As a casual observer with only a rudimentary understanding of Pakistan the assasination of Bhutto seemed inevitable. When the army and the Islamic radicals both want you dead, what are your chances? It would seem that her choice to return to Pakistan was a choice of martyrdom but who will take her death as their rallying cry? Moderates only exert influence with their voting power under the rule of law.
The problem has nothing to do with seperation of religion and state. This isn't a shock coming from a country that has been ruled by the military since its birth. One has to wonder what course Pakistan would have taken had Jinnah not died prematurely of lung cancer? Pakistan is on the brink of becoming a failed state.
Pakistan has more separation of religion and state than almost every other Muslim country in the world.
Yeah, and Rafer Altson is MVP compared to Francis and James. Have some family and friends over there and things are extremely bad in Karachi. An uncle is stuck at the office. Prayers were canceled in progress and people were asked to just go home.
I didnt say the situation was good there but to blame separation of religion and state is silly, especially considering much of the Muslim world has much stricter rules.
She was a thief; I had no respect for her….she bought a mansion for 7 million euros in Monte-Carlo with tax payer’s money….also when she made her return to Pakistan she paid people about 1500 Rps/head to come out in a crowd to support her, she’s political scum. Though I have to give her credit for being courageous enough to come back when she knew she’s most likely going to get killed. She may have been corrupt but nobody deserves to get killed over it.
Here we see the falsehood and misconception by many Muslims, which is contrary to the teachings of the Coran and also contrary to the teaching of God as laid down in the Fifth Commandment. The greatest sin of all is to take away from God his right to call us, through our death, to him. This person who killed Mrs Butto took the life of another and also took his own life, condeming himself and taking him away from the Love of God. As children of our Creator we are all brothers and sisters and should accoringly love one another.
Typical Dakota spouting off on something he knows nothing about. I'm not sure what separation of religion and state has anything to do with anything here. Other than Zia ul Huq, Pakistan has never had a ruler (civilian or military) run on an Islamist platform or endorse any Islamist agenda. The Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest Islamist party only garnered 11% of the popular vote at last election and has never faired well. The radical elements who are probably responsible for Bhutto's death and who were the focus of her efforts were not state actors. The element within the military partial towards the Taliban/Al-Qaedaists is not something disposed of by your cute "separation of religion and state" rhetoric. The politicians within any country have sympathies and leanings, even here where Christian fundamentalism has seeped into the Republican party.It's obviously more severe and extreme in Pakistan as you will no doubt counter, but these leanings are completely irrelevant to a dichotomy of church and state. They aren't imposing some platform of Islamization. That was already done and repealed. The Islamist elements are external while the corruption and undemocratic forces are coming directly from within, especially from the military. Is Islamic extremism a problem? Hell yes. But your assertion that it has to do with a seperation of religion and state is absurd at best. The obstacle to democracy has been the secular military from the start.
There's no doubt that these elements have influence and have even infiltrated. Approximately 16% of the Pakistani military is comprised of fundamentalists with no ties to the United States (this figure is outdated by a few months). Starting in 1991 and ending in 2001, no Pakistani military personnel was sent to the USA for military training so you have the creation of this element with no affinity towards us. The political question in relation to this has always been what happens if one of these older generals came to power (in the event of a Musharraf assasination, though that is a bit irrelevant now). You will have infiltration and influence but this is completely exclusive of a separation between religion and state. How can a concerted separation at all effect a covert influence/infiltration not endorsed by the state? It's going to go on regardless. This isn't Iran - there is no imposition of Islamic law, the Hudud Laws were repealed in 2006. The only effect of a more stringent separation would be outright banning of the MMA which really acheives nothing.
I read on CNN this morning that the US gave nearly $10 billion in aid to Pakistan after 9/11. Is it okay for the US to support a questionable regime as long as it's a friendly one? What is the difference between Pakistan and Syria? How can Bush condemn Venezuela and Iran with a straight face when our hands are just as dirty? That chimp needs to get off his high horse.
I don't know if I believe the statistic that 16% of the Pakistani military is comprised of fundamentalists. My uncle is a Brigadier (one level below General) in the Pakistani army. This past summer when I visited him, I met several high ranking officials in the Pakistani army, none of which were even remotely close to being "fundamentalists." In fact, they were very liberal (religiously). This 16% might be comprised of Sergeant-level and below, but I highly doubt there is a threat of any high ranking official being a fundamentalist.
