Benazir Bhutto’s Role In The Rise Of The Taliban
The Toronto Star’s Rosie Dimanno quoted something yesterday from Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars that I had forgotten about. Benazir Bhutto’s role in the rise of the Taliban…
“As Ghost Wars author Steve Coll so dryly put it: “Benazir Bhutto was suddenly the matron of a new Afghan faction.”
The late – twice – but no longer future prime minister of Pakistan was far, far from a stupid woman. The Taliban was a gamble she took, cunningly if not without considerable trepidation – and certainly at the behest of a powerful intelligence service, the ISI, she feared but had to accommodate, in the doomed hope of retaining office.
But make no mistake: The woman who is now being so widely mourned – assassinated last week, perhaps by the very elements she empowered more than a decade ago – was nurturing stepmother to terrorists incubated under her watch; the same Islamist fanatics she inveighed against during the election campaign that came to a screeching halt in the calamitous assault on her motorcade.
She was a brave woman, without question, but Bhutto was much to blame for the tinderbox that Pakistan became during her exile in Dubai and London – the toxic military entanglement with the Taliban – having helped to create a monster that not even the sponsoring ISI can control any longer.
For years, during her second tenure as PM, Bhutto lied brazenly to Washington about the extent to which Pakistan, with her approval, was covertly arming and funding the Taliban. As Bhutto admitted in a 2002 interview: “Once I gave the go-ahead that they should get the money, I don’t know how much money they were ultimately given … I know it was a lot. It was just carte blanche.”
For Bhutto, the objective was to keep a new Afghanistan yoked to Pakistan and out of India’s orbit. (Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was considered far too Delhi-friendly.) Out of this relationship would flow the riches of a Pakistan-controlled trucking industry circumventing Kabul – a modern Silk Road trade incorporating the markets of Central Asia – the never realized gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, and training camps, off the Pakistan reservation, for fighters deployed to Kashmir.
Bhutto had an economic and political vision for Pakistan, one that depended largely on creating a compliant client state next door. It all got away from her, as it did also from the ISI. Indeed, Al Qaeda – now firmly interwoven with the Taliban – was contemptuous of Bhutto from the start, plotting her political demise, at the invitation of some ISI officers, as early as 1989.”
Everything comes out in the wash, unfortunately.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
“The [Country] who is now being so widely mourned – [attacked more than 6 years ago], perhaps by the very elements [it] empowered a decade ago – was nurturing [financial backer] to terrorists incubated under [its] watch;”
Fun with words.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Seems everybody’s looking for the $5 fix to centuries old regional conflicts.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Nice one Patrick. Bird’s of a feather?
At any rate, I am glad that someone is paying attention to Benazir’s tenure as prime minister before and revealing her rule for what it really was. No one doubts the woman’s courage, but her choices were questionable.
I wonder how this is going to play out, both internationally and locally. Either people will start remembering what it was like before, and the connections between Bhutto and various terrorist organizations will become front page news worldwide, OR though there will be smidgens of news about her involvement with the Taliban here and there, mainstream media will continue to represent her as a fallen hero for democracy. At this point I think it could go either way…..
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Rosie Dimanno gets the 2nd page in the Star, and no one around here quite knows why…
i doubt all has come out in one little wash.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
I wasn’t inferring that it did in this case in its entirety. As for Dimanno, I don’t follow her every move, but I did think this piece was very poignant.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
RE: Rosie Dimanno: I’ve been reading her articles for years and find that in general I find she writes interesting articles on a range of issues. The only issue I have noted with her is that she is a bit “anti-female”. She rarely has anything positive to say about other women, and any good things that she does say can most often be perceived as back-handed compliments.
That being said… I don’t it takes anything away from the article above. She is raising a good (and forgotten) point.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
This was something that I said in a previous post.. I think on the Assassination thread. But yes, she was the finicial backer for the Taliban going into Afghanistan. My step mother, who is from Afghanistan, lost a sister to the Taliban.. its a sad state of affairs that a woman who advocated womens rights SO much, was one who helped empower a group who terrorized them
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
According to Christina Lamb, the journalist and author, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence was beyond the Pakistani government’s control, including the weak Bhutto regimes. Hamid Gul was in sole control and the ISI created the Taliban. The tragedy they unleashed on Afghans is unforgiveable.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:43 am
1) Bhutto was cleared on corruption charges by the pakistani auditor general http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002612.php
2) the afghan rebels, who later became the taliban, were actually financially backed by the US (among several other countries including the UK) http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDF1F3FF932A25751C0A96F948260
January 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Of course she had been. That’s not new news. And not surprising in the least.
