Benazir Bhutto Killed in Bomb Blast

  • News
  • Thread starter neutrino
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Bomb
In summary: It is more than a little frustrating that she knew people were gunning for her but she still left herself open to attack. Did she intend to be a martyr? She wasn't stupid so I have to wonder...It is more than a little frustrating that she knew people were gunning for her but she still left herself open to attack. Did she intend to be a martyr? She wasn't stupid so I have to wonder...In summary, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suicide bombing. She was a hero in many ways and her death is a great loss.
  • #36
dst said:
I agree that women are treated far from well in more or less the whole world, some regions worse than others. The difference being however, that extremists are not sexist when it comes to murder or call for murder. There is a very simple reason that Taslima Nasreen was removed, because the majority just didn't agree with her. That's democracy, like it or not. On the other hand you have the murder of Theo Van Gogh who produced more profound works - you can only call people 'goat****ers' for so long before they turn on you. I'm sorry to say but where there are a lot of people who are uneducated and intolerant, there will be limits to free speech, one way or another.

Also, just because a woman was in power means nothing when we take into account that she was also rather corrupt. People had a reason to dislike her, a well-founded reason (sure, sexist people might have hidden behind that). Do you actually have any statistics as to how many people dislike women in power in that region? Personally I see the vote as a measure and clearly the majority doesn't let that influence them. Some people still hate Margaret Thatcher over here, is that because she is a woman or is that because they hate(d) her policies?

Of course some people will hate (Rule 34) but seriously, unless you can pull up some statistics to prove what you're saying, I'll let the election results tell me their opinions.





You could list three conflicts from 1400 years? Kharijites had major political issues (not surprising, there was an empire to be had). 'Violent Shia-Sunni connflicts' - Can you list any aside from the more recent in Iraq, and explain how they are any more "religious" than inter-Christian conflicts or any other political clashes?



Oh, I don't know, possibly... for the last 1400 years in the non-politically rowdy areas of the world?

I could have come up with dozens more.

What YOU however ought to read, is the following report from Human Rights world Watch institute concerning the structural violence towards women in Pakistan, from 1999.

Islamic societies are saturated with violence at all levels, down to within the family unit.

That is the sick, diseased soil from which terrorism springs as a natural outgrowth:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/Pakhtml.htm#TopOfPage[/URL]

At the very least, you can read the summary:
[quote]I. SUMMARY
On April 6, 1999, twenty-seven-year-old Samia Sarwar was gunned down in her attorneys' office in Lahore by a hit man retained by her family. Her mother, father, and paternal uncle were all accomplices to her murder. Ms. Sarwar was killed because she was seeking a divorce from her estranged husband-an action her family deemed "dishonorable" and, hence, warranting death. That Ms. Sarwar suffered such drastic consequences for asserting a modicum of independence is not surprising in Pakistan, where the practice of so-called honor killing claims the lives of hundreds of women every year. Ms. Sarwar's transgression, in the eyes of her family, was seeking a divorce; other women are attacked, by or at the instigation of family members, for choosing their spouses. In addition, countless women suffer from battery, rape, burning, acid attacks, and mutilation. Estimates of the percentage of women who experience spousal abuse alone range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent. If there is anything more disturbing than the prevalence of these crimes, it is the impunity with which they are committed. Samia Sarwar's case is an example not only of the violence experienced by Pakistani women but also of the lack of governmental will to do anything about it. As this report went to print, months after her murder, Ms. Sarwar's killers had still not been brought to trial despite exceptionally strong and credible evidence against them. Similarly, of 215 cases of women being suspiciously burned to death in their Lahore homes in 1997, in only six cases were suspects even taken into custody.

Women in Pakistan face staggeringly high rates of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence while their attackers largely go unpunished owing to rampant incompetence, corruption, and biases against women throughout the criminal justice system. Women who report rape or sexual assault encounter a series of obstacles. These include not only the police, who resist filing their claims and misrecord their statements, but also medicolegal doctors, who focus on their virginity status and lack the training and supplies to conduct adequate examinations. As for the trial in rape cases, typically, in the words of a Lahore district attorney, "The past sexual history of the victim is thrown around and touted in court to the maximum." Furthermore, women who file rape charges open themselves up to the possibility of being prosecuted for illicit sex if they fail to "prove" rape under the 1979 Hudood Ordinances, which criminalize adultery and fornication. As a result, when women victims of violence resort to the judicial system for redress, they are more likely to find further abuse and victimization.

Women victims of domestic violence encounter even higher levels of unresponsiveness and hostility, as actors at all levels of the criminal justice system typically view domestic violence as a private matter that does not belong in the courts. Police respond to domestic violence charges by trying to reconcile theconcerned parties rather than filing a report and arresting the perpetrator, and the few women who are referred to medicolegal doctors for examination are evaluated by skeptical physicians who lack any training in the collection of forensic evidence. When asked about the domestic violence victims who have been examined at his office, the head medicolegal doctor for Karachi explained that "25 percent of such women come with self-inflicted wounds."

Human Rights Watch has investigated the Pakistan government's response to the pervasive problem of violence against women in the country's two largest cities, Karachi and Lahore. Despite the severity of the problem, the government's response has been indifferent at best. At worst it has served to exacerbate the suffering of women victims of violence and to obstruct the course of justice. Our findings highlight that a grossly inadequate and discriminatory legal framework is only one of a whole series of hurdles for victims seeking redress. Victims also have to contend with biased officials and outright harassment at every step of the law enforcement process, from the initial registering of a complaint to the trial. Only the most persistent and resourceful complainants succeed in maneuvering such hostile terrain, and even those who do seldom see their attackers punished. In the course of our investigation, we interviewed human rights lawyers and activists, police officials, medicolegal doctors, the personnel of government forensic laboratories, prosecutors, judges, and women victims of violence who had attempted to navigate the criminal justice system in order to obtain redress. Our findings are based on these interviews and on-site visits to government hospitals, medicolegal centers, and analytical laboratories.

Human Rights Watch examined the state response to sexual violence outside the home as well as to sexual and other violence by intimate partners. However, this report deals primarily with the former because we were unable to identify even one domestic violence victim whose criminal complaint had been registered by the police. We found that, with the exception of the rare high-profile incident, domestic violence cases were virtually never investigated or prosecuted. In fact, Pakistani law fails to criminalize a common and serious form of domestic violence: marital rape. Even complaints regarding acts of domestic violence that fall within the ambit of the criminal law, such as assault or attempted murder, are routinely ignored or downplayed by the police as a result of biased attitudes and ignorance and lack of training with respect to the scope of the law. Such resistance on the part of the police to recognize domestic violence as a crime allows the battering of women to continue with impunity and contributes to a climate that deters women from reaching out for safety and justice.

Although the most determined and resilient complainants in cases of non-familial sexual violence fare marginally better in terms of getting access to thejudicial system, they face an extremely adverse legal regime. A stark example of the serious flaws in the applicable legislation is the fact that the very filing of rape charges can make the victim vulnerable to prosecution for extramarital sex. In some instances victims of rape and sexual abuse have actually been detained for months or even years, prior to trial, on charges of illicit sexual intercourse. Since statutory rape is not a crime in Pakistan, even barely pubescent girls alleging rape risk being charged with fornication or consensual sex outside of marriage. The possibility of prosecution, especially in a context where women victims of sexual violence are routinely disrespected and disbelieved by state officials, serves strongly to inhibit victims from pressing charges.

Sexual violence victims' first contact with the law enforcement system generally occurs at the police station. Here, right from the start, they typically encounter rejection of their complaints and harassment. The station chief of a busy Lahore police station told Human Rights Watch that rape did not exist in Pakistani society. He stated his belief that in practically all cases of alleged rape, women had consented to the act of intercourse and then lied to incriminate their male partners. These sentiments were echoed by several other police officers interviewed by Human Rights Watch. Given the prevalence of such biased attitudes among officials, it is not surprising that women complainants are consistently turned away from police stations and, at times, are even intimidated or warned against attempting to file charges. The police also intervene, often at the behest of the accused, to try to force the concerned parties to reach a settlement without officially registering a complaint. When a complaint is registered, usually through herculean efforts on behalf of the victim, any follow-up by the police is generally minimal and rudimentary, a mockery of professional investigative methodology. Furthermore, even such limited action by the police usually requires persistent inquiries and pressure from the complainant.

Serious failings also exist in the government's collection and analysis of medicolegal evidence, which is a practical prerequisite for securing convictions in cases of sexual assault. In many cases, police unnecessarily delay informing women of the necessity of a medicolegal examination and giving them the official referrals required for this purpose. This consistent lapse on the part of the police is especially egregious in view of the transient nature of forensic medical evidence and its critical importance in cases of sexual assault. Nor do the police ensure, where legitimate and possible, that the accused undergoes a prompt medicolegal evaluation. A timely examination of the accused can yield significant evidence of signs of struggle in cases where the victim resisted the attack, evidence that can be crucial for exonerating the victim from charges of consensual illicit sex.

When medicolegal examinations are performed, they are frequently conducted in a haphazard manner and fail to secure meaningful evidence. Doctors focus on determining whether and when the hymen was broken rather than on collecting evidence to demonstrate the extent and severity of women's injuries and to identify offenders. In some cases, unmarried women who, in the examining doctors' opinion, were not virgins prior to being attacked tend to be harassed and their rape allegations disbelieved by the doctors. The examination findings also render them vulnerable to attacks on their character by defense counsel and, potentially, to prosecution for prior illicit sex. The focus on the hymen also militates against effective examinations of sexually active married women because their injuries are not usually related to hymenal tearing. In addition to shoddy examinations, chemical analysis of forensic samples collected from the examinees is commonly mishandled and produces unreliable results.

The court system presents its own set of hurdles for women seeking redress. Magistrates and judges often have discriminatory and sexist assumptions about women that prejudice the few cases that do reach the courts. State prosecutors have little or no training in handling cases of sexual and other violence against women and are largely ignorant as to the significance and interpretation of forensic medical evidence in such cases. Judges allow defense counsel free rein to introduce inflammatory evidence and to attack the victim's character and prior sexual history even when this is patently irrelevant. Furthermore, in many instances, cases drag on for years. For a woman seeking redress, her experience with the judicial system is often more likely to compound the trauma of the original assault than to provide the satisfaction of seeing justice done.

Pakistan is obliged by its ratification of international treaties to ensure respect for women's human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which Pakistan acceded in 1996, requires the government to take action to eliminate violence against women as a form of discrimination that inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Pakistan's CEDAW obligations extend to the provision of an effective remedy to women victims of violence. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Pakistan has not signed but which is a cornerstone of international human rights law, requires governments to ensure the rights to life and security of the person of all individuals in their jurisdiction, without distinction of any kind, including sex. In line with the ICCPR, Pakistan should not only refrain from, but should also prevent private actors from committing, acts of violence against women. Human Rights Watch found that rather than responding actively to violations of women's rights to life, to security of the person, and to befree of discrimination, the government has acted, through its police, medicolegal, prosecutorial, and judicial systems, to block access to redress and justice for women victims of violence. "
[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Moridin said:
One of them stopped. The other still continues.

One of them had a three century head start with its last organized stage wrapping up ten years ago. The other's experiencing troubles that don't even compare in either organization or scale to pre-Industrial religious wars.
 
  • #38
dst said:
I agree that women are treated far from well in more or less the whole world, some regions worse than others. The difference being however, that extremists are not sexist when it comes to murder or call for murder.
No, Islamic extremists are whatever they need to be to carry out the calling of their interpretation of the Quran or hadith. If it requires them to be sexist, who are they to refuse?

There is a very simple reason that Taslima Nasreen was removed, because the majority just didn't agree with her.
More accurately, they didn't agree with her decision to talk about things that they wanted to keep hushed (a la Duygu Asena, in Turkey?).

That's democracy, like it or not.
A democracy is also charged with protecting individual rights. The censorship, ostracism and imposition of a fatwa on Nasreen is hardly the recourse of democracy. To call it that is a grave insult to modern democracy.

On the other hand you have the murder of Theo Van Gogh who produced more profound works - you can only call people 'goat****ers' for so long before they turn on you. I'm sorry to say but where there are a lot of people who are uneducated and intolerant, there will be limits to free speech, one way or another.
And these uneducated and intolerant people would not also be infuriated by seeing a woman ascend to a position of power, in mockery of hadith?

