What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
341 Comments
- purpmint008, on 12/30/2007, -13/+183There are 190 countries in the world.
America has military bases in 130 of them.
That has to change. - inactive, on 12/30/2007, -10/+140Al Qaeda didn't assassinate Bhutto. And Bhutto wouldn't have thought so either. Read HER article.
- Falldog, on 12/30/2007, -21/+145"US Policy Causes World Terrorism"
I could've told you that. - ronpaul20008, on 12/30/2007, -12/+125But Rudy said it's because of all this freedom we enjoy..... like the freedom to shut up or get tazed or tortured...I'm confused...
- delelles, on 12/30/2007, -31/+127I'd be willing to bet the CIA had a hand in the assasination. We give billions to the military dictator Musharraf for a reason; he's easy to control, like a nice little puppet.
- chris9902, on 12/30/2007, -4/+56who's first thought was Al Qaeda? nobody that's who.
The only people to even mention them were Bush and Musharraf. I think that tells you all you need to know. - mCanada, on 12/30/2007, -11/+53It's very interesting how the "Al Qaeda boogeyman" was brought out so quickly after her death and how few questions the media have asked. Al-Qaeda is an enigma. It's nothing, yet it's very powerful. It's simply a term to demand compliance from the populace. Elections coming? Repeat the A-Q word 5 magic times and you get elected.
- cococooky, on 12/30/2007, -2/+40The only leaders who are ***** with the U.S. are..well, the leaders of the U.S.
- hiphoc, on 12/30/2007, -14/+52Oh yea, Osama bin Goldstein had a lot to gain from assasinating Bhutto. Its amazing how anything can be blamed on this arch enemy. Bush will blame Global Warming no al qaeda soon. Anything that he ***** up...Hurricane Katrina.. Al Qaeda did it. Musheraff has a 8% approval rating. The only people who support his military dictator is Bush and the CIA. But this is what our government does. Support unpopular, unelected dictators who will do the bidding of the U.S.
And we wonder why "They" hate us. A martyr has been created and we will hang on her last words and her deeds more than before. - risinginteger, on 12/30/2007, -10/+47Just like the US did with Hussein, the Shah, Pinochet, the Vietnamese, etc. The list goes on.
And it's always caused more problems in the future. - Dumbledorito, on 12/30/2007, -0/+35Try listening to or reading news from, say, Britain (most public radio stations carry the BBC) or NPR. You actually hear about these things called "countries other than the United States" and "things that go on over there."
- Vierotchka, on 12/30/2007, -0/+31Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't mean that she was not globally famous - she first came into the limelight in the summer of 1972 when her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (then Prime Minister of Pakistan) took her with him to India, to the famous Simla Talks, to negotiate with Indira Ghandi following the 1971-1972 war between Pakistan and India (which Pakistan lost and which resulted in East Pakistan becoming an independent country called Bangla Desh). Benazir Buhtto was only 18 at the time, but her father recognized her exceptional intelligence and political savvy, and she participated in the negotiations with Indira Ghandi. Contemporary history 101.
- Tangeuray, on 12/30/2007, -4/+34Bush said AL-Q did it ... Musharraf said it was the Talliban ... and the people are saying it was Musharraf.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/30/2007, -14/+40Ron Paul says this and he gets booed... silly republicans.
- smacksaw, on 12/30/2007, -4/+29I'll tell you the thing I remember most about Bhutto - her support of the US military/industrial complex in buying an assload of fighter jets we never delivered...well, until we wanted Musharaf's help. Even she was willing to play the game with us. I don't think we had anything to do with her death because if she won power she has a history of friendly dealings with military contractors in the US and would probably need our help eradicating Islamists. Plus, after she invited NATO to police the border with Afghanistan, everyone would be buying from the US for that. NATO is just like DirectBuy for warfare.
ps - If you are not from North America and don't get that DirectBuy thing - trust me. It's funny. - dadioflex, on 12/30/2007, -1/+23Al-Qaeda refers to a global terrorist organisation in much the same way that Hip Hop refers to a global music organisation.
- jamesalfaro, on 12/30/2007, -4/+24"Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - WiseWeasel, on 12/30/2007, -5/+23Bhutto was for all intents and purposes a US asset. She represented our interests in the region, and has had strong ties with the US since she presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in Pakistani history. It's ridiculous to think that the US would want her assassinated. I think Musharraf pulled this one on his own, or it's some other group hostile to either the moderate PPP party she was running for in Pakistan and/or the US, who was clearly supporting her bid.
- doctorfungi, on 12/30/2007, -10/+28I fail to see why anyone would blame the United States for her death when it is more than blatantly obvious that Musharaf would be the more likely culprit. Plenty of people who are of higher profile than Bhutto have said the same thing without being killed. It makes no logical sense that the US would kill her for something so dismal.
What does make sense is Musharaf either letting her be murdered or ordering the action himself. He's not exactly the biggest fan of democracy as recent events have shown. - whataboutdave, on 12/30/2007, -5/+22You aren't a recently slain person of influence.
- Groovemaster, on 12/30/2007, -1/+17Thanks for reinforcing America's well-accepted global image as the insecure, unhinged, self-deluded bully nation.
- vertinox, on 12/30/2007, -3/+19Its the Shah and the Iranian revolution all over again. Seriously, our government is so blind that it doesn't realize that if we keep interfering Mussharif will get replaced by the next Khomeini and Pakistan will go totally Islamic.
- insanebrain, on 12/30/2007, -4/+18We don't want to ***** with the U.S. The U.S. is already *****. We don't ***** ho's.
- dadioflex, on 12/30/2007, -1/+15The US trained and equipped them to fight the Soviet invasion.
- cquinnd, on 12/30/2007, -4/+18The US helped broker the agreement that got Bhutto back into Pakistan in the first place. She was the best person to support to put pressure on Musharraf to not take complete dictatorial power over the state.
Even with her criticisms of the U.S. she had been far more supportive of continued diplomacy with the West than other politicians running for high office. - ragmaster, on 12/30/2007, -0/+13Jebus, how exactly do you profit when you die? Not even a prophet could do that!
On a serious note, you may not of known about her until a few days ago but that doesn't mean the same is applied to everyone else. - Sp4rker, on 12/30/2007, -3/+16The majority of the world population can tell you this.
But apparantly we need someone killed before we pay attention to their words. - WiseWeasel, on 12/30/2007, -4/+16Koreans don't seem to like them much... The relations are probably not so close all over. Either way, we're too broke to be sending them over to get wasted with you... : P
- fusuke31, on 12/30/2007, -6/+18Bhutto's death creates a lot of problems for Bush. After all, she was a US lackey. Musharaf is deeply unpopular, which is why Bhutto was sent back in the first place.
There are only 2 possible culprits: Al-Qaeda or Musharaf. We all know how Al-Qaeda benefits, but if Musharaf was responsible the benefits are not so clear. First of all, he must have a plan to maintain his grip on the country (martial law perhaps?).
Even if he manages this, his popularity will suffer drastically (it is starting to already). More importantly, he has to convince Bush to keep sending billions in aid. If he fails to do this, his generals will oust him. But Bush is still pushing for elections, which means inevitable loss of Musharaf's powers.
So it seems that his benefit is marginal at best. Perhaps a little chaos among his political opponents leading to the election of a weaker leader that he can control? Alternatively, the whole country can turn against him if they hold him responsible for Bhutto's death. A very dicey play in my opinion. - vertinox, on 12/30/2007, -3/+15Actually, anyone who studies history will understand it really wasn't Bushes fault of the current situation, but rather 50 years of American interference in the middle east. From the Saudis, to Saddam vs Iran, Soviets vs the Taliban, the Shah, and all sorts of interfering and instigating. So no... Its not entirely Bushes fault for the situation but he isn't helping though.
If he were smart and/or benevolent, he'd revoke all military aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, dissolve all overseas military bases, bring our troops home, and invest in alternative fuels. Tell them to sort it out themselves and call it a day.
Then our economy would shoot through the roof and the terrorists would blow themselves up on someone else's issues. - Ramble, on 12/30/2007, -2/+13Iraq?
- galore, on 12/30/2007, -9/+20A few years ago: "You'd have to be a complete ***** lunatic to believe the US has any reason to attack Iraq. The war causes more problems than it solves."
- kazamx, on 12/30/2007, -5/+16I don't see why anyone is so worried about the US anymore, their time has come and gone, just like every Empire.