The article you’ve quoted is two years prior to Bhutto’s assistance to them. Afghanistan in the 90’s was home to a power vacuum after the war with the Soviets ended.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Carly, Though she was cleared, I would like to clarify that in Pakistan, that doesn’t mean very much. You would have to actually live there to know what the climate is like, but it’s not hard to get oneself cleared of certain charges if you grease the right palms and pay the right folk. So unfortunately her exoneration holds very little weight. Most of the charges in other countries were never proven, but she was never exonerated either. Her or her husband.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
what do you mean, “of course”
if the AG cleared her of suspicions, then wouldn’t that mean she was found not guilty of aiding the taliban?
if the PK gov’t is so corrupt, then why focus on allegations (that have been cleared) for a woman who had millions of poor and voiceless followers? why not look at musharraf, of PK as a whole instead of this slander in a very delicate time?
do you know she’s recorded saying that bin laden is dead?
i gave links, they’ve been challenged fine. so where are my challengers links then?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Not that I was the one that made that comment, but “of course she was cleared”. First of all, though she was cleared of corruption charges in 2005, there were several outstanding charges against her that lasted all the way til October of 2007, at which point Musharraf pardoned her. The reason he did this was because he realises that his grasp on the Pakistani population was (is) tenuous at best, and by pardoning Bhutto, and paving the way for a coalition government, he was much more likely to stay in power. Additionally, Bhutto has US backing, which he has been rapidly losing over the past couple of years. Those two factors contributed greatly to his decision to pardon her, and allow her to return to the country (he should have known she was planning on backing out of the deal), but desperate men do desperate things. Again, she was not cleared of these charges, she was granted amnesty by a special presidential order.
[quote comment="37298"]if the PK gov’t is so corrupt, then why focus on allegations (that have been cleared) for a woman who had millions of poor and voiceless followers? why not look at musharraf, of PK as a whole instead of this slander in a very delicate time?[/quote]
I dont really understand the question.
Here are a couple of links:
1) She was granted amnesty, not cleared of the outstanding corruption charges
2) So Spain let her go too
3) And this? This is just a blog whose entry on Bhutto I liked
January 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
IIf I am not mistaken, wasnt she found guilty in Swiizerland? In Aug of 2003..both her and her husband.
edited.
In fact here is a copy paste of the article I found..its from Wikpedia!
On July 23, 1998, the Swiss Government handed over documents to the government of Pakistan which relate to corruption allegations against Benazir Bhutto and her husband.[20] The documents included a formal charge of money laundering by Swiss authorities against Zardari. The Pakistani government had been conducting a wide-ranging inquiry to account for more than $13.7 million frozen by Swiss authorities in 1997 that was allegedly stashed in banks by Bhutto and her husband. The Pakistani government recently filed criminal charges against Bhutto in an effort to track down an estimated $1.5 billion she and her husband are alleged to have received in a variety of criminal enterprises.[21] The documents suggest that the money Zardari was alleged to have laundered was accessible to Benazir Bhutto and had been used to buy a diamond necklace for over $175,000.[22] The PPP has responded by flatly denying the charges, suggesting that Swiss authorities have been misled by false evidence provided by Islamabad.
