Al Qaeda claims credit for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
ADDED: "It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her," said one militant leader. But note, it wasn't the bullets that killed Butto: "Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
15 paragraphs of newspeak and government gibberish, all to say that a thug in a cave is a killer.
"Claims credit" is an offensive turn of phrase to use for murder. Why not "announces its guilt?"
It keeps happening until enough of the population opposes them so that ratting them out is fairly safe to do.
Until then things run as organized crime.
A few thugs are in charge.
Which is why the foundation of the rule of law isn't the rule of law but violence on its behalf.
It only looks self-supporting.
"You love life; we love death."
Agree with tjl; 'confesses to murder' would be more appropriate than 'claims credit.'
hawkeyedjbAgree with tjl; 'confesses to murder' would be more appropriate than 'claims credit.'
Because it is a stupid exercise in wishful thinking to cling to a law enforcement mentality and model of response - that all movements that use violence in warfare designed to advance their cause - are criminal.
And only corrective mechanism society should use is some magical trial with lawyers dressed in robes and a stern jail sentence will set the equilibrium of the universe right and deter Jihadis.
No deterrent at all. No Jihadi thinks of himself as a criminal, and while of course hoping they won't get caught by law enforcement anymore than being caught in the open by an Apache helicopter gunship - accept the risk and the price they might pay.
Assassinations end when assassins are considered with revulsion by a larger society. That feel support or denial of support of a politician or famous figure is a collective right, not to be usurped and taken away by one asshole or a small group of assholes. When assassins are seen as usurpers taking away decisions that are the prerogative of a larger society, the change they wish to effect is thwarted, the motive to assassinate is also thwarted.
In recent years, two groups with great courage defeated targeted assassinations. Columbian society and Hezbollah.
The Columbians resisted the narcoterror campaign to intimidate Columbians through killings of judges and politicians. Instead of weaker and more compliant leaders, all the narcoterrorists got was sterner, more resolute people in their place.
The Zionists tried targeted assassinations of Hez leaders. What they got was Darwinian self-selection as the younger, nimbler, more intelligent mid-level leaders avoided death and formed a more competent Hezbollah senior leadership under Nazrallah who himself - a formidable man - is only at the top because the Zionists helped clear away obstacles to his rise.
It is to the Pakistanis to see the radical Islamist assassinations and bombings as the same as the military's spates of imprisoning many and executing some of their opposition --
As a usurpation of their collective will they will not tolerate.
If the Bhutto assassination is widely condemned, it will turn counterproductive to the Jihadis and THEN and only then would a trial affirming the people's will have any impact.
To get there, the US should be engaging in constructive talks with the Saudi financiers and with Musharaff's military command that whole sectors of Pakistani society need to come forth and denounce Bhuttos death as an attack on the whole nation. The military itself, the head of ISI, the nations most prominent Mullahs lined up and told it is expected that the death will be denounced in the Mosques and madrassahs with a call for AQ to leave all areas of Pakistan. Or the Mullahs and Pashtun tribal leaders who fail to will be arrested by military forces.
Pakistan must demonstrate it is serious, or it will degenerate into civil war. Then the urge of India or the US to "take out" Pakistan's threat will of course rise, and the lives of millions hang in the balance.
I am begininning to believe that the only constructive talk we can have with Islamofascists at this point is Incoming !.
The Zionists tried targeted assassinations of Hez leaders. What they got was Darwinian self-selection as the younger, nimbler, more intelligent mid-level leaders avoided death and formed a more competent Hezbollah senior leadership under Nazrallah who himself - a formidable man - is only at the top because the Zionists helped clear away obstacles to his rise.
*********************************
Cedarford,
The Jews only made one mistake vis a vis the Hez terrorist criminals; they did not kill enough of them and let too many get away to Lebanon. They made the same mistake when they did not kill the criminal Yasir Arafat over thrity years ago.
pogo....there is no such thing as an islamofascist. there is no such word. it is oxymoronic.
please stop.
....there is no such thing as an islamofascist. there is no such word.
I picture you rocking yourself in a corner, thumbsucking, mumbling this phrase over and over and over.
Hint: covering your eyes does not make you disappear.
