Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:08 pm
by Big Magilla
Sonic Youth wrote:Politics as usual.
Now it's really time to worry about Reza. It's gonna be some night.
We exchanged e-mails yesterday.
I'm pretty sure he lives on the other side of Islaamabad. He now has his computer in his house and hopes to have everything hooked up and running by New Year's so he can be back on the board. Of course that was before all this happened. In the meantime I sent another e-mail to his place of employment. I'll let you know if I hear anything.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:17 pm
by Penelope
Has anyone heard from Reza?
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:40 pm
by Sonic Youth
Two things. First, on another Oscar board, someone asked if this might improve the Oscar chances of The Kite Runner and A Mighty Heart.
Second, that brilliant intellectual foreign affairs expert Bill O'Reilly repeatedly called her "Benizir Beeutto".
There's no hole deep enough to hide this planet in...
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198806199
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:29 pm
by Sonic Youth
Worried Washington forced back into arms of unreliable Musharraf
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
The Independent
Published: 28 December 2007
It was, by any standards, a political assassination waiting to happen. But that does not numb the world's shock at the violent death yesterday of Benazir Bhutto, nor lessen fears for the repercussions on Pakistan, on America's "war on terror" and on the stability of the south-west Asian region.
Nowhere will the shock or anxiety be more acute than in Washington. President Pervez Musharraf may arguably be the most vital US ally in its struggle with Islamic extremism, flattered by fuzzy photo-ops with President George Bush at the White House and Camp David, but he has been an increasingly unreliable one.
As his own domestic position has weakened, he has proved both unwilling and unable to move decisively against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida leadership hiding in Pakistan's remote, tribally run frontier regions, and has repeatedly postponed promises to return the country to civilian rule.
As a result, a resurgent Taliban is more threatening in neighbouring Afghan-istan than at any time since it was driven from power in November 2001. Only this week, The New York Times reported in damning detail how billions of dollars of US aid, intended to beef up the Pakistani armed forces in its battle with radical Islam, has been diverted to weapons to counter India, or siphoned off in corruption.
Rapprochement between the now-retired general and Ms Bhutto, the most charismatic opposition leader, has been the centrepiece of US-led efforts to rebuild a popularbased democracy in Pakistan after more than eight years of military rule. That strategy is in mortal peril.
The US – and thus Britain and the other Western powers – are left with no good options. With no obvious civilian political alternative to Ms Bhutto, and no other military leader offering any stronger prospect of a return to democracy, Washington is even more closely locked into its uneasy embrace of Mr Musharraf, in whom it has invested so much, but feels short-changed.
That harsh truth was discernable on Mr Bush's face, tense and drawn as he interrupted his Christmas break at his Texas ranch to condemn "this cowardly act by murderous extremists". He urged the Pakistani people "to honour Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life". But as panic, chaos and violence swept Pakistan's major cities after the assassination, the elections scheduled for 8 January that were key to that process may well have to be put back again.
And US officials are grappling with the troubling questions left by the assassination, not least the security breach that allowed a fanatical killer so close to Ms Bhutto, barely two months after she narrowly escaped death at a rally immediately after returning to her country.
The assumption is that Islamic extremists were responsible for the death of an unabashedly secular politician. But because it happened in Rawalpindi, headquarters of Pakistan's dominant military, that will raise anew the spectre of infiltration of the army and the powerful intelligence service. If the 18 October assassination attempt, in which 130 died, was ever seriously investigated, no one has been held responsible.
Beyond that, looms a still more worrying issue: the apparently growing influence of religious extremists in the one Islamic country with nuclear weapons. In fact, US officials say they are confident that the nuclear arsenal is secure, and only a small minority of Pakistanis support radical Islam.
But Ms Bhutto's death is proof of the limits of America's ability to shape events in the region. Assuming he now stays in power – perhaps buttressed by a new state of emergency – Mr Musharraf may be less inclined to deliver the promised help to track down and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and other al-Qa'ida leaders.
The former prime minister had many imperfections – nepotism, an enduring taint of corruption, and a domineering style that alienated many during her two stints as prime minister. But Ms Bhutto was seen by Washington and its allies as offering the best hope of the Pakistan they want: secular, democratic and pro-Western, committed to the fight against the Islamic extremism she so often condemned, and on easier terms with India, Pakistan's regional arch rival. That prospect has receded, if not vanished.