On August 6, 2003, Swiss magistrates found Bhutto and her husband guilty of money laundering.[23] They were given six-month suspended jail terms, fined $50,000 each and were ordered to pay $11 million to the Pakistani government. The six-year trial concluded that Bhutto and Zardari deposited in Swiss accounts $10 million given to them by a Swiss company in exchange for a contract in Pakistan. The couple said they would appeal. The Pakistani investigators say Zardari opened a Citibank account in Geneva in 1995 through which they say he passed some $40 million of the $100 million he received in payoffs from foreign companies doing business in Pakistan.[24] In October 2007, Daniel Zappelli, chief prosecutor of the canton of Geneva, said he received the conclusions of a money laundering investigation against former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on October 29, but it was unclear whether there would be any further legal action against her in Switzerland.[25]
January 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
bhutto was found guilty of money laundering in switzerland. she maintained her innocence and was working on an appeal, but now she’s dead.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
not to mention her laundering charge doesn’t have any sort of correlation to the taliban.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
My other comment is being moderated, so all my links are missing - but I have to say - the woman was many things - innocent was not one of them. There is a very long list of charges that were never adequately dealt with, not the least of which was her involvement in her brother’s murder. And she is dead, but if she was truly innocent (which I doubt, but if she was) then the truth will come to light.
And that is true. Her laundering charge doesnt have any correlation to the Taliban, but she did funnel money to them. The list of moral and criminal charges against her is quite long really.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
[quote comment="37303"]
And that is true. Her laundering charge doesnt have any correlation to the Taliban, but she did funnel money to them. [/quote]
source?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Xarcadia, a great summary of things as they stand in REAL LIFE. Why does a discussion that touches millions of lives suddenly looks like a discussion of Conrad Black trial on CBC?
I believe that her biggest let down was the fact that she is shown as a great Muslim woman, champion of women’s rights, but she never really even tried to change anything while she was a Prime Minister.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
If you do a search for her, you can and will see that she directly gave money to the Taliban. First off, the Taliban never would have had the means to come to power in Afghanistan if they did not have backing.. Bhutto herself said that she didnt understand the implications of the Taliban when she assisted them. She believed that they could help stabilize Afghanistan for the trade with the Central Asian Republic. As you know or dont know, Afghanistan was already in a great state of despair, having defeated the Russians, they were unable to rebuild Afghanistan due to the Tribal Leaders fighting over ultimate rule of Afghanistan.. Whether or not ( and this is pure speculation ) she knew what the Taliban was and did, there was no mistake as to what they were when she sent military into Afghanistan.. This is unforgivable. You DO not send troops to another country with the hopes or under the guise of helping them *so called* so you can profit from it.. as you can see with the war for oil.. I mean war on terror, it does nothing to stabilize a area and more importantly the only ones who will and do profit from it are the ones who do the invaded. Never really knowing that their “good intentions” just killed and set into a power a group of people who are a detriment to the human race, imo. I know that I sound like a lunatic.. but having seen my step mother suffer from no information to finding out that her sister was stoned to death for being a teacher is something I am going to get worked up over.. having lived through a almost massacre in Iran I can and have seen what that power, when enabled can and will do..
With that she may have had her slate wiped clean, but it doesnt excuse double speak.. Not one bit. The issues have been with her is that of the same we have with policitians in general.. they do not and never will hold up to the morality that they use for the foundation for winning the hearts and minds of the public to whom they push themselves upon.
And with all that I have read and heard from my dear new “friend” Xarcadia, yay, she would have done the same, given the chance. I am not glad for her death, but I am glad that her reign hopefully stops here.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Theres some documentation in Ghost Wars, but here are some links.
(don’t judge for the first link!)
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/27/news/international/ellis_bhutto.fortune/
Scroll down to the scans of the books for this one:
http://www.theperfectworld.us/thread.php?id=2402&postNum=92&ref=highlight
This one is somewhat useful, but is more about the Taliban in general, but it does talk about Bhutto’s interior ministry:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/31/6085/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_what_good_time_charlie_brought/
There are 100’s more, but I cant post every link here. Just do a search, I am sure that they will pop up.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
To hopeforchange, keep sounding like a lunatic - maybe it will give people a chance to see what our fellow beings go through daily. And I agree with you, politicians never hold up to their morality, or maybe they they change it at their convenience. And what is even worse, in any conflict, if one side suddenly chooses to uphold the noble moral codes, the other will always do the opposite…
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
[quote comment="37308"]If you do a search for her, you can and will see that she directly gave money to the Taliban. First off, the Taliban never would have had the means to come to power in Afghanistan if they did not have backing.[/quote]
how about you provide us with one of the plethora hits then, since it’s no biggie?
and yeah, WE (allies to the US and members of NATO) backed the taliban. seemed like a good idea at the time i guess….
January 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I’m sorry. I think because of the fact that I have links in my posts, they are being moderated, since all of my linkless posts are showing up fine. I do have a long long list of links of sites that backs up my claim. This isn’t shameless plugging for me here, but you can go to www dot minessa dot com and I will post them all there. In the meantime, if my comments get released, you can see the backup there.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
just copy and paste the urls. wth
January 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I have tried several permutations, some of these links are entirely too long to rewrite so I just thought I would make everyones life easier and just post it.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
yes, ur making things most laxed..
January 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Carly, you seem to be quite angry about something related to this post. I have made the backup for my position available to you. Should you choose to read it and educate yourself about an opinion opposing yours, please feel free to do so. If not, that’s fine as well, but please do not challenge my assertions if you do not have any intention of engaging in intelligent discourse about the topic with me in particular.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
if i seem “angry”, it’s because i don’t appreciate the slander of bhutto, and i don’t respect people arguing me without one damn piece of backup!
i did my part, now you do yours if you want to keep at it, instead of making lame excuses of why you “can’t”.
you think i haven’t looked at both sides? i really am not interested in making a fool of myself in front of matthew good, i covered my bases, now if u wish to continue, pls cover yours instead of trying to assess my level of happiness at this time.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I am not slandering Bhutto in any way. I grew up in Pakistan, and spent a great deal of time with her family, and I know that there are some very nice, genuine people in the Bhutto family. I have no personal reason to hate her nor to have wished her harm. However, at the same time. I also must admit that during my time there, it was mayhem and violent almost all of the time. I do not know if you are Pakistani, or if you have ever been there, or what your knowledge of the country is. Could be you lived there longer than me, could be you have never been. I am not sure how you are positioning yourself with your debates. However, I did post my links. I will do it this time without the http, and see if that works. If it does work, I will apologise only for my noobiness at not thinking of that before.
(Dont laugh at the first one)
money.cnn.com/2007/12/27/news/international/ellis_bhutto.fortune/
Scroll down to the scans of the books for this one:
http://www.theperfectworld.us/thread.php?id=2402&postNum=92&ref=highlight
This one is somewhat useful, but is more about the Taliban in general, but it does talk about Bhutto’s interior ministry:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/31/6085/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_what_good_time_charlie_brought/
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Benazir_Bhutto_Pardoned_of_Corruption_Charges_09356.html
http://www.newsrightnow.org/articles/2307/1/2462/Spanish-court-shelves-corruption-charges-against-Bhutto/Page1.html
Those were the links I posted in my last post and the one prior to that, that are currently awaiting moderation. I can understand if you had looked at both sides, but the fact that you did not have any information on hand to conduct a complete critique indicated to me that you had not seen my point of view.
Oh and also, when in doubt, you can read Ghost Wars. Theres some stuff in there.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Whoo hoo! it worked, apparently those of us who can fall back to noobiness can return and redeem ourselves.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Well all you have to do is do a wiki search and I can tell you will have all you need from me.
Also, if you do go back and read, Xarcadia and I both have our issues with her and but we also give her credit where its due.. She did do a lot for her countrymen.. and thats to be comeneded. But its folly to not recognize her for her faults as well.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
link 1 - “The above is nonsense. And you don’t have to take my word for it. It’s a matter of simple public record that Bhutto’s plan for Afghanistan was a big trading link between Pakistan and the Central Asian republics including highways, railways and pipelines for gas and oil. Bhutto frequently travelled to Turkmenistan to negotiate this trading link via Afghanistan.” SO AGAIN, WHERE ARE THESE RECORDS?
link 2 - 2nd paragraph, writer actually says he doesn’t like bhutto!
link 3 - while the movie comparison might work for some, not this time when i’ve still seen NOTHING supporting this claim that people aren’t against bhutto, all i have been reading is that the country is very instable now.
link 4 - yes she was pardoned
link 5 - again, this does not even touch any allegations regarding the taliban.
guess it’s easier to point fingers than look within, ya?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
[quote comment="37333"]Whoo hoo! it worked, apparently those of us who can fall back to noobiness can return and redeem ourselves.[/quote]
except those were bogus links
how about an actual report? an article from a legit news source even?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I am sorry you feel that way. I have made my position on Benazir clear on a number of posts. Its easy to discredit every link (and I admit, the cnn one was kinda funny, but I could not resist). All of those links have some reference to the taliban in them, though I will admit, there’s no one BIG artcile that would be the Ken Starr Report on Benazir. However, I do not feel that our back and forth is actually getting anywhere. I respect that you have your own opinion, but I do not respect the antagonism with which you express it. We will just have to agree to disagree at this point.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
First, why did Bhutto have ‘a plan’ for a nation that was not hers? Think about that for a moment with regards to interventionism, especially to do with the long proposed pipeline from the Caspian through Afghanistan to, you guessed it, Pakistan. The benefits to Pakistan would be considerable. Prior to 9/11, the Taliban was negotiating that pipeline’s construction.
With regards to her pardon, what I meant by my response is that it only makes sense. Her return as the people’s champion could not be marred by such charges. Being that the Musharraf government had made enemies within the country’s highest court, it only stands to reason, given Bhutto’s international backing especially, that she would be pardoned. It should also be mentioned that she was not pardoned until October of this year, just prior to her return. It was an act, in essence, to make way for her return. She could not have done so had the charges not been dropped.
Bhutto’s corruption charges had absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy or covert military support. They had to do with illegally amassing money and property overseas. Now there could be an argument made that money held outside of the country was used as a slush fund for covert operational support, but Bhutto did not have that sort of power over the ISI, who would have known were the CIA playing in their backyard without them being involved. Further to that, during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the ISI worked with the CIA, primarily as a conduit for military aid. For the most part, the ISI handled day to day operations with regards to supporting the Mujahideen, including running arms through the Khyber pass, which Bin Laden oversaw in the early stages of the conflict.
Now, there is a marked difference between US covert support for the Afghan Mujahideen during the war with the Soviets and after the Soviet withdrawal. Following the withdrawal, the ISI backed anti-North Alliance groups, the most predominant of which would become the Taliban. It is during this period that Bhutto’s government was complicit in their aid, a fact that led to, for example, the current Afghan President’s decision to cut his links and support of the Taliban, which he originally backed. His view was that Pakistan wanted to ensure that a proxy government was instituted in Kabul, one that was to their benefit and that owed its rise to power to them. When the Taliban succeeded in capturing most of the country, Pakistan succeeded in that goal, which would be why they were one of only three nations to officially recognize the Taliban government as legitimate.
With regards to the CIA, they largely abandoned their position in Afghanistan following the end of the Cold War and had very little direct intelligence coming out of the country. That would be why, in the 90’s, Gary Schroen, then the Station Chief in Islamabad, returned to meet with Ahmed Shah Massoud, a Northern Alliance leader that the CIA had standing ties with. During that visit he also tried to discover the fate of Stinger missiles that they had sold the Northern Alliance during the war in the 80’s. Shortly after Schroen’s visit, Kabul fell to the Taliban. The CIA continued to work with Tajik groups in the north, primarily to track Bin Laden, up until 2000, primarily because of the Embassy bombings in Africa.
The intrigue that was Pakistan’s involvement in the rise of the Taliban is, of course, intermingled with the confusion that gripped Afghanistan in the early to mid 90’s. But make no mistake, Pakistan was a chief backer of the Taliban, and their support for them began while Bhutto was in office. There is no doubting the fact that the ISI might have intimidated her with regards to such policy, but make no mistake, Benazir Bhutto was as shrewd as they come.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Alright here is some more to your information gathering.
[quote comment="37336"]link 1 - “The above is nonsense. And you don’t have to take my word for it. It’s a matter of simple public record that Bhutto’s plan for Afghanistan was a big trading link between Pakistan and the Central Asian republics including highways, railways and pipelines for gas and oil. Bhutto frequently travelled to Turkmenistan to negotiate this trading link via Afghanistan.” SO AGAIN, WHERE ARE THESE RECORDS?
[/quote]
The pipeline, the one that Benazir was planning on, is one that will take this gas to market in the industrial world has yet to be built, although one possible route is from Turkemistan through Afghanistan; any pipeline must necessarily pass through Herat province. Which is in Afghanistan.. so therefore her interest in Afghanistan was not for the betterment of the people but for profit.. and this is also why the Taliban was so firmly planted there..if they had control of the country, then all must go to them for said pipeline.. Benazir also was talking with the leaders of the Taliban for security purposes for the purposed piepline and for the sake of argument the main bidder for that pipeline was Unocal, a Texas based company.
So again, to my point, it was several countries that basically tried to rape a resource when they had no one or anything to turn to.. so she wasnt this saving grace that people made her out to be. She was educated, highly well spoken and charismatic.. but a saviour she wasnt.
All of that information is available via the internet..
January 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
[quote comment="37344"]First, why did Bhutto have ‘a plan’ for a nation that was not hers? [/quote]
maybe for the same reason the US did? maybe for another?
i just find it remarkable that you posted this with zero evidence, and yet there’s zero secret of western involvement. “bhutto gave rise to taliban” no, we did with our advanced armament and our skills/tactics.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I think his point, as is mine, why did she have a *purposed* plan for a imporvished nation? She didnt want that pipeline to help them.. If she did then why didnt she set up actual real refugee camps that are habital?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
do have a question for you. I can respect your admiration for Benazir.. she was a very accomplished women.. will always give her that credit, but what is your admiration stemming from? And I mean that in the deepest sense of respect. Did you study her work as a youth? Are you from Pakistan? that kind of meaning..
January 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
right, no one wants oil….give me a break!
you are off on a red herriing, again pipeline does not mean that bhutto supported terrorists!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
wow, that question is quite something,
guess i’ve just done a bit more reading than you, hopeforchange.
and i’ll tell you, this assassination is bringing no good change that you imply in your screen name.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
..that and, i’m not a puppet to corporate and media hate.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
[quote comment="37344"]
The intrigue that was Pakistan’s involvement in the rise of the Taliban is, of course, intermingled with the confusion that gripped Afghanistan in the early to mid 90’s. But make no mistake, Pakistan was a chief backer of the Taliban, and their support for them began while Bhutto was in office. [/quote]
PK is our allie.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[quote comment="37359"]wow, that question is quite something,
guess i’ve just done a bit more reading than you, hopeforchange.
and i’ll tell you, this assassination is bringing no good change that you imply in your screen name.[/quote]
Your really something.. ya know that. NOT once have I ever implied assassination is a good thing.. and your implied assumptions make you seem more and more immature at that.
[quote comment="37360"]..that and, i’m not a puppet to corporate and media hate.[/quote]
I dont understand where you are coming from on that one.. but then again.. I dont understand how one can be filled with such.. angst.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
bhutto wasn’t even in power when the taliban resurged
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3541562/
January 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
[quote comment="37344"] Bhutto was as shrewd as they come.[/quote]
why don’t u like her
January 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
like, she just died man
January 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I’m sorry, Carly, but my involvement in this discussion is at an end. I don’t mean to sound offensive, but your knowledge, not to mention grasp of the English language, is questionable. And you’re quoting an article from 2003 when the story presented above is referring to the early 90’s. I would suggest doing some actual reading regarding this subject, not using Google to form arguments.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
fine. but the significance in that article was that its heading is “taliban on the rise” and it was written in 2003 - when bhutto was in exile.
i find it unforunate to hear u think that about my speech, i have an english degree. if u were in TO i’d suggest we could talk about what is so appauling of it over tea. pity.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
and at the risk of losing my charm, may i remind u that it’s already been observed that during the time of YOUR article, the US was the one “aiding”.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
and googling is the way to go
even doctors do it
January 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Pakistan’s involvement with Taliban:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/index4.htm
to Carly B: I’d like to pose the same question as hopeforchange - where does all this admiration stem from?
in other words: why do u like her? Plus I have to agree with Matt, your English is quite something.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth. - Voltaire
If you want to celebrate the accomplishments of the passed, you should also be prepared to mourn the mistakes they made and not do a great disservice to the deceased, to the beneficiaries/victims of the deceased, and to yourself, by ineffectually denying that those mistakes exist.
As an aside: and English degree and “u” instead of “you”? Wow.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:43 am
” To the dead we owe truth”….alrighty then……
At 5:33 into this clip she states something that might have to do with her….being shot 4times then a bomb ging off eventually killing her…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