The British Empire burned itself out on WW1 and WW2. By then all its wealth was spent and it was in huge debt to other countries. Today America can't say it spent all its wealth trying to save the world. but it can say it bought a lot of crap and many big shiny bombs. - doctorfungi, on 12/30/2007, -13/+24As an Australian I am GLAD you guys have bases here. Your service men are fun to get wasted with :)
- inactive, on 12/30/2007, -4/+15Her clear and understandable condemnation of US policy is quoted VERBATIM in the article which you "claim" to have read.
- Clark3934, on 12/30/2007, -1/+11If I remember correctly, we have about 800 bases in 130 countries.
- leexy, on 12/30/2007, -5/+15Quit being simplistic. You know full well that American military (and "secret") interventionism fuels terrorism. I can understand (though not condone) that you feel the urge to invade countries in Latin American, topple their democratically elected leaders and install military bases in them, but doing it ALL over the world is something completely different. Take Iran for example; would the "lunatic extremist islamists" have a chance if it wasn't for you meddling in their affairs? Hell no! The same thing in Afghanistan and in many other places? And it gets even sneakier: the bombings of Madrid, London and the rest are a direct consequence to the US attacking Iraq. That's not to say terrorists would get a day-time job and become law-abiding citizens if the US stopped bullying others. But it will remove the main catalyst of the movement and damper the incentive. You'll still have whackos running around trying to blow ***** up, but at least, they won't be getting new recruits. You may not know it, but they had to turn people down back when the war on Iraq started. They were getting volunteers from all over the globe.
US policy exacerbates world terrorism. That much is certain, and even the CIA acknowledges it. But people who admire(d) Bush are blind and impermeable to reason, so... - amirman, on 12/30/2007, -0/+10@USMARINESTANKER
did those chemical weapons come plastered with "DOW" and a letter from Reagan saying "dear saddam, please obliterate the iranians for us, please ignore the accusations that we're dumping or military surplus on them, love, ronny" - vertinox, on 12/30/2007, -3/+13If the Soviets won the cold war and put military bases on American soil, would you call the people who bombed them terrorists or freedom fighters? If the US didn't support dictators, interfere economically, and keep its military on its home soil don't you think the terrorists would leave us alone? They aren't attacking us because they hate our freedom, they are attacking us because we've been over there 50 years putting our guns and dollar bills where they don't belong.
- guntario, on 12/30/2007, -5/+15Unfortunately, it seems that you equate the American government with America. They are two separate entities. Like Mark Twain said, "My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office holders."
- cfuse, on 12/30/2007, -0/+109/11 - that's the answer to every question.
- valdo, on 12/30/2007, -17/+27I dunno but if she keeps saying stuff like that, it could get her whacked.
- Myztry, on 12/30/2007, -2/+12Prophet... Though plenty will profit.
- inactive, on 12/30/2007, -4/+14You should get out more. Or at least leave the States once in your life.
- silentphoenix, on 12/30/2007, -4/+14whats wrong with you
- HappyScrappy, on 12/30/2007, -5/+14The article says it's absurd to think she died "because she bumped her head"?
WTF? The person who wrote this is insane.
And the others who think the CIA probably helped kill her are not applying any brainpower to the situation at all.
Yes, the US has backed Musharraf, even though he probably doesn't deserve it.
Yes, Musharraf probably either is behind the killing or condoned it because radical Muslims told him they were going to do it and he could either be with them and gain their support or be next on the list. Either way, his hands are dirty.
But it is nonsensical to think the US ordered the killing, supported it or condoned it. Not because we're righteous, smart or particularly adept at what we are doing, but because it hurts everything we are pulling for in the area and helps extremist Muslims.
Please people, try to to be just stupid self-hating conspiracy theorists. Doing this isn't particularly more helpful than being blind followers of our idiot government. - jdepp, on 12/30/2007, -2/+11they can fix it by throwing out the current incumbent morons + getting a responsible fiscal policy.
- StarlessKnight, on 12/30/2007, -1/+10They also claimed Iraq had WMDs. Look how well that turned out before trusting that those "people in high government positions" absolutely, positively know more than you.
Maybe the big AQ was involved, but it's not very hard to copy someone's MO; hence the term "copy cat." - tgc1, on 12/30/2007, -0/+8You're confused? That's a tasing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 342 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is