Not that many in Pakistan will be listening - at least not until the dust dies down - but even Bhutto's aides don't believe Gen Musharraf had a hand in it. They point out that Musharraf has himself been the target of numerous assassination attempts.

It's as plain as a pikestaff who's behind this and hopefully, despite the inevitable backlash, the PPP and the government can work together towards the mastermind's testicles' date with a bolt cutter.

I did try to downplay the speculation about Musharraf, but it's widespread on Pakistani blogs and discussions.

The main point on that is that it makes no sense. Bhutto was his best hope of retaining any legitimacy at all, and the fact that she was willing to play along pretty much saved his ass.

I don't see much of a future for him with her dead and I think the future for Pakistan as a whole is looking pretty grim.

Dave

There is a a glimmer of hope here folks. An Al-Qaida branch in Afghanistan claimed credit for this assassination.

Here Al-Qaida may experience blowbasck. For all of her corruptness, Benazir Bhutto was a very popular woman in Pakistan. If an Aghani Al-Qaida force pulled this off, it may turn out that Pashtun, who are the majority of the "Taliban" but who are also Children of Israel by their own claims, may in the aftermath of this, turn like snakes on Al-Qaida. One hopes so. Nothing could get rid of the Taliban and Al-Qaida like a pissed off bunch of Pashtun who are tired of being bombed and attacked for nothing.

Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong
Re: PAKISTAN

With today's terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afgan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things off....you'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?

Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

Musharraf is not a 'crazy' dictator, he's an extraordinarily weak dictator and his inability to do some of the things we want him to do is a manifestation of that.

Dave

Greg,

You're blowing smoke through your butthole, and the problem is you do not even realize it. The same is true for this idiot, Obama what's his face. You American navel-gazers don't know shit, and it's scary.

The only way to get rid of the Deoband disease, the Taliban, is for the Pashtun tribesmen in Afghanistan and Pakistan to vomit them out themselves. For you Americans to be so arrogant as to think you can get the Pashtun to ditch the Taliban because you say so, is just to get yourselves into the same shithole the Soviets stepped into a number of years back.

You mean Iraq is not enough for you? You need another drain on your treasury, not to mention another source of bodybags? You wouldn't happen to be in the funeral business would you?

And Greg,

Some facts you do not know.

Military bases in the States are being hit with an adenovirus that severely weakens the immune system. You want to send all these weakened troops to northwest Pakistan, where the bird flu is raging, spreading from person to person, so American troops can get it too?

And then they die like flies there right? Brilliant strategy there, kid!! You should be a brigadier!

Ruvy, I think Greg's just trying to run down Hillary and push his guy Obama. Not sure he really cares about what's going on in Pakistan.

He does have a point that this assassination might piss people off enough to push Pakistan into taking action, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Dave

Ruvy, I think Greg's just trying to run down Hillary and push his guy Obama. Not sure he really cares about what's going on in Pakistan.

That's the kind of mentality that gets soldiers killed for nothing, Dave. Greg "peace song" Jones can pontificate from his armchair while some grunt bets blown to bits in the Suleiman Mountains.

Ruvy, everyone here in the states has adenovirus as far as i can tell. It ran rampant through my daughter's school earlier this month. Not the end of the world.

And there have only been 8 cases of Bird Flu in Pakistan, so that''s not exactly an epidemic either.

It appears that even human to human transmission of Bird Flu isn't all that common, at least so far.

We've got bigger things to worry about than these diseases - like Pakistan's nukes.

Dave

Anyone know offhand when elections were scheduled? Do candidates or parties run? Would a postponement of the election make things better or worse?

Also, I seem to remember another reform candidate who returned from exile, before Bhutto. I'd be curious to know how he's doing.

They were supposed to take place next month. I severely doubt whether that will even logistically be possible now.

Dave, before you spout off on the bird flu, check this website out carefully. The Pakistani government has been lying through its teeth for the last month or so. More cases of human to human transmission are found almost daily, and the Pakistani government, along with the Useless Nothings World Helpless Organization, keep fudging and denying and shucking and jiving.

I think that was Sharrif (I may have the name completely wrong, but the pronounciation shouldn't be so far out)... Who has already stated he will withdraw from the elections and called for Musharraf to step down. The news on the BBC is all very grim - "Chaos" "Turmoil" and don't go google-news with Civil War as your search term, it's very frightening...
I'm not sure how reform he was and he flew in from to be jetted immediately out again - to Saudi Arabia I believe - the first time. I've already seen conspiracy speculation concerning the speed with which he made it to Bhutto's side after the attack - did he know something... No doubt, as in all such events, this will continue...

"We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to..."

Millions, hell!

We have given him over $10 Billion. (That's over 10,000 million.)

And much of the $10 Billion has been applied to a possible Pakistan conflict with India.

We pass out (borrowed) taxpayer money with no strings attached. It's like alcoholics passing out kegs of whiskey to all their 'crazy friends'.

At last --
proof of Saddam's WMD's has been established!.

Clearly, Musharaf had nothing to do with it since he will be the big loser. He wanted Bhutto as PM because he had already successfully neutered the position and she would provide good legitimization for his Presidency.

Probably, Al Queda, or something similar did this to create more chaos in Pakistan so that out of the anarchy they could seize power and have nukes to play with (courtesy of the criminal AQ Kahn who should be locked up in soitary for the rest of his life). That's their style.

So pretty soon we'll see a fanatic muslim regime in Pakistan, brandishing nukes at the rest of the world. Worse than anything Saddam Husein or Iran could ever dream of.

Of course, the USA will simply be too broke after the bootless war against Iraq and the $5trillion of new debt created by the Bush Regime. They spent the defense budget for the next generation on a totally unnecessary war. And created additional US indebtedness with expensive gifts to his rich friends.

Plus, greatly diminished USA power, prestige and international influence will create a global power vacuum that the USA will neither be able to control nor to greatly influence.

Meanwhile, Bush keeps poring money into Musharaf (who uses it to arm against India, not chase down OBL as he promised), any of which left over when Musharaf flees from office to avoid hanging, will fall to his succesor, probably a muslim fanatic.

All of this underlines the utter foolishness of Bush and the Iraq Invasion, as well as the witlessness of the neocon strategic maneuvers.

GWBs brainless Vanity War In Iraq shows what a sap he is for a military feint. Maybe he'd have done better if he'd actually served his time in the TANG.

Dave - re: With the declining popularity of the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, Bhutto's presence in the election offered hope to many that a government with ties to the west and an interest in progressive, secularist policies could be maintained. Initially Bhutto was perceived as a threat to oust Musharraf, but in the last month or so they seemed to have reached an accommodation to share power which would have guaranteed the country stability and set it on the path to more representative government.

Ms Bhutto's assassination is a tremendous tragedy, but as I noted in replies to your December 18 article, "Just In Case You Forgot," people who insist on looking at Bhutto as a hope for more secular pro-West democracy are misreading Pakistani politics. The most knowledgeable observers on the situation predicted that Musharraf, who has clamped down on the legal system and the media despite lifting the state of emergency, had plans on rigging the election. The only question was whether Bhutto would be allowed any piece of parliament. But there was no chance that he would accede to Washington's empty dreams of power-sharing.

Bliffle - Re: Clearly, Musharaf had nothing to do with it since he will be the big loser. He wanted Bhutto as PM because he had already successfully neutered the position and she would provide good legitimization for his Presidency.

There is absolutely no evidence that Musharraf wanted Bhutto as PM. And as an editorial in the Hindustan Times notes, "Regardless of who ultimately claims responsibility -- or, in keeping with Pakistani history, doesn't -- Mr Musharraf has much to answer for."