Also, just because a woman was in power means nothing when we take into account that she was also rather corrupt. People had a reason to dislike her, a well-founded reason (sure, sexist people might have hidden behind that).
I did not deny that there were other reasons, like corruption, to dislike her. In fact, I documented this pretty elaborately in the same post.

Do you actually have any statistics as to how many people dislike women in power in that region?
I made no statement about how many people dislike women in power, so I see no need to provide statistics for such an assertion.

Personally I see the vote as a measure and clearly the majority doesn't let that influence them.
Though this is irrelevant to the point I was making, let me point out that both elections (1988 and ’93) won by the PPP were not absolute majorities. The majority of the voting public did, in fact, vote for other parties.

Some people still hate Margaret Thatcher over here, is that because she is a woman or is that because they hate(d) her policies?
More for her policies, I guess, but what is the relevance of this?

Of course some people will hate (Rule 34) but seriously, unless you can pull up some statistics to prove what you're saying, I'll let the election results tell me their opinions.
To repeat:
1. I made no statement about statistical distributions,
2. The election results show that 15-20 years ago, the PPP party won 40% to 45% of the legislative seats being contested.

For clarity, here’s exactly what I said in the earlier post:
Gokul43201 said:
You don't think her being a woman in a position of power offends deep seated Islamic beliefs?

So, I made no statement about opinions of fractions of the population. The only thing I questioned, was the relationship between women in power and Islamist doctrine. This relationship is easy to document. Feel free to look up hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:709, where the Prophet says: “Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful.”

Also remember, that despite repeated efforts to abolish the 1979 Hudood Ordinance, Bhutto was absolutely powerless to even make the slightest dent in it. It was only last year, that Musharraf, under considerable international pressure, was able to make some amendments to it.

In any case, do you think it completely unimaginable that Bhutto’s killing by a militant Islamist (or group) during a suicide attack caould have been motivated by some literal reading of scripture?
 
  • #39
This is topical and should be fun. An animated film.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/persepolis/persepolis_lg.html"
Persepolis is the poignant story of a young girl in Iran during the Islamic
Revolution. It is through the eyes of precocious and outspoken nine year old
Marjane that we see a people's hopes dashed as fundamentalists take power
- forcing the veil on women and imprisoning thousands. Clever and fearless, she
outsmarts the “social guardians” and discovers punk. Yet when her uncle is
senselessly executed and as bombs fall around Tehran in the Iran/Iraq war, the
daily fear that permeates life in Iran is palpable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
She was brave alright. But many people will not feel a whole lot of tragedy for the person that was the Taliban's strongest supporter in the mid-90's, a person that diverted over a billion dollars of state money into her personal swissbank accounts and been charged with corruption and money laundering in over a half dozen different countries.

Gokul does bring up something that, perhaps, is not particularly appropriate in the current mood of sorrow and remembrance, but should be considered. Bhutto essentially fostered the growth of the Taliban in Afghanistan, verbally incited anti-Indian terrorism in Kashmir, and called for the governor of that state to be cut into pieces. And this is without mentioning some of her less than scrupulous internal dealings.

Once again, it is unfortunate and tragic anytime somebody's life is so violently and unnecessarily ended, but she was, by no means, a champion for democracy and peace during her terms.
 
  • #41
Gokul43201 said:
No, Islamic extremists are whatever they need to be to carry out the calling of their interpretation of the Quran or hadith. If it requires them to be sexist, who are they to refuse?

[cut]

For clarity, here’s exactly what I said in the earlier post:


So, I made no statement about opinions of fractions of the population. The only thing I questioned, was the relationship between women in power and Islamist doctrine. This relationship is easy to document. Feel free to look up hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:709, where the Prophet says: “Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful.”


In any case, do you think it completely unimaginable that Bhutto’s killing by a militant Islamist (or group) during a suicide attack caould have been motivated by some literal reading of scripture?


Well that's far more agreeable than what I was understanding from your original post. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
  • #42
Here is an interesting video of Bhutto being interviewed in November by David Frost. She is giving a list of people who may try to assassinate her. Towards the end she mentions one of them may be the man who killed Osama Bin Laden.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

How could she have made a statement like that without follow up questions?
 