Instead they must deal with an even more discredited Mr Musharraf. The exasperation here was underlined last week by new Congressional curbs on US assistance to Pakistan, including tying $50m (£25m) in military aid to guarantees that Pakistan is making "concerted efforts" to prevent terrorists operating inside its borders.
Under the law, which provides a total $300m of aid and which Mr Bush signed, the State Department must also certify Pakistan is implementing democratic reforms. Yesterday's assassination may lead to even tougher conditions.
It may also have an impact on US domestic politics. With the recent improvement in security in Iraq, and the diminishing likelihood of a US military attack on Iran, the "arc of instability" stretching from the Maghreb, through the Middle East to south-west Asia, had been looking marginally less unstable.
Ms Bhutto's death has banished any such complacency. It is a fresh reminder that Pakistan may be the most dangerous country on earth. Thus 2008 presidential candidates such as the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Senator John McCain, who tout their national security credentials, could gain a boost.
But, in the end, the West can do little more than watch. "Pakistan has experienced many other crises, and will come through this one," Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the US said yesterday. We can only hope he is right.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:26 pm
by Sonic Youth
Akash wrote:Whoa, Sonic. I wasn't throwing a temper tantrum. I wasn't even angry or upset or anything of the kind. I might have been sarcastic but it was intended in the spirit of debate/disagreement, not anger. Sorry if my post came across that way. It's difficult to gauge inflections and so forth online. You were very civil in your post, and I thought we were just debating. But yeah, I wasn't um...anything. I apologize if it came across otherwise.
Whew! Glad to see that.
But you DO tend to be a little overwrought sometimes, you know. (a little?) (sometimes?) :p
And now, let me expose my hypocricy. I didn't practice what I preached when Dan Fogelberg died. When the obit was posted, I made a nasty crack.
I do think there's a difference between the two. Fogelberg's death isn't likely going to have immence geopolitical consequences. (Plus, Bhutto was a better singer. Shit, I did it again!)
But it wasn't nice and it wasn't like me, and I'm sure there are some people on the board who are fans and didn't appreciate it. And yeah... I guess I engaged in some blatant hypocricy here.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:33 pm
by Akash
Whoa, Sonic. I wasn't throwing a temper tantrum. I wasn't even angry or upset or anything of the kind. I might have been sarcastic but it was intended in the spirit of debate/disagreement, not anger. Sorry if my post came across that way. It's difficult to gauge inflections and so forth online. You were very civil in your post, and I thought we were just debating. But yeah, I wasn't um...anything. I apologize if it came across otherwise.
Edited By Akash on 1198802599
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:57 pm
by Sonic Youth
Akash wrote:Oh for goodness sakes! You say tact, I say falseness. Honestly, what good does a momentary reprieve serve? First of all, I was merely responding/refuting Kaytodd's notion that her participation in the electoral process might have led to good things. I also wrote, "It's still awful news" in recognition of the tense situation in Pakistan, and the fact that while her return may not have been a boon to her country, neither was her death. One can still be sincere about one's concern for the country and its people, without being silent and fake about the merits of a political figure. Why are these two things mutually exclusive?
Also please spare me your platitudes about tact. We're not "in a room with people face to face" -- as you yourself pointed out Sonic, we're ONLINE -- and I'm sorry I don't think an assassination means we have to limit our criticism of a political figure, even for a moment. When you take the world stage and affect the lives of many people, your performance on that stage is always up for criticism, and every world stage actor with any degree of influence or power should be closely scrutinized at all times. Even in death. If Bush or Cheney died tomorrow, I wouldn't feel the need to keep silent about their atrocities. Not even for a fake moment. And Bhutto is no innocent herself. Of course there are times and places, but this isn't her funeral and I am not a political player in Pakistan. If we can't be honest in our criticism on an internet board, where the heck can we do it?
Furthermore, I'm sure tact means little to her dead brother (whose assassination she may have had a hand in) and his family, the people who suffered and are suffering because of her contempt for the poor and plundering of the treasury, the people who suffered and are suffering because of her well recorded support of the Taliban.
I wasn't saying "Ding dong the witch" or anything. I was just pointing out that she was unlikely to help (and may have even exacerbated) a bad situation, while acknowledging that her assassination doesn't help anything either. Obviously I'm very concerned about the people in Pakistan and I wish them peace. If I prayed, I'd pray for them (including Reza of course, whom I hope stays safe).
You're right. Suggestions of civility are wasted on you.
If you'd care to go back to go back and review my post, I never said Bhutto was a saint or that the bad things she did shouldn't be spoken. I was just trying to explain why I thought cam said what he did. And I do agree with him, but you're going to throw a temper tantrum because of this perceived trampling of your rights? That's not a gainful approach to such matters, especially since I was very polite in my post, or so I thought.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198799883
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:02 pm
by Akash
Oh for goodness sakes! You say tact, I say falseness. Honestly, what good does a momentary reprieve serve? First of all, I was merely responding/refuting Kaytodd's notion that her participation in the electoral process might have led to good things. I also wrote, "It's still awful news" in recognition of the tense situation in Pakistan, and the fact that while her return may not have been a boon to her country, neither was her death. One can still be sincere about one's concern for the country and its people, without being silent and fake about the merits of a political figure. Why are these two things mutually exclusive?
Also please spare me your platitudes about tact. We're not "in a room with people face to face" -- as you yourself pointed out Sonic, we're ONLINE -- and I'm sorry I don't think an assassination means we have to limit our criticism of a political figure, even for a moment. When you take the world stage and affect the lives of many people, your performance on that stage is always up for criticism, and every world stage actor with any degree of influence or power should be closely scrutinized at all times. Even in death. If Bush or Cheney died tomorrow, I wouldn't feel the need to keep silent about their atrocities. Not even for a fake moment. And Bhutto is no innocent herself. Of course there are times and places, but this isn't her funeral and I am not a political player in Pakistan. If we can't be honest in our criticism on an internet board, where the heck can we do it?
Furthermore, I'm sure tact means little to her dead brother (whose assassination she may have had a hand in) and his family, the people who suffered and are suffering because of her contempt for the poor and plundering of the treasury, the people who suffered and are suffering because of her well recorded support of the Taliban.
I wasn't saying "Ding dong the witch" or anything. I was just pointing out that she was unlikely to help (and may have even exacerbated) a bad situation, while acknowledging that her assassination doesn't help anything either. Obviously I'm very concerned about the people in Pakistan and I wish them peace. If I prayed, I'd pray for them (including Reza of course, whom I hope stays safe).
Edited By Akash on 1198798041
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:41 pm
by cam
Nicley explained, Sonic. I do NOT think you are child, Aakash, but with a little ripening comes tact.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:21 pm
by Sonic Youth
Akash wrote:My cynicism isn't necessary in this case. These are facts.
And only in America do we think 22 year olds are still children who shouldn't have healthy adult skepticism.
Timing, I think, is the issue.
Right now, the situation is a lot more serious than "Sorry she's dead, but she was probably a shill for the U.S." which comes across as tactless mere hours after the fact. I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Bhutto, but I do care very deeply what happens in this region of the world. So for that reason, I am grieving. Had Ted Kennedy been assassinated, I would imagine - maybe not online (DEFINITELY not online) but in a room with people face to face, for example - those who found Kennedy's politics and personal foibles reprehensible would keep their criticisms in check because the magnitude of the event is greater than mere pettiness, and also it would be another in a line of assassinated Kennedy's which should give everyone pause (in the same way that Bhutto's father and two brothers were also assassinated.) which gives the whole thing more poignancy.
It's not an attack on skepticism, it's not meant to deny truth, it's not meant as a condemnation for anyone who may not think alike. It's just a request of keeping things civil for the time being.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198793525
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:40 pm
by Akash
My cynicism isn't necessary in this case. These are facts.
And only in America do we think 22 year olds are still children who shouldn't have healthy adult skepticism.
Edited By Akash on 1198781550
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:32 pm
by cam
Aakash: you are so young to be so cynical.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:23 pm
by Akash
kaytodd wrote:Very sad and tragic. I was hopeful that her return to Pakistan and participation in the electoral process would help an open and robust democratic process to continue to develop there.
Um yeah except that she was a crook, a likely shill for the U.S. and no fan of the working class. But whatever.
It's still awful news.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:38 pm
by Sonic Youth
Politics as usual.
Now it's really time to worry about Reza. It's gonna be some night.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:51 am
by kaytodd
Very sad and tragic. I was hopeful that her return to Pakistan and participation in the electoral process would help an open and robust democratic process to continue to develop there.