Or if not that, I hope your brief stay on our planet has been a useful one.
When did it become acceptable to refer to the Israeli government or its military as "the Jews" or "the Zionists?"
Are we all now unconsciously adopting the far left's narrative about foreign policy in the Middle East, i.e. that if it weren't for the oil companies and the Jews, America wouldn't feel compelled to get involved there?
This feeds into the perception that Islamic terrorism is primarily aimed at Jews and Zionist fellow-travelers. This view would have it that the "global war on terror" is an overreaction fostered by Jews to what is merely a religious conflict. If America declined to take sides in this religious war, our troops wouldn't have to die and we could spend all our tax money domestically.
That's the kind of stuff I hear and see the left saying. It is as pernicious as the America First movement during WWII.
So it seems to me that while Middle Class Guy and Cedarford's points are correct, the use of the words "Jews" or "Zionists" in that context should be avoided. At best, it is imprecise. I don't personally know any Jews who are making decisions about Israeli military policy, nor are decisions on this matter coming from the synagogues. Out here in LA there are a few friends I would describe as "Zionists," but they're not getting the memos either.
Israel is a country fighting for its safety and survival. If the US supports them in this fight, it's not because they are Jews and it's not because Zionists influence our government. It's because Israel is an ally.
It's just as important to note that if the Islamic radicals successfully "wiped Israel off the map," as they've pledged to do, the jihad would not be over. The US would be even more vulnerable to Islamic radical attacks in such a circumstance. The people who think Israel's location creates problems for the US have it exactly backward. We are fortunate to have a brave, well-equipped ally in a forward position, and we don't give them near enough credit for it.
Mr. Stodder,
It has been acceptable to refer to Israelis a Jews since the establishment of Israel. They refr to themselves as Jews.
Many of my friends are Jewish and they refer to the people of Israel as the Jews. I did not use the word in a negative context. I truly beleive that the Jews should have wiped out the terrorists and all who supported them a long time ago.
If I used the word Israeli, you would accuse me of using a code word for Jews. This PC nonsense has just gone too far.
Zionist is not tied to being a descendent of the Hebrew tribes. Many Christians view themselves as Zionist.
Trey
Not trying to be politically correct. The "political correctness" charge is a poor summary of what I was trying to articulate.
In short, I've detected a yearning by the left to find a way to characterize the Islamic jihad as something we can get out of. According to this line of reasoning, the jihadists are terrible and horrible, but they are not our problem, or at least they wouldn't be, if:
a) Jews weren't disproportionately influential on foreign policy, and/or;
b) We would fund a "Manhattan Project" to discover a cleaner energy alternative so we wouldn't need Middle East oil.
Both are fantasies, but one or the other is proferred in every argument I get into with people who oppose the emphasis on combatting terrorism in our foreign policy.
MCG, I'm not associating you with these positions, but your use of "the Jews" in that context jumped out at me as supporting this fantasy-narrative of the Islamic jihad to which the left subscribes.
I find the claim that "Islamofascist" is an oxymoron downright fascinating.
Using the useful definition of Columbia Professor Robert O. Paxton, "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
"Islamofascism", then, would be a case where the nation in the above definition is defined as the Islamic Ummah (a word that can translate as either community or nation). Oh, the actions of an Islamofascist might have nothing to do with the teachings of Muhammad, any more than those of an American fascist have to do with the founding principles of the United States of America. The point is that the nation he considers himself to be a member of is defined by its "Islamic" character.
An Islamofascist would, then, dwell on humiliations and victimzations of the Ummah, such as the Crusades, the Reconquista of Spain, British and French occupations of the Middle East, Israeli military victories over Muslim armies, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to defend it from Iraq, or American victories over Iraqi forces and an occupation of Iraq.
Then these militants would pursue "redemptive" violence for the ends of internal cleansing and external expansion without legal or ethical restraints, like, oh, crashing planes into skyscrapers, with the promise that those engaged in the act would automatically gain admittance to Paradise.
.there is no such thing as an islamofascist. there is no such word. it is oxymoronic.