  • #43
edward said:
Here is an interesting video of Bhutto being interviewed in November by David Frost. She is giving a list of people who may try to assassinate her. Towards the end she mentions one of them may be the man who killed Osama Bin Laden.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

How could she have made a statement like that without follow up questions?

Actually, she says one of them had dealings with Ahmed Omar Sheikh. While she does refer to Sheikh as the man who murdered Bin Laden, Sheikh is actually the man who kidnapped and murdered Daniel Pearl.
 
  • #44
Sounds like a slip of the tongue.
 
  • #45
Pelt said:
One of them had a three century head start with its last organized stage wrapping up ten years ago. The other's experiencing troubles that don't even compare in either organization or scale to pre-Industrial religious wars.
I'd quibble with the 10 years thing, but regardless -- In other words, one has evolved past that point and the other hasn't, right?
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
I'd quibble with the 10 years thing, but regardless -- In other words, one has evolved past that point and the other hasn't, right?

Most definitely, although that observation is about as salient as noting that modern republican democracy hit Western Europe before it did East Asia. The West did all the hard work in figuring out how to make this whole pluralism thing work, leaving the rest of the world with the comparably easy task of tossing it on their own societies--after all, the 20th century spread of democracy and freedom was both explosive and sticky. For that reason, I'm hesitant to write off the Muslim world simply because they're behind the West culturally and ecumenically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.
 
  • #48
arildno said:
And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.
proper? LOL
 
  • #49
Bad choice of words, there. :smile:
 
  • #50
You have to remember that the "Muslim world" is in its medieval period. 1400A.H. in fact :O
 
  • #51
And wherever have you gotten this fantasy from, that all cultures conspire to develop in the same direction??

Surely, you are not serious?
 
  • #52
arildno said:
And, if I am to remind you:
There isn't the slightest evidence for Muslims trying to catch up with the West, rather, the dominant tendency is their furious refusal to grow up and become proper, moral secular humans.

I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not they become "secular" human beings. I'm only concerned with their ability to latch onto modernity, and it's a mistake to http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings.pdf what a country can achieve whether or not it's culturally or politically less "enlightened."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Are you even aware of the state of human rights in those countries, Pelt?
How minority faiths are persecuted and oppressed?
 
  • #54
What I CAN tell you, is that the parameters going into that index are utterly ludicrous.
Countries like Qatar and Saudia Arabia has NO internal scientific expertise; their oil is drilled up by WESTERN know-how.
They have severe problems getting homegrown doctors, and scientists&engineers in general are lacking.

That index is just bogus.
 
  • #55
arildno said:
Are you even aware of the state of human rights in those countries, Pelt?
How minority faiths are persecuted and oppressed?

Oh definitely. But that is hardly a reason to generalize political and social abuses into cultural defects that prevent entire peoples from achieving modernity. Pakistan's an obvious case study. A country where barely half of its population is literate managed to develop nuclear weapons. Why? Because you don't need to uplift everyone to modernize. The Chinese learned this decades ago; now they have a middle class the size of the US's entire population.

On the other hand, if you can uplift tens and even hundreds of millions of people, the question becomes why can't you uplift them all? Some countries have very unique ways of going about this: Kuwait and a number of GCC states simply purchase their way into the modern age, Saudi Arabia tries something similar with less success. Egypt and Syria have gone the Russian/Chinese route, urbanizing most of their population and imposing a bare minimum industrial economy on them while concentrating innovation and the wealth that comes with it in an elite upper class. Malaysia and Indonesia emulate Singapore and Japan. Simply put, while the Western way may undoubtedly be the most equitable and principled way, there's more than one way to skin a cat if a nation's goal is simply producing a sustainably competent population.
 
  • #56
Pelt said:
Oh definitely. But that is hardly a reason to generalize political and social abuses into cultural defects that prevent entire peoples from achieving modernity.
They are cultural defects.
They fail to achieve modernity precisely because such abuses continue unabated, and will continue unabated.
Pakistan's an obvious case study. A country where barely half of its population is literate managed to develop nuclear weapons. Why?
Compare the 60-year history of Pakistan with that of India.
Any striking differences, perchance?
 
  • #57
arildno said:
They are cultural defects.
They fail to achieve modernity precisely because such abuses continue unabated, and will continue unabated.

Except, they don't fail to achieve modernity. Are they less modern than the US? Yes. But so what? If the US is the measure of what is and isn't modern, most of Western Europe falls short.

Compare the 60-year history of Pakistan with that of India.
Any striking differences, perchance?

Do tell.
 
  • #58
Pelt said:
Except, they don't fail to achieve modernity.
Sure they do. They murder and oppress people they have no business to murder and oppress. That is what makes them non-modern.
 
  • #59
arildno said:
Sure they do. They murder and oppress people they have no business to murder and oppress. That is what makes them non-modern.

Okay, by that definition they're not modern. Neither is China. Not sure how useful that definition is but okay.
 
  • #60
It is useful in determining whether they have a culture entitled respect or not.
In Pakistan (and most Islamic countries), they don't have that.
 
  • #61
And, if you are puzzled as to what THAT means, it means that those cultures not worthy of respect (like most Islamic countries) may, in certain cases be annihilated (for example that the set of governing ideas are rooted out from the minds of the believers) without any oppression being done to the adherents of that culture.
 
  • #62
What do you mean not worthy of respect? What rules do I have to abide by to show my proper disrespect?
 
  • #63
By holding opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect.

Holding such opinions make you into a violator, thereby nullifying (some of) the obligations others had towards you, i.e, obligations they have towards those upholding the principle of reciprocal respect.
 
  • #64
arildno said:
By holding opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect.

Holding such opinions make you into a violator, thereby nullifying (some of) the obligations others had towards you, i.e, obligations they have towards those upholding the principle of reciprocal respect.

My apologies, but that didn't even begin to make sense to me. "Opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect?" What are those and why should I hold them? Why do they make me a violator? What (or, dare I ask, who) am I violating? Sounds dirty to me.

What obligations do others have to me? I hope it's cash.

No, but in all seriousness what are you trying to say here?
 
  • #65
Pelt said:
My apologies, but that didn't even begin to make sense to me.
Why am I not surprised?

"Opinions incompatible with the principle of reciprocal respect?" What are those and why should I hold them?
For example, if you hold the opinion that a person who changes his mind about the structure of the universe (say, becomes an apostate), should be punished for that, then that is an example.
The reason is that just changing your mind about how the world is constituted is fully compatible with respecting other people's right to hold a different view on that matter.
Therefore, we are obliged to respect such a change of mind a person might have.

Why do they make me a violator? What (or, dare I ask, who) am I violating?
The principle of reciprocal respect.
What obligations do others have to me?
To treat you in accordance with the principle of reciprocal respect, as lomng as you uphold it.
 
  • #66
Say, there used to be a thread about Bhutto somewhere here. Anyone seen it? :biggrin:
 
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
Say, there used to be a thread about Bhutto somewhere here. Anyone seen it? :biggrin:

It hit the sunroof I guess, and never recovered. :smile:
 
  • #68
So goes Sindh, so goes the nation:

From here.

CNN said:
Violence following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could threaten Pakistan's January 8 parliamentary elections.

Protesters outraged by Bhutto's killing are burning election offices in districts across Pakistan's Sindh province, according to media reports in Pakistan.

Voter rolls and ballot boxes are kept in such offices, so the attacks could derail preparations for the vote.

Rioting that erupted after Bhutto was killed Thursday in Rawalpindi has led to dozens of deaths and much damage to buildings and vehicles in Sindh and other locations throughout Pakistan. Sindh, Bhutto's home province, is a bastion of support for Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party.

It's about damned time the Sindhi got pissed off about something. There's hope yet.
 
  • #69
If they had started to get pissed off at Islam, it would have helped a lot better..
 
  • #70
I doubt the PPP will participate in the elections any more. It's now just Musharraf vs. the MMA (or, as jcsd likes to call them: the Islamic militants). No points for guessing who wins.

PML-N (Sharif's party) was previously going to boycott the election. I wonder if they'll change their minds now...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
62
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
384
Views
40K
Replies
90
Views
18K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top