

[roshan]

What inaccuracies?

This for example (and really only one of many!):

Secondly, under Bhutto, the Taliban formed and, helped by Pakistan's intelligence service, swept across Afghanistan and later hosted Osama bin Laden. It is a bit of an irony that she may have been killed by the very people she helped foster if at all she was murdered.

What's the meaning of "under Bhutto"? It is implied that she helped forming "the Taliban" (as if "the Taliban" were a couple of people coming from Pakistan that later emiigrated to Afghanistan), but it could just as well be "during her time as prime minister" and not being related with her personally all.

 

I dont see how that is innacurate in any way. Under Bhutto clearly refers to her administration.

 

It also implies to the reader a connection between her and Bin Laden, something that makes her the devil in every sincere american citizen's eyes.

 

This is only speculation on your part - and that too a far fetched one. I read the article and in no way did it imply to me that she had any sort of connection to Bin Laden, although her sympathy and her administrations support for radical Islamism was made clear.

 

It then implies that she probably was not even murdered at all.

 

Can you show where this was implied by the article?

 

Coupled with highly subjective and suggestive statements, in these two senteces "it is a bit of an irony that she may have been...", it clearly marks the article to be read with great caution.

This does not mean I'm a fan of Bhutto's politics - in fact, I'm not very informed about her. This article however doesn't inform very much, it mostly raises doubts and evokes negative feelings.

 

"May have been killed by" refers to the fact that she "may have been killed by" anyone - we do not know who killed her. That is a statement of fact - why does stating this fact mark the article to be read with great caution? If anything, it shows that the author draws a clear line between what is known for a fact, and what isnt.

 

I think you are trying to read much more into the article than there is.

Edited January 15, 2008 by roshan