In fact, every indication is that Musharraf has played Washington more nimbly than even Russia's Putin, pretending to comply with Bush Administration demands while maintaining his grasp on political power. From this perspective, citing his decline in popularity is stunningly irrelevant, since authoritarian rulers don't really have to be concerned with how they are doing in the polls.

A recent London Review of Books article by Tariq Ali provided a very insightful look at the pointlessness of the forced attempt at an "arranged marriage" of political convenience involving Bhutto and Musharraf, and also gave a powerful background into past intrigues and assassinations as various factions in Pakistan sought power ("Daughter of the West"). Ali's article takes on even greater significance now with the terrible outrage of Bhutto's murder. Ali suggests, for example, that Washington willingly acquiesced with Musharraf's gutting the Supreme Court:

"Certainly no US spokesperson or State Department adjunct in the Foreign Office criticised the dismissal of the eight Supreme Court judges or their arrest: that was the quid pro quo for Washington's insistence that Musharraf take off his uniform. If he was going to turn civilian he wanted all the other rules twisted in his favour. A newly appointed stooge Supreme Court would soon help him with the rule-bending."

Hopefully, the article is still available online at this link.

When Bhutto's father was hanged in Rawalpindi, protesters shouted, "Zia, dog!" at the general believed to be responsible for his death. Ironically, at Benazir Bhutto's death, also in Rawalpindi, one has also heard cries of "Dog, Musharraf, dog!"

Let me also repeat a source of background info that I had posted in an earlier article on Bhutto....

By the way, especially for people with iTunes, I recommend the NPR: Fresh Air podcasts of interviews with journalist Ahmed Rashid, about the situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly the podcasts for December 12, 2007 and November 6, 2007. If you do a search on the NPR site for his name, you will find other informative articles and interviews.

There is also the September 27, 2007 podcast, featuring an interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Yaroslav Trofimov, who traces the beginning of the global jihad to Nov. 20, 1979, in his book "The Siege of Mecca." I think he overstates the case a bit, but his book is very interesting and informative.

I also recommend the December 10 interview with Sarah Chaves, who previously reported on the fall on the Taliban, and who mentions, for example how Afghan warlords sometimes use false claims of fundamentalist attacks to cover their own power-grabs.

Chaves and Trofimov, in different ways, point out how sometimes the Islamic fundamentalists are not independent operators or threats, but are used by more cynical power brokers.

I also recommend Internet streams or podcasts of the public radio show Air Talk, from 89.3 KPCC in Southern California. The host, Larry Mantle, intelligently and fairly interviews guests with substantial knowledge of the Middle East, Pakistan and other areas of the world where fundamentalism is an issue. And note here that except for these programs, I don't think much of other NPR or public radio news programs.

Dave! Eric! Say it ain't so! Internet website www.grassrootspa.com as a common cache? Is that possible -- bullets in a Las Vegas casino from the same network as an assassination in Pakistan?

the talibans are overwhelmingly pushtoons!...they have a naive and distorted understanding of islam as such...and the pakistani taliban leader mehsud has been quoted many times he will assassinate musharraf and benazir...the last quote i read was from two days back

***

bush and rice pushed for parachuting benazir in pakistan and twisted musharraf's arms

with her death white house and foggy bottom will have to scramble in a hurry

***

the elections on january 8 are most likely going to be postponed

***

this is what i wrote at Desicritcs in response to a comment half an hour ago:

it is 415am there

last night there were protests and burnings in karachi, lahore, islamabad, peshawar and interior sind

if they escalate over the next two or three days they will pose a dilemma for musharraf

he cannot impose yet another emergency....martial law may be the only option...and there he runs a risk not being the army chief now...

big uncertainty

augurs bad for politicians hoping to usher in some form of democracy

Ruvy,

Your broad brushed insult of "Americans" undermines the credibility of your comments. If not for US Taxpayer support of your country, I believe that Israel would have fallen decades ago under the combined forces of your hostile neighbors.

I view your situation with very mixed feelings. I appreciate then need for a Jewish State, as most Americans do feel somewhat "sorry" for what the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Hitler, but that doesn't mean that you've can both insult and receive financial benefits with impunity.

Take your pick. Either lobby for an end to US financial suppport of Israel, or shut the fuck up with your insults to "Americans".

Cheers,

Bennett

Bennet,

"Either lobby for an end to US financial suppport of Israel..."

Actually, he does, and has; repeatedly.

AND he's an American, so he can say what he wants about them.

Jump to conclusions much??

Alec, I think you may be underestimating the weakness and desperation of Musharraf to hold onto power at whatever cost. It's been the defining characteristic of his administration for years.

Certainly a hell of a lot of people in Pakistan were pinning their hopes on Bhutto. Early reporting on the riots which started even sooner than I anticipated and are worse than I imagined, is just coming in, and it looks like the country is falling apart and there's no way I can see Musharraf surviving this.

BTW, al Qaeda in Pakistan has laid claim to responsibility for the attack.

Dave

Bhutto promised to crack down on extremists, and that's why al-Qaeda bumped her off. But Musharraf must pocket some of the blame.

He has been trying to hold all the strings together, and now all he's got is a knot he can't undo.

That's what happens when you are too frightened of "blowback" to deal with murderous lunatics.

The classic example: what happened overnight.

Maybe the photo of Jameson whiskey should be removed from the Home Page.

I disagree. I think we could all do with a Jameson's right now.

Good lord, why would anyone object to the whiskey ad -- except a fundamentalist muslim, of course.

BTW, good news from Iraq came in right before Christmas. The liquor stores in Baghdad have reopened. Now there's a real sign that things are getting better.

Dave

Mate, they always used to be on the squirt ... even back in the old days. They had a local drink, pronounced "Arak", that tasted (from distant memory) a bit like ouzo and went cloudy when you added water or ice.

My old man used to give it a whack every now and then. I pinched a sip once and it tasted foul, but I think it did the trick as I remember everyone laughing uproariously after a few glasses. And most of his drinking partners were Iraqis, too. And they didn't mind a beer either, just quietly.

I pinched a sip once and it tasted foul, but I think it did the trick as I remember everyone laughing uproariously after a few glasses.

They were probably all thinking, "I can't believe we actually got the sucker to drink that shit."

Jacob: "And much of the $10 Billion has been applied to a possible Pakistan conflict with India."

Pakistan and India won't be going to war any time soon.

They're still playing cricket against each other, and both of them are cricket lunatics.

While that's still happening, they won't be fighting.

The last time it happened, there was a national outpouring of grief - from both sides over the fact they couldn't play each other in any cricket Test series.

It almost seemed reason enough at the time to end the fighting.

DD. Lol. It's just possible, 99, that WAS why they were laughing.

They used to have another drink too that they put iced cucumber in, but I never tried that one at the time as it had a vegetable in it.

Of their cricket encounters, though, it IS a bit like war.

They do have a bit of an edge to them, games between India and Pakistan. Edge is probably an understatement: Plenty of batsmen getting smacked in the head and body by cricket balls thrown at 100mph and bouncing into human beings off rock-hard wickets.

A bit like surface-to-air missiles, without the explosions.

Now that's the way to do it ... besides, both sides (no, not the cricket sides) have said recently that their peace process is irreversible.

Pakistan and India won't be going to war any time soon.

They're still playing cricket against each other, and both of them are cricket lunatics.

Sport is essentially a war substitute, so It's great that in the case of India and Pakistan it's doing its job.

Unfortunately, about forty years ago in Central America it had the exact opposite effect, when a soccer match between El Salvador and Honduras escalated into a full-on war between the two countries.

"besides, both sides have said recently that their peace process is irreversible."

'Both' sides?

The problem is there are more than two sides in these countries.

Doc, I know you're not a cricket fan (unusual for a pom), but I've had Indian and Pakistani blokes working here explaining to me why India and Pakistan won't go to war all the time they're playing cricket against each other.

For them, the cricket's a far better alternative than war, especially in regard to one-upmanship (and isn't that what wars are about, ultimately).

Not being able to play it is a national disaster far wosre than a war.

I suppose though you do have to be a part of the old empire to understand any of this, because while it makes sense to me, I would imagine it would leave most Americans scratching their heads - and rightly so.

And yes, I do remember reading about the soccer wars.

Soccer, though ... well that actually encourages thuggery and lunacy (look at England's soccer hooligans and their behaviour on the continent), whilst cricket is undoubtedly a civilising influence (even the Barmy Army are good sports, despite being very vocal).

Perhaps the trick with cricket is that not much happens for a long time and then just as you're about to fall asleep, something really exciting happens - like some poor bnastard getting felled by a ball to the face.

Then just as you're about to fall asleep again, England loses ANOTHER wicket. etc

Jacob: "The problem is there are more than two sides in these countries".

Not so bad in India, the world's largest real democracy, although Kashmir is disputed and that's the reason for the problems there.

Mostly though, India just ticks along peacefully and democratically along the same kind of party lines the US does.

Clavos @ Comment #22:

Thank you for the backup. I would have wiped the floor with Bennett, but now I can use my mop for cleaning for the Sabbath in Ma'ale Levona instead...

Temporal,

You are right, most of the Taliban are Pashtun. But remember that the Deoband Disease (the Talibans) have been a round for just a little while. The Pashtun and the Pashtunwali have both been around for a lot longer. The Taliban are like a nasty wine of madness swallowed by the Pashtun. With time, they will vomit it out, like all wines of madness are eventually.

The one basic lesson that an assassination like this should illustrate to the observer, interested or otherwise, is that things can change in the blink of an eye.

This is as true for the Taliban, as it is for the PPP, the Pakistani government, and for the late Mrs. Bhutto.

Shabbat Shalom,
Reuven

There's been much talk of the 19th Century British invasion(s?) of Afghanistan when discussing the Taliban. Britain was indeed sent packing, but not before building a cricket ground and holding a full regimental ball - ahhh, hubris...
Just an aside on a tragic theme. I imagine, as usual, people will blame who they want to blame - Musharraf and his army, the Taliban/Al Qaeda, the West for getting involved - and there will be confusion and instability in a nuclear armed country with an unhappy history, which is certainly not a good thing for anyone.
I saw a BBC documentary on Pakistan this year and the reach the army has in that society is extraordinary - they even manufacture their own brands of breakfast cereal and the like and no general ever retires poor, it was almost a parallel state to any civilian Government.

I just wanted to mention this - a couple of points that might not get otherwise mentioned.

The Bhuttos are Shi'a, and are a minority in Pakistan. But more interesting was the fact that before Benazir's father was executed a number of decades ago, he wrote a letter saying that Kissinger's hand was on his noose. The elder Bhutto reportedly wanted to build a Pakistan independent of the United States (does this theme sound familiar?). So, I wouldn't be surprised if Kissinger and his friends were also involved in the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

The talk of the British invasion of Pakistan always amuses me. Clearly it created such great resentment that a large portion of the Pakistani population does everything they can to pretend they ARE British and/or move to Britain and assimilate with the British population and quickly become more British than the British are.

And Ruvy, get the paranoia under control. Henry Kissinger had nothing to do with assassinating Bhutto. The MO of the assassin is one the US would be unlikely to try to emulate, and Kissinger isn't exactly setting international policy these days.

Dave

Dve: I think a lot of Indians/Pakistanis, from what I can gather, are proud to have been part of the old empire, while very possibly glad to be rid of "The Raj" nevertheless (although perhaps some now long for such quieter times).

I know recently that calls for Pakistan to be expelled from the Commonwealth, while not meaning much officially anywhere on the globe except that you are one of the former members of the empire, created much gnashing and wailing inside Pakistan itself.

There is also a big drama here at the moment over the Australian cricket team and the possibility that it won't now tour Pakistan because of the violence - which is likely to be greeted with even more gnashing and wailing in Pakistan itself, which as I've said, is collectively cricket mad (and good at it too).

Ruvy -RE: The only way to get rid of the Deoband disease, the Taliban, is for the Pashtun tribesmen in Afghanistan and Pakistan to vomit them out themselves. For you Americans to be so arrogant as to think you can get the Pashtun to ditch the Taliban because you say so, is just to get yourselves into the same shithole the Soviets stepped into a number of years back.

A bit over-the-top, but I take your point here. It is sad to read comments from people of all ideological persuasions, who just can't understand that other countries will pursue their own national interests, no matter what the politicians in Washington declaim (and this is equally true of Democrats as Republicans). A counter-reaction to this hubris is in part fueling Ron Paul's campaign.

And for the sake of those a little slow on the uptake, I am not suggesting that America's political interests are always illegitimate, just that the US is often misled by its own foolish belief that "client states" or "allies" will simply do what we tell them to do.

However, I also note that various Pakistan regimes have found the Taliban and other groups to be useful in furthering their own aims, as in Kashmir. But as with the US under-valuing Pakistan's own independent aims, some Pakistani officials foolishly believe that they can still control extremist groups. This sadly makes it unlikely that they will expel them anytime soon.


Dave - RE: Alec, I think you may be underestimating the weakness and desperation of Musharraf to hold onto power at whatever cost. It's been the defining characteristic of his administration for years.

I agree with you with respect to Musharaf' desperation, but not his weakness. Let's look at the facts on the ground. The Supreme Court, independent lawyers, the media are all still locked down. His potential opponents, including potential successors to Bhutto, are under house arrest (or can easily be apprehended). He picked his own successor to head the army. Where is his weakness?

What is amazing here is the degree to which the Bush Administration (and both parties in the Congress) actually believed their own BS that Musharraf would meekly accept any powers-haring arrangement, and continued to push this nonsense even as Musharraf tightened his control of the country.

Yes, he is weak, as any authoritarian who seizes power is weak. And yet the fact remains that Ms Bhutto's father was one of the few civilians to wield power in Pakistan. The history of the country is unfortunately shaped more by military men taking control than by democracy really working. In this regard, Musharraf's position is one with which Pakistani's are very familiar.

RE: Certainly a hell of a lot of people in Pakistan were pinning their hopes on Bhutto.

Uh, no. As one Islamabad poster on the BBC website noted, "Everyone I know is feeling a personal loss, even those of us who were not planning to vote for her, and those of us who thought she was corrupt. It's like a graveyard out there, no one is on the roads. People are heartbroken."

RE: Early reporting on the riots which started even sooner than I anticipated and are worse than I imagined, is just coming in, and it looks like the country is falling apart and there's no way I can see Musharraf surviving this.

What may be happening here, and was unanticipated by those who murdered Ms Bhutto, is that some Pakistanis are saddened and outraged at the brazen attempt to hijack the PROCESS of democracy, whether or not they viewed Ms Bhutto as a "savior." The authoritarians, as well as the fundamentalists, may have over-estimated the degree to which they are wanted, or might be tolerated.

However, there is absolutely no sign that the country is falling apart. The level of damage being caused is relatively minor, and limited in scope. And Musharraf is still bold enough to declare that the January elections will still take place, so he doesn't appear to believe that his position has significantly weakened.

RE: BTW, al Qaeda in Pakistan has laid claim to responsibility for the attack.

There is still some doubt here, just as there is doubt as to whether al Qaeda was working alone, even if they were involved. Musharraf benefitted from Bhutto's murder even if he was not directly or even indirectly responsible.

Also, and I cannot emphasize this too much, too many Americans just don't understand the degree to which Pakistan's society is founded on fervent Islamic nationalism, much, much more than Islamic fundamentalism. Unlike Iran or Iraq, there has never been a tradition of Islamic clerics wielding political power to the same degree in Pakistan. There is also an oligarchy (of which Bhutto's family is a part), whose interests are not narrowly religious or ethnic based.

Consequently, even if al Qaeda is responsible for this attack, they may find that they have overstretched themselves, and might find that they become the hunted in Pakistan, instead of predators.

The point here is that the situation goes much deeper than the simplistic assertions of some of our presidential candidates about "global terrorism."


Silver Surfer - RE: I think a lot of Indians/Pakistanis, from what I can gather, are proud to have been part of the old empire, while very possibly glad to be rid of "The Raj" nevertheless (although perhaps some now long for such quieter times).

Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and all the other founders of India and Pakistan's independence, were firm in their insistence that it was time for the old empire to go. Some Brits, who were never on the ass-kicking end of the imperial boot, just can't let go of the ridiculous idea that the old days were quiet and glorious for everyone. There is absolutely no reason for Americans or anyone else to indulge this foolishness.

Alec, I am talking about their membership of the commonwealth and the ties that continue to bind. If you are currently in Islamabad, you will know that many Pakistanis were mortified by the prospect of being expelled from the body. Read the post properly, and see the earlier ones about cricket. As I said, they were glad to be rid of the British rulers - "The Raj", which is a pejorative term.

Aside from making you sound like like an arrogant arsehole, please don't fu.king patronise me.

OK?

And I'm not British. I do live in a commonwealth country though and know my history of Indian and Pakistani indepedence.

Alec: "Some Brits, who were never on the ass-kicking end of the imperial boot, just can't let go of the ridiculous idea that the old days were quiet and glorious for everyone. There is absolutely no reason for Americans or anyone else to indulge this foolishness."

Lol. What, as opposed to being on the arse-kicking end of the "non-American" empire. Give me a break. There's be no reason for Americans or anyone else to indulge that foolishness either under the same reasoning.

As to empires, if quacks etc ...

Make that American "non-empire" :)

The latest according to our wire services: Pakistan Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said today (Saturday, noon, australian eastern summer time) the government had "intelligence intercepts indicating that al-Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination" and that Bhutto in fact died after hitting her head on the lever of the sunroof of the car in which she was travelling, and not from gunshots or shrapnel from the blast - a claim that has reportedly caused widespread outrage.

Well, I suppose we'll know sometime what actually happened. I don't doubt the government's claim that al-Qaeda is behind the attack, though, given Bhutto's promise to crack down on extremists should she win government.

Former Pakistan cricket legend Imran Khan, meanwhile, has called on Musharraf to quit and warns the country is now heading into complete chaos.

He picked his own successor to head the army. Where is his weakness?

Musharraf's weakness is most evident in the deals he has had to make with groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban - even if they aren't express and formal agreements. One of the main ways he has managed to stay in power is by not going after those groups or challenging them much. He leaves them alone and they keep the cries for islamic revolution to a background grumble.

What is amazing here is the degree to which the Bush Administration (and both parties in the Congress) actually believed their own BS that Musharraf would meekly accept any powers-haring arrangement, and continued to push this nonsense even as Musharraf tightened his control of the country.

I don't think Musharraf's control is anywhere near as tight as you think it is. All he has right now is the army, and some of them are defecting to the opposition. Piss off enough of the people and the rank and file of the army who are their friends and relatives will go with them. His control last only so long as a majority of the people believe that the order he provides outweighs the cost paid in terrorism and oppression.

Yes, he is weak, as any authoritarian who seizes power is weak. And yet the fact remains that Ms Bhutto's father was one of the few civilians to wield power in Pakistan. The history of the country is unfortunately shaped more by military men taking control than by democracy really working. In this regard, Musharraf's position is one with which Pakistani's are very familiar.

The heavy emphasis on military leadership makes perfect sense in Pakistan. Going back centuries it has been a warrior society. Their survival depended on their ability to make war and they hired out as fighters to other countries. Their martial tradition is going to play a large role no matter what, and I think that's okay given their history.

Uh, no. As one Islamabad poster on the BBC website noted, "Everyone I know is feeling a personal loss, even those of us who were not planning to vote for her, and those of us who thought she was corrupt. It's like a graveyard out there, no one is on the roads. People are heartbroken."

What I think yuu're missing here is that Pakistanis expect their government to be corrupt. The question is which corrupt leader would they rather have running the country.

What may be happening here, and was unanticipated by those who murdered Ms Bhutto, is that some Pakistanis are saddened and outraged at the brazen attempt to hijack the PROCESS of democracy, whether or not they viewed Ms Bhutto as a "savior." The authoritarians, as well as the fundamentalists, may have over-estimated the degree to which they are wanted, or might be tolerated.

Makes sense to me.

However, there is absolutely no sign that the country is falling apart. The level of damage being caused is relatively minor, and limited in scope. And Musharraf is still bold enough to declare that the January elections will still take place, so he doesn't appear to believe that his position has significantly weakened.

So what happens when Musharraf wins the election under suspicious circumstances? IMO that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Dave

And in my defence against Alec's patronising, errant nonsense, I'll just say I'm sitting next to an Indian at work right now discussing this stuff (now living here) who says, of commonwealth countries now independent, and also mentioning America's growth and rise to power in the 1890s: "Yep, got to have had the Poms ... they leave the infrastructure, physical, legal and political, rule of law, in place ... roads, transport, schools, post office, systems of government, the law." etc

Straight from the Padma's mouth, not mine.

He also says we undferrate the influence of islamic radicals in Pakistan, but that essentially, Indians and Pakistanis aren't that different and want democracy in Pakistan.

Eating a beef vindaloo for dinner too, and f.ck it's hot ... cold water just makes it worse.

Water isn't an antidote for hot seasoning. Starch works better. Try some bread, rice or potatoes next time.

Dave,

Paranoia is a healthy condition for a Jew. It often gets you close to reality.

Kissinger was the muscle-man for the boys in the Rockefeller Foundation, and continued that role as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. He did everything he could to fuck over Israel in the aftermath of our victory over the Arabs in 1973 - a war that would have cost far fewer casualties if Golda Meir had not buckled under Kissinger's threats and demands to wait for an Arab attack.

The Rockefeller Foundation has its money on the base of the Rockefeller fortune. OIL. The 1973 war was a cover for the tripling of oil prices to suck the money out of the world's economy - the reason that the American standard of living has fallen since 1974. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister for the Thugdom of Saudia confirmed this in endorsing a book A Century of War, by Engdahl. I got the exact same story from a former economist at the World Bank who was fired for exposing this in the spring of 1973.

When I have three solid sources, I tend to believe what I'm told.

As for Kissinger, he is far from retired. Google the prick up. He's still a muscle-man for the Rockefellers, but now he has his own business.

If Bhutto himself said that Kissinger's hand was on his noose in a letter before he died, I'm inclined to believe him - not you.

Ruvy--
I'd put just one addendum to your commetns:

Paranoia is a healthy condition for anybody today. At the very least, it's a survival instinct.

RE: Alec, I am talking about their membership of the commonwealth and the ties that continue to bind. If you are currently in Islamabad, you will know that many Pakistanis were mortified by the prospect of being expelled from the body. Read the post properly, and see the earlier ones about cricket. As I said, they were glad to be rid of the British rulers - "The Raj", which is a pejorative term.

Point noted.

RE: Aside from making you sound like like an arrogant aresehole, please don't fu.king patronise me.

I was not patronising you at all. My comments were not even specifically directed at you. If I think I have something to say, I try to tailor my note to all readers, not just to a specific responder. Some people not knowledgeable with the history of the region, for example, would have no clue that "The Raj" might be pejorative.

Similarly, I was not suggesting that you yourself were a Brit. Here I simply apologize for the confusion.

Also, I am not in Islamabad, but have lived in India and Nepal, and have friends throughout and with connections to the region from Afghanistan to Bangladesh. I admit though, that I have never been able to understand cricket.

RE: He also says we [under-rate] the influence of islamic radicals in Pakistan, but that essentially, Indians and Pakistanis aren't that different and want democracy in Pakistan.

I have said something similar in my posts here and earlier.

RE: ["Some Brits, who were never on the ass-kicking end of the imperial boot...] Lol. What, as opposed to being on the arse-kicking end of the "non-American" empire. Give me a break. There's be no reason for Americans or anyone else to indulge that foolishness either under the same reasoning.

You mistake my meaning again. I was not contrasting British and American incursions into the Middle East. I was specifically referencing the recent stuff in the British media reflecting on the anniversary of the partition of India. And yes, some Brits were clearly asserting the vile foolishness that India and Pakistan would be better off today if they were still part of the empire, and that the people there "enjoyed" British rule.

RE: Well, I suppose we'll know sometime what actually happened.

Sadly, this is unlikely.

RE: I don't doubt the government's claim that al-Qaeda is behind the attack, though, given Bhutto's promise to crack down on extremists should she win government.

Odd that al Qaeda is denying responsibility. And some present at the scene are disputing the latest government claim that Bhutto hit her head on a lever. A link to the story can be found here.

Also, milk, along with bread, rice, potatoes, often works with hot food.

Efforts to trace the bloodline of Mary Jemison, who 'lived' with the Iroquois tribes in regions now mapped as northwestern New York and Pennsylvania (as printed from New York Stock Exchange companies) may be a causal factor -- was she lured into Harvard University rather than coming in as a tourist or immigrant?

This a tragedy of global implications. As usual, the thread goes completely off point.

Thanks for the reasoned response Alec ... I was a bit fired up last night. Must have been the beef vindy.

On a serious note, I apologise also for being rude. It's been a story of immense proportions here (Australia), as you might understand, given our long ties to Pakistan.

Thanks (STM)

Why Ruvy, if you were here in the US I'd think you were going to vote for Ron Paul. So fill me in. How did empowering OPEC which cut into Standard Oil's overhead substantially actually HELP Rockefeller rather than harming him?

And what about Detente with Russia? Part of a plot to give Rockefeller access to Russian oil?

dave

Silver Surfer - RE: Thanks for the reasoned response Alec ... I was a bit fired up last night. Must have been the beef vindy.

No problem. I appreciate your comments, and the opportunity to provide clarification.

RE: It's been a story of immense proportions here (Australia), as you might understand, given our long ties to Pakistan.

I absolutely agree with you here.

By the way, congratulations on Australia's recent Cricket success (this will be absolutely cryptic to many in the US): From the BBC:

Australia thrash India at the MCG
First Test, Melbourne: Australia 343 & 351-7dec beat India 196 & 161 by 337 runs

Australia bowled out India for just 161 on the fourth day to win the first Test in Melbourne by a convincing 337 runs.

Full story here
But we will see what happens at the second test in Sydney.

Dave Nalle said
"BTW, al Qaeda in Pakistan has laid claim to responsibility for the attack."

Your source please? I cannot find this on google news.

Paul, that was written within hours of the event. At that time the news media was saying that al Qaeda had claimed credit. Later on that was disputed. Do a google search for 'al qaeda bhutto claimed' and you'll find scores of references and stories.

dave

Dave,

I did the search query as you suggested, yet can find no reference whatsoever on Al Queda in Pakistan claiming responsibility. How about a URL?

Perhaps you are spelling it wrong Paul ... everyone's seen the news reports. I'm in Australia and I saw them the same as Dave.

It's not al Queda, BTW, it's al-Qaeda. Try that, exactly that, and you'll get a result.

Why Ruvy, if you were here in the US I'd think you were going to vote for Ron Paul. So fill me in. How did empowering OPEC which cut into Standard Oil's overhead substantially actually HELP Rockefeller rather than harming him?

And what about Detente with Russia? Part of a plot to give Rockefeller access to Russian oil?

If I still lived in America, I'd probably have the pathetically pedestrian views of someone like the "Obnoxious American". I certainly wouldn't have anything of the understanding I have about the predatory or evil role of the American oil and banking establishment that I have now, or the likes of pricks like Henry Kissinger, and would be just one more fool Disappointed Democrat with high blood pressure listening with awe to the likes of Michael Wiener (Savage).

(feh).

To answer you, Dave.

Where Kissinger was sitting in 1971 was very different from whee he was sitting in 1969. I'll let you read in A Century of War by William Engdahl, what Kissinger's role in all this was, and why he played that role....

To:
STM and Dave Nalle

I have searched google news with the following query as recommended by STM:
"al-Qaeda in Pakistan"

I found a total of 4 pages, and not one reference to this alleged group claiming responsibility for the Bhutto murder.

Dave if you are going to make claims such as these, the least that you could do when asked is to provide a relevant source, don't you think?

I am still waiting for your answer sir.

Why am I responsible for remedial googling lessons?

First off, if you put quotes around the query you get almost nothing because you limit it to exactly that phrase word for word, spelling and punctuation included.

Try just using the words al qaeda pakistan

That gets you a variety of links like this interesting article from ABC News.

But those keywords are only good if you want general info on al Qaeda on Pakistan. My search words get you lots and lots of articles like this one specific to the initial announcement from AP Pakistan that al Qaeda has claimed responsibility and subsequent investigations into the claim and possible questions about it.

Dave

You give good Google, Dave!

Dear Paul,

After I read your earlier post, I googled: al-qaeda bhutto responsibility in the news search section.

Voila!!

About 10 stories popped up, with al-Qaeda claiming responsibility for the attack on Ms Bhutto.

As Dave and I have proved, anyone with half a brain can do it, even if you, apparently, can't.

I think that his bizarre choice to leave 'bhutto' out of his search was probably a real killer.

Dave

"I... can find no reference whatsoever on Al Queda in Pakistan claiming responsibility."
- Paul, Blogcritics, 2008

"I really do not see the signal."
- Horatio Nelson, Copenhagen, 1801

Yes, except Nelson (somehow) managed to win the battle of copenhagen after putting the telescope to his blind right eye and going against his orders :)

I don't see Paul having much of a win here. But you are right .. none so blind as those who will not see.

Horatio Nelson

Along with the intrepid Scot, J.P. Jones,

Two of my most cherished heroes.

Both fine sailors.

No coincidence there...

;-)

Doesn't seem right to me that Nelson's column is in Trafalgar Square, which is the favoured haunt of London's pigeons, and therefore also a favoured crapping spot.

People even used to sell birdseed there so you could feed 'em.

This is one of England's greatest heroes, remember, and one of the architects of Napoleon's ultimate defeat by denying them any kind of parity at sea. Brits might now be speaking a cross between French and Spanish if it weren't for Nelson.

There must be something they can put on the statue to keep the buggers off.

I wonder how Nelson himself would have felt if he'd known that he'd be immortalised on a column where it's a rare photo op when there's no pigeon on his head.

Well, it's the biggest public square in London, Stan, so what better place to memorialise the Briton who did more singlehandedly to save his country than anyone before Churchill?

I think he's a bit lonely up there without his Emma Hamilton, though. Maybe that's who they should put on the famous fourth plinth.

I'm talking about the bloody pigeons, Doc, and their attraction to Trafalgar Square, not the fact thast he's actually in Trafalgar Square.

I think I'd put Wellington up there too (well, not in Trafalgar Square), along with Sir Francis Drake for his sinking of the Spanish Armada in the channel.

Drake has a black mark against his name, though - his involvement in the slave trade.

As a result, perhaps Drake's statue should be moved from Plymouth to any of the pigeon-infested squares around the city of London.

And do Americans realise there is a statue of George Washington nearby, at the national gallery near the church of St Martin in the Fields on the corner of Trafalgar Square??

Apparently, Washington declared he'd never stand again on English, so the soil had to be imported from the US. Can't you can just imagine the navvies putting the statue up, having lost the American soil, and grabbing a handful from around the back of the gallery :)

The British are a magnanimous lot, though, aren't they? One day, doubtless, there'll be a statue of Napoleon erected somewhere in London.

The fourth plinth? How about David Walliams just for the sheer lunacy of it?

Where there are large public squares, there will be tourists with junk food, and where there are tourists with junk food there will be pigeons. I know it ain't nice for Horatio, but bearing in mind what shipboard conditions were like in the Royal Navy of the Napoleonic era, I'm sure he's been coping quite nicely all these years.

A statue of Napoleon in London? Unless the weather outlook in Hell is extremely poor, that ain't gonna happen. I know he has his admirers, but as the eye of history gets more objective with time, he's coming out of it less and less rosy.

Dave,

Excuse me sir but your post #23 said, "BTW, al Qaeda in Pakistan has laid claim to responsibility for the attack."

Perhaps you need a remedial course in reading sir.
Each and every time I asked you about al al-Qaeda in PAKSISTAN, I got no answer, instead you respond by insulting me, as to my google prowess, then offer url's which have absolutely nothing to do with the question that I asked, which is where is your source for claiming that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsiblity for Bhutto's death.

You are the one who made this reference, about PAKISTAN, and I asked you politely for reference, which you still have not provided. Again I ask you sir, what source if any do you have for claiming this? I have googled with quotes, without quotes, different spelling, and yet I cannot find one reference credible or otherwise that supports your claim.

Please in the future refrain from such sarcasm and when asked politely for your source, either say that you cannot provide it, or that you made it up!

Paul STILL can't get the googling right.

Come on Paul. You can't be that silly.

Try: al-qaeda bhutto responsibility.

If you do that as a NEWS search you'll get at least 10 stories popping up.

Otherwise, I have to ask Sir, whether you are serious about your line of questioning or whether you are simply fluffing around.

Silver Surfer,

Apparently you have a hard time with reading comprehension. What I have been asking for is the reference to Mr. Nalle's assertion that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsibiltiy for Bhutto's death. I will reapeat it again as I have done now 3 times on here. Al-qaeda in PAKISTAN. That is "al-qaeda in Pakistan" Surfer. As in post #23, why dont you read it? Dave claimed that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsibility for the assassination. I CANNOT FIND REFERENCE TO THIS, CAN YOU??? I am not talking about al-qaeda, or al-qaeda in Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan. He-claimed that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN,did it.
Where is the reference????
I cannot find it
In the future Surfer I suggest you read what someone writes in its entirety instead of cherry-picking that what you want to respond to.
AL-QAEDA IN PAKISTAN
Where is the url???
Silly? yeah.....right

Good grief, Paul.

What the hell difference does it make whether it was al-Qaeda in Pakistan, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or al-Qaeda in Mud Slough, Mississippi who claimed it?

Paul, al Qaeda is not a regional organization, it's an international organization. It has operatives in Pakistan and many, many other countries. Whether they issue their claim of having killed Bhutto from Karachi or Kabul or a Burger King in Detroit, they're still claiming to have killed her and they still DID IT in Pakistan.

Dave

Nonsense. The name Al Qaeda has been used by many local terrorist groups to make themselves seem larger and more important. The notion of Al Qaeda as an actual international network remains unproven and is part of the distorted picture the Bush administration has promulgated and many folks, including apparently intelligent posters on here, have swallowed whole.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, for example, is just one of a zillion groups in the Iraqi insurgency, and it is only indirectly if at all connected to bin Laden and Zawahiri's group, the size of which is itself probably exaggerated in our fevered minds.

Right, handy, just because KAOS isn't running it, it doesn't exist as a network?

It does.

And just because Bush gave his war on terror a very silly name, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either.

Don't drink the loony-left koolaid. That's fine, don't swallow the loony right's either.

'Cause somewhere in the middle, the baddies are still out there, lurking. They still want to get us. And they ARE connected.

Sorry about that, Chief.

(Perhaps we could get the cone of silence and stick it over the BC politics section).

Isnt it funny how I get everything but an answer to my question Dave. I get two lessons from Silver Surfer, first on googling, second on al-qaeda. For your information Silver I have been studying the Islamic Jihadist movements, including the MAK, and Hasan al-Banna, for YEARS, I know very well its beginnings in the Moslem Brotherhood, who was involved with it, and how it has been growing for 60 years. I hardly need an al-qaeda lesson from YOU! My question is and remains what is Dave's source for claiming that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsibility for this murder. This was the claim that Dave made. He did not say Al qaeda, or Al qaeda in Iraq, or Afghanistan. He said Al qaeda in Pakistan. I didnt say it, HE did. So where is the source Dave???

I do not need any more remedial lessons particularly on a subject in which I am far more well versed than you Surfer. How many times do I have to ask this question????????

If you dont have the source, or you made it up, just say so and I will quietly go away.

I again ask you Dave where is your source??

Dr Dread,

I like how you answer a legitimate question, which is where is the source for Dave's assertation with another question, asking me what difference it makes?
Ok I will tell you, either Dave has a source or quite frankly he made it up. I cannot find ONE source in the international media not ONE, that reports that Al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsibility for Bhutto's murder.

THAT IS WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES

If you are going to make a claim or assertation that is from the media, which Dave did, then the least the he can do as a credible writer is to provide the reference when asked. I am asking.

Paul

Handguy,
Excellent submission #85. Unfortunately I fear that it will go over Dav's head.

For what it is worth, a couple of hours after she was killed, I received a report that it was an Afghani branch of Al-Qaeda that had initially claimed responsibility.

Ruvy,
Thanks but that was not the question that I have been asking Dave, and I am already familiar with that report.

Paul why is it such a big deal to you what my source is? I was reading a bunch of news reports right after the assassination. A number of them laid the blame on al Qaeda, including both reports that al Qaeda had claimed responsibility AND that phone calls made by al Qaeda in Pakistan implicated them. These are established facts to which links have been provided. What more do you need and why?

Dave

Is anybody going to fix the coding on this thread???

Thanks, Clavos.

Dave, Dave, Dave,

I had expected a better reply from you sir, being the prolific writer that you are. I still have not gotten a reply to you regarding your source, since in my humble opinion there isnt one, that being that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsiblity for Bhutto's murder. Now I will lay out my case for my tenaciousness in asking you for your sources regarding your baseless claim.

For the record you could have claimed in post number #23 that al-qaeda claimed responsibility for the assasination, which according to several news sources, they did. But you asserted that al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed the responsibility.

It was rather amusing to me to read Silver Surfer's and your remarks to me regarding on how to use google correctly. For your information I make my primary income off of the internet and seo, that stand for search engine optimization. I know intimately how to use google, including the use of boolean characters parentheses,quotations, and several other tricks that I am quite sure you have never heard of to do my daily searches sir.

What I object to more than the fact that you cannot back up your claim about al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claiming responsibility for Bhutto's death, is how people such as yourself Dave make this group al-qaeda into something that I like to characterize as the boogeyman. YOU make them bigger than they are, by spreading false assertations about them.

I contend as many others,that the name al-qaeda was in fact not named organically by Islamic Jihadists, but in fact by western intelligence agencies. Can you picture Osama and his cronies huddling around the cave saying lets call ourselves the database! The database being the name that the cia had given them when they were on their payroll. Not only that but "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".