Fascism and Islam aren't inherently opposed, so obviously "islamofacism" isn't an oxymoron. As for saying "there is no such word", any word that people use and understand the meaning of is a word. So yes, "islamofascism "is a word.
As Wikipedia notes, the integral parts of fascism are nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism. Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and the other groups labeled as "islamofascist" embody all of those traits, with the caveat that the "nation-state" they are "nationalistic" and "statist" about is the Islamic Ummah. But obviously they aren't 100% identical to facists, or we'd simply call them "fascists".
You might as well argue that there's no such thing as "gay marriage", since marriage has always been heterosexual.
revenant and to a degree pogo:
The FACT remains that islamofascists isn't a word and you can count angels on the head of a pin all day long and it doesn't make it so. Yes it is oxymoronic and yes the a fascist is oil/water to religion.
Islamo isn't a word. This in itself makes the supposed compound word islamofascist a non-starter. But for the sake of argument islamo is meant to convey something to do with Islam (a religious movement)then you are stuck with fascist...one who believes or sympathizes with fascism. So a supporter of fascism.
So now we are down to a relgion that supports fascism. Hmmmm. I can be generous up to a point but you have supported the idea that a religion or a philosophy or general body of belief takes on the guise of a collective group of individuals (rather than the other way around) and they endorse fascism which is, last time i looked, defined as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism".
And this has to do with Islam how? Right. Not at all. No more than it would have to do with Catholicism or Lutheranism. It is a purely non-sensical connection thus an oxymoron.
Because Mr. Bush uses it (he also uses nuklar and duh a lot too)doesn't make it so Because it is wrong and idiots with no other way of expressing themselves use it doesn't make it right. They are still wrong.
there is NO SUCH WORD.
hdhouse, have you ever studied historical examples of fascism? Catholic fascism is a well-documented phenomenon, usually called "clerical fascism".
Islamofascism, from the New York Times:
"The O.E.D. has a half-dozen citations of the Islamo combining form dating to 1906, from IslamoArab to Islamocentrist. Why the connective “o” and not a divisive “ic”? Euphony; the Greek construction flows more easily. That’s why Islamofascism may have legs: the compound defines those terrorists who profess a religious mission while embracing totalitarian methods and helps separate them from devout Muslims who want no part of terrorist means."
steven.
i study words a lot. i sudy how they morph and i study how they are misused and eventually by sheer weight finally make it into the codified langauge.
i use the term "shitforbrains" a lot too. I read some awkward defense on here and I am apt to scream it.
that catholic fascism was used or coined or otherwise bastardized into usage is regretable. That islamofascist is used at all is deplorable. it isn't a word. it just isn't. not yet and hope to God there is still time to stop it.
Steven said... "I find the claim that "Islamofascist" is an oxymoron downright fascinating.
Using the useful definition of Columbia Professor Robert O. Paxton, "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline....." yada yada yada
well Steve, I find it fascinating that Prof. Paxton invents definitions. my wife finds it fascinating that i define conservatives as "tarbrains or having grey matter the consistancy of mashed potations, yet sticky and smelly and flammable". Now if I define them as some sort of combustable complex hydrocarbon i sure know what it means but if Mr. Paxton desires to define fascism as he does, he will be preaching to an audience of one.
islamofascism is no different. it is a made up word that doesn't play on the scrabble board of life.
That islamofascist is used at all is deplorable. it isn't a word. it just isn't. not yet and hope to God there is still time to stop it.
Wow. If only you could get that worked up about stopping Islamofascism itself...
John Stodder:
Welcome to the world of C-fudd. Of course there's nothing wrong with referring to Israelis as Jews or Zionists, it's just that C-fudd, sitting and sweating in his little flophouse room, has to indulge his neurotic antisemitic compulsion no matter how off-topic he is. That's why he performed his little blog fellatio dance on Hizbullah.
C-fudd was derided off the very fine Belmont Club blog because even posters not particularly sympathetic to Israel were nauseated by his creepy addiction to off-topic bigotry. As a Jew of course it doesn't bother me much, since it just goes to show how antisemites invariably turn out to be nitwits, misfucks and born losers.
I find hdhouse's hissy-fit about the I-word fascinating. It's sort of like sprinkling holy water on a vampire.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा