TV Schedule

Anglo-American Ambitions Behind Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Destabilization of Pakistan

  2. Vierotchka
  3. related topics
It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been manuevering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the "war on terrorism" across the region. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies Bush-Cheney's options.
Vierotchka

14 responses // Anglo-American Ambitions Behind Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Destabilization of Pakistan

  • http://current.com/items/88802263_how_bhutto_won_washin...
    Very interesting reading, thanks. I know it seems crazy to link a New York Times article to this post, but what the heck, here goes. Fortunately, I don't believe everything I read. I still do enjoy the NYT, though.
    covelogibbs
  • In any politically tense regime, you have regime moderates and regime orthodoxy and an opposition moderate and opposition orthodoxy (not, Russian East Orthodox, of course).

    In both cases orthodoxy wants domination of the political agenda, the moderate can negotiate the agenda. Moderates can only overcome orthodoxy when regime and opposition stability is high, otherwise they remain suppressed. The U.S. wishes to exercize this second option because opposition and regime stability is low.

    In Pakistan's case, Butto could be argued to have been the opposition moderate, Sharif the opposition orthodoxy, Musharraff the regime moderate, and the ISI-U.S. CIA alliance to be the regime orthodoxy.

    Hence, Butto's disappearance from the picture necessitates a one-solution outcome: replace the regime moderate with a opposition orthodoxy and reform him or suppress opposition moderates with regime orthodoxy, or some combination of both.
    wiggleroomlarvae
  • Larry Chin (author of this article) is a quack......just google him and you will see this hack's very clear and biased agenda.......keep it coming......i'll make sure to bring my waders :)
    smorrisey
  • Killing the messenger, eh? Even "hacks" can get it right. :)
    Vierotchka
  • http://www.aphilosopher.net/InformalFallaciesList.htm
    1. Ad hominem or Attacking the Person: In this fallacy, the messenger is killed, rather than examining the merits of the premises and conclusion of the argument. Examples:

    * * *

    Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy is not worth the paper it's printed on. Nietzsche was an immoral reprobate who went completely insane from syphilis before he died.

    Publishing magnate Steve Forbes has argued at length that the fairest kind of income tax is a flat tax. But Forbes is a billionaire, and he stands to save millions of dollars if a flat tax is enacted. Therefore, we can hardly take Forbes' arguments seriously.

    * * *

    The first example attempts to claim that since Nietzsche was "an immoral reprobate" who "went completely insane from syphilis" that we should not examine his philosophical arguments on their own merits. However, neither a person's character nor mental state are necessarily relevant to an analysis of how well premises supports conclusions, and whether or not the premises are true. In the second example, just because someone stands to gain from the outcome of an argument he or she is presenting, it does not mean that the argument itself is weak. Once again, the analysis of an argument requires examining the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and then determining the truth of the premises.
    Vierotchka
  • re:
    smorrisey
  • Nevertheless, smorrisey, you did commit that logical fallacy, and the facts remain that neither a person's character nor mental state are necessarily relevant to an analysis of how well premises supports conclusions, and whether or not the premises are true, & the analysis of an argument requires examining the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and then determining the truth of the premises. You haven't refuted a single one of the positions taken by the author (providing incontrovertible evidence to that effect). You have merely attacked and slurred the author, not bringing anything to the discussion with regard to what he wrote. Significant propositions are, by definition, capable of being verified to be either true or false. Disreputable people are capable of making true statements, meeting that criterion. Likewise, persons of sterling character can be wrong. To arrive at an opinion about the truth or falsity of a statement based solely upon a subjective judgment of a person's character is both unfair and intellectually dishonest.

    People make logical fallacies all the time, and I often point these out to them. Incidentally, the ad hominem (also known as "killing the messenger" and "consider the source") logical fallacy is the one most readily and frequently used by right-wing extremists. This statement is capable of being verified statistically.
    Vierotchka
  • Fallacy of suppressed correlative is the other one often invoked in a disjunctive argument.

    In a statement that insists either A or B often forgets the impact of C, often a combination of A and B.

    Now, what do we see in Pakistan related to fallacies and the excuses the ISI has employed to legitimize Butto's quick burial before a proper investigation could be undertaken? The one I'm seeing is the red herring of terrorism, which is not the same as basic public violence expected after a beloved (right or wrong) leader is killed.

    Outright terrorism or total domestic security are not the only options that a country can be under when attempting a democratic election. Musharraff or someone else must create a C condition that balances internal security with the unclear threat from the destabilizing Afghanistan next door. This would work better because there are factors that link all the violence in both countries - the war on terror is viewed by Karzai and Musharraff's opponents as a war of worlds, not just resources or politics. So a political or economic resolution won't be enough.

    Naturally there will be fraudulence in any election, but can violence be tolerated at all as this very risky move for resumed elections is undertaken by a shaken Pakistan?
    wiggleroomlarvae
  • One thing to take into account, wiggleroomlarvae, is the fact that in Islam, a corpse must be buried within 24 hours of death. I believe the same applies in Judaism, but I am not sure about that.
    Vierotchka
  • "The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on ?Al-Qaeda?, without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation."

    This is a very bold statement. The whole article stinks of conspiracy-theories, which puts the reader (at least me) off to some point. His arguments are somewhat resonable though..
    Interesting read, thank you.
    mangoteeth
  • Vierotchka
  • Nevertheless, much is to be done quickly to alleviate the pressure on Pakistan, and the only thing that's going to do it right is if the U.S. pulls their Special Forces from the region.
    wiggleroomlarvae
  • However interesting of a read it was, it had a clear lack of examples. There were very bold assertions made (which some of you mentioned above), but not backed up with anything. That, to me, is what separates a conspiracy theory from mere speculation. It definitely is a well-written piece, and a pov worth considering, but shaky. Now, I'm not a college graduate with a lit degree; I'm not able to go on about logical fallacies and regime psychology, so don't cut me down. That's just what I observed. When mangoteeth pointed out a bold claim, Vierotchka was able to back it up with any number of websites. So, my question is, would it have killed the author to do the same? Not even the same, per se, but added that bit of fact into the article to make it that much more credible? It seems to me that there's an implied arrogance in writing a piece devoid of evidence and assuming the readers are either well-informed enough to just know, or can/are willing to do the research themselves.
    ariasakamoto
  • http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
    npov...

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Leet

    so much certainty. so many facts
    smorrisey

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.