So tell me Dave if you were a terrorist and were going to name yourself would you call your group "the toilet bowl? I think not.

It is almost as amusing as the latest news about the so-called al-qaeda American named Adam Yahiye Gadahn who has been in the news threatening our Commander-in-Thief, who is actually of jewish origin and his father in the Anti-defemation League!

So please Dave in the future if you are going to further rumors about them as being in the NEWS, please at least have the decency to quote your sources when asked politely sir.

Oh and Silver Surfer thanks for the google and al-qaeda lessons, but next time save them for someone that needs them. I dont.

Paul

Paul: "Oh and Silver Surfer thanks for the google and al-qaeda lessons, but next time save them for someone that needs them. I dont."

Yeah, right ...

"...the use of boolean characters parentheses,quotations,..."

Big deal. That's basic search engine knowledge, known to every teen in the country, and even old farts like me.

"assertations" Um, assertions. Merriam-Webster Online's answer to a query for the definition of assertations: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."

"I contend as many others,that the name al-qaeda was in fact not named organically by Islamic Jihadists, but in fact by western intelligence agencies."

If you believe that (and all that bullshit [pun intended] about toilets), then you need to read the Pulitzer Prize-winning, definitive work on Al-Qaeda, The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright.

In Chapter 6, you'll learn that Al-Qaeda means "The Base," and was first used by Sayyid Qutb, the ideological fount of the entire movement, and mentor of Al-Zawahiri and OBL. As currently used, it was adopted by those present at a meeting in Peshawar in 1988. This meeting, at which, among others, OBL was present, was according to Wright, the founding of Al-Qaeda.

The inspiration was not only Qutb's use of the term years earlier, but also the Lion's Den, the mountain training base in a cave established by Al-Zawahiri and OBL, with others, some months before.

So, Paul, there you have the REAL origin of the name, along with full disclosure of my source.

Your fanciful tale about toilets should be listed on Snopes dot com, right beside this howler.

A boolean his money are soon parted.

Farted?

Clavos,

I stand corrected on the plurality of assertations, thanks for the english lesson.

However that is as far as it goes. If you expect me to believe what Lawrence Wright says about anything, you have another thing coming. The same is true about Mr. Peter Bergen the darling of the mainstream media's Osama expert that turns to for advice. Both of these guys are lifetime members of the cfr, and as such anything they say about politics should be taken with a grain of salt.

In my humble opinion the cfr is the main group behind the whole notion of us giving up or liberties for protection against the boogieman and ultimately enter into a one world order global police state. Furthermore I would be happy to write about this for days should you decide to debate me on the issues.

I also stand by, having talked to several arab friends of mine about the reference to toilets.

According to Dave Madsen a writer who I think is far more reliable than the cfr hack that you named:

"Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.

"I first heard about Al-Qaida while I was attending the Command and Staff course in Jordan. I was a French officer at that time and the French Armed Forces had close contacts and cooperation with Jordan . . .

"Two of my Jordanian colleagues were experts in computers. They were air defense officers. Using computer science slang, they introduced a series of jokes about students' punishment.

"For example, when one of us was late at the bus stop to leave the Staff College, the two officers used to tell us: 'You'll be noted in 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' which meant 'You'll be logged in the information database.' Meaning 'You will receive a warning . . .' If the case was more severe, they would used to talk about 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Meaning 'the decision database.' It meant 'you will be punished.' For the worst cases they used to speak of logging in 'Al Qaida.'

"In the early 1980s the Islamic Bank for Development, which is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, like the Permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Conference Organization, bought a new computerized system to cope with its accounting and communication requirements. At the time the system was more sophisticated than necessary for their actual needs.

"It was decided to use a part of the system's memory to host the Islamic Conference's database. It was possible for the countries attending to access the database by telephone: an Intranet, in modern language. The governments of the member-countries as well as some of their embassies in the world were connected to that network.

"[According to a Pakistani major] the database was divided into two parts, the information file where the participants in the meetings could pick up and send information they needed, and the decision file where the decisions made during the previous sessions were recorded and stored. In Arabic, the files were called, 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' and 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Those two files were kept in one file called in Arabic 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat' which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word Al Qaida which is the Arabic word for "base." The military air base of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is called 'q eidat 'riyadh al 'askariya.' Q eida means "a base" and "Al Qaida" means "the base."

"In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference's secretariat.

"In the early 1990s, I was a military intelligence officer in the Headquarters of the French Rapid Action Force. Because of my skills in Arabic my job was also to translate a lot of faxes and letters seized or intercepted by our intelligence services . . . We often got intercepted material sent by Islamic networks operating from the UK or from Belgium.

"These documents contained directions sent to Islamic armed groups in Algeria or in France. The messages quoted the sources of statements to be exploited in the redaction of the tracts or leaflets, or to be introduced in video or tapes to be sent to the media. The most commonly quoted sources were the United Nations, the non-aligned countries, the UNHCR and . . . Al Qaida.

"Al Qaida remained the data base of the Islamic Conference. Not all member countries of the Islamic Conference are 'rogue states' and many Islamic groups could pick up information from the databases. It was but natural for Osama Bin Laden to be connected to this network. He is a member of an important family in the banking and business world.

"Because of the presence of 'rogue states,' it became easy for terrorist groups to use the email of the database. Hence, the email of Al Qaida was used, with some interface system, providing secrecy, for the families of the mujaheddin to keep links with their children undergoing training in Afghanistan, or in Libya or in the Beqaa valley, Lebanon. Or in action anywhere in the battlefields where the extremists sponsored by all the 'rogue states' used to fight. And the 'rogue states' included Saudi Arabia. When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.

Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to 'punish' Prime Minister Erdogan for being a 'toot tepid' Islamic politician.

" . . . In the Third World the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact 'rogue states," specially the US and other NATO countries.

" Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against the 'liberal" economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money." (Our emphasis, Ed.)

In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel's case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel's character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system "got him" for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group. It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of "Al Qaeda." We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith."

Clavos you can continue to belittle that which you disagree with, with mispellings and childish
websites, but the fact of the matter is you are wrong.

I am still waiting for the illustrious Davs's answer on Al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claiming responsility for Bhutto's killing. Perhaps you Clavos being such an expert can find a pertinent url for me. I doubt it though.

Paul

ps Why don't you show me your google prowess Clavos? Show me one credible or otherwise report that al qaeda in PAKISTAN claimed responsibility??

I love how you and Dave always work together its really hilarious.

In my humble opinion the cfr is the main group behind the whole notion of us giving up or liberties for protection against the boogieman and ultimately enter into a one world order global police state.

Well, now Paul's cards are on the table and we can proceed to ignore him.

BTW, I had a chat with a CFR member not long ago, and he was outspoken as you could ask for on his opposition to anything resembling a 'new world order' and his opposition to Bush, the Iraq War and anything which threatens US sovereignty.

Fancy that.

Dave

Paul writes: "However that is as far as it goes. If you expect me to believe what Lawrence Wright says about anything, you have another THING coming".

Paul, the proper quote is " ... you have another another THINK coming".

Google it old boy, and see.

So given Paul's arabic lesson on dunnies, would it be correct to say that al-Qaeda's hateful ideology is best flushed down the toilet bowl of history, where it belongs, with all the other sh.t that's gone before it.

I'm also thinking here that I've seen this style of writing before (including the mass postings from the internet), of someone we've seen here before.

Could it be Amand up to his old tricks, or his vociferous mate who loves Hugo Chavez (no, not moonraven ... and where is she, BTW?).

It is true that Lawrence Wright's book, as well written as it is and as compelling as it is [like a thriller], sticks primarily to the "Establishment" version of events.

The excellent film The Power of Nightmares also asserts that "Al Qaeda" is a name concocted by Americans [it says prosecutors in the "blind sheik" case in NY/NJ] to make a loosely [if at all] connected group of jihadists into a coherent villain. Bin Laden and Zawahari later came to realize the power of the name, because they had been elevated to Public Demons Numbers One and Two in the US. The brand name "Al Qaeda" became a way for them to assert their power and sound important and scary.

Paul's version is at least funnier. Who knows who's correct? I say, let's keep digging. There is a lot we don't know, and it's dangerous to assume things are proven when they have only been asserted - particularly by politicians who could benefit from creating fantasies and villains for all of us to root against.

We've seen evidence before of Paul's tin foil hat tendencies, but that screed is a new low in pseudo debate, even for him.

Tata, Paul. Go play with your conspiracy nut pals. Maybe you guys could work up a story about how the CFR is secretly building the NAU, using Mexican campesinos.

And you still don't get the point that there is no such word as "assertation," Pablito.

We never should have started closing the Bedlams back in the seventies...

I'm opening the tin foil hat stand this time ... pretty please?

Well, OK, Stan.

But no more imported Chinese foil made out of lead this time, OK?

Bedlam is a wonderful word, I think.

Perfectly descriptive.

I don't know if it has the same usage in the US, but here it can also mean a situation that has gone completely out of control, as in: "It was pure bedlam".

We are now discussing its origins here at work, and the concensus is that it's from a psychiatric hospital in London, called Bethlem Hospital.

Any takers??

That's correct, mate...

Bethlehem (which was an insane asylum) is where it came from.

And we do use it to mean chaos as well; much more rarely as I just did, to indicate an asylum.

And you can tell your mates at the office this comes from a Scandinavian/Irish half Gringo/half Mexican.

Your office consensus is correct, Stan. From a corruption of the name Bethlehem as used in the Bethlehem Royal Hospital, the world's oldest psychiatric hospital.

A popular family pastime in the eighteenth century was to saunter on down to Bedlam to look at the lunatics - in much the same way as we'd take the kids to the zoo today. There was a small charge for entry, which sometimes included a stick with which to poke the inmates, or patients.

Nowadays, of course, we Brits scorn such barbaric practices and go to sit in the Strangers' Gallery of the House of Commons instead.

Beat ya to it, Doc...

Ya must be gettin' old-I'm even three hours later over here...

:>)

Clavos,

Here is a quick lesson on googling. go to Google. Thats not too hard is it? Then typE in this word: assertation.

Are you with me so far Clavos? Then look at the first link. Wow! It is to dictionary.com

Now move your mouse over the link. Presto!!

What does it say about assertation?

Ill save you the trouble as you obviously have a hard time googling.

Main Entry: assertation
Part of Speech: n
Definition: an assertion, statement of opinion
Example: We were bewildered at his assertation that the economy is thriving.

Now as I ate a bit of humble pie and acknowledged it. I wonder if you can do the same.

However reading some of your previous entries as well as your cohort Dave, I have yet to see you or him admit to error.

As to the cfr, the best books in my humble opinion written on the subject was written by Professor Carrol Quigley in his excellent books, Tragedy and Hope, and the Anglo-American establishment. I know you have a hard time googling Clavos, but there is another technology that is almost as easy, its called bit torrents. You can get these excellent books for free! I strongly suggest the Anglo-American establishment as it more exclusively deals with the cfr and its origins and goals. I have read them both in their entirety, Tragedy and Hope is over 1000 pages.

As in many secret, yes I said secret societies, there is both an inner and outer core. So it is not surprising that there are a few, and you can bet there are only a few out of the 4000 some odd members that will declare openly that they are concerned about globalism.

I also found it quite amusing that in one of the republican debates, a youtube one, one of the questions had to do exactly what I am talking about. Ron Paul was asked about it, and he talked in vague generalities but at least had the balls to talk about it, since almost every other candidate on the forum was a cfr member. The cfr and trilateral com both were mentioned.

You can laugh and make fun all you want, but the fact is the ones doing the real laughing are those that are in power and are weakening our great republic every day of the week, and I might add all the way to the BANK.

My final point being the one that I started with days ago, and have yet to receive a relevant url from any of you bozos. Dave claimed that al qaeda in Pakistan claimed responsibility for Bhutto's death. Since Dave either doesn't have the time, or won't admit that he has no source, perhaps you Clavos being his side-kick, can do the work for him.
thanks fellas

ps. No response to the excellent article by Wayne Madsen, or are you going to ridicule him too?

Btw, Stan, the full name of the place was Hospital of St. Mary of Bethlehem. It opened during the sixteenth century.

Dave,
I almost forgot. Sure you can ignore me I dont mind if you do, however if you make a claim as you did regarding al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claiming responsibility for the assasination of Bhutto, don't you think being the writer that you are, when asked to provide your source that you do??

I am still asking Dave.

ps
My cards have always been on the table. You being the republican that you are, might want to think about hanging your head in shame at your last vote for president, don't you think? I sure do.

Thanks be to you, boys.

I notice Paul is still trying to attract attention. Well, he's got another think coming, Sir!

DD: "Nowadays, of course, we Brits scorn such barbaric practices and go to sit in the Strangers' Gallery of the House of Commons instead".

Pity they still don't hand out sticks. You could use 'em to wake the buggers up.

As you know, I worked for the government here for a while, which required me to sit for long (mostly boring) in Parliament (ocassionally, however, it was pure theatre especially with Wran destroying his opponents and leaving them like bloddy carcasses on the florr of the house).

Often, you'd see some of the Honourable Members nodding off during question time. Fair enough, too!

But one day, there was, wait for it - bedlam.

Somebody had got through the door and was heading for one of the Honourable Members ... the cry went up, from all quarters: "Stranger in the House, Stranger in the House".

Said stranger was intercepted and hustled out, although I could only hear the commotion.

Bedlam it was, I tell ye, absolute Bedlam.

Sorry for the spelling errors boys. Typing too quickly, too busy and worse - no spell check. The modern era has bypassed me, I fear. Sigh.

I already linked Merriam-Webster.

Here are a few more online dictionaries that "assertate" that assertation is not a word:

Cambridge University

MSN Encarta

And the grand daddy of 'em all: Oxford.

I found and could post more, but we're limited to three links per comment.

Sorry, Pablito. My dictionaries can beat up your dictionary.

As for your silly CFR paranoia; I'm actually a supporter of the CFR and its goals, and I'm also a supporter of trade globalism and the SPP.

And I don't do conspiracies.

Since I never said anything about Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, I have no reason to do as you ask.

Go check your tripwires and quit bothering the grownups.

I have yet to see you or him admit to error.

It's you or 'he', not 'him'.

I almost forgot. Sure you can ignore me I dont mind if you do, however if you make a claim as you did regarding al-qaeda in PAKISTAN claiming responsibility for the assasination of Bhutto, don't you think being the writer that you are, when asked to provide your source that you do??

And I'm still waiting to hear from you why you think it makes a difference if the claim came from Afghanistan with supporting evidence from phonecalls by al Qaeda in Pakistan or from someone in Pakistan.

My cards have always been on the table. You being the republican that you are, might want to think about hanging your head in shame at your last vote for president, don't you think? I sure do.

There's something shameful about voting for Michael Badnarik? I think Mike's a great guy. He recently moved to the same small Austin exurb that I've lived in for a while.

I have only voted Republican once in a general election, in 1984 when I voted for Reagan. I always vote in the Republican primary, of course.

Dave

I have yet to see you or him admit to error.

It's you or 'he', not 'him'.

Actually, Dave, on this