Pakistan: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto

[Ismail]

Discuss. I think she was corrupt, so no big loss.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:04 pm
Discuss. I think she was corrupt, so no big loss.
I think she's alive...right?

Well, Bloomberg is saying she is. :wacko:

[lvleph]

She just died. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html)

[Pirate Utopian]

Yeah she was corrupt, wich is why I was sick of the media trying to act if she was Pakistan's true hope.

So a big "meh okay" to her death.

[Zurdito]

this will fuck up the US plans.

[Louis Pio]

Bhutto being corrupt is really not the issue here, the issue is what effects this will have, also inside the PPP. Were will the blame be put by the grassroots? Probably on Musharraf, which again can have consequences that go far beyound "ohh she's corrupt, no big loss".
The situation in Pakistan is highly unstable and this just adds to the tension, the election is put for the 8. January, electionrigging is quite common, but in this atmosphere rigging elections can prove quite counterproductive.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

she would have been better, even just to re establish some kind of democratic tradition

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:41 pm
Bhutto being corrupt is really not the issue here, the issue is what effects this will have, also inside the PPP. Were will the blame be put by the grassroots? Probably on Musharraf, which again can have consequences that go far beyound "ohh she's corrupt, no big loss".
The situation in Pakistan is highly unstable and this just adds to the tension, the election is put for the 8. January, electionrigging is quite common, but in this atmosphere rigging elections can prove quite counterproductive.
Well after Musharraf's spectacular failure, I think the US was counting on Bhutto restoring some legitimacy to the Pakistani state and continuing the country's role as loyal servant to American imperialism: neo-liberal economics and militarism. They may be forced to return to backing a military regime, as from, what I can tell it was only the personality cult around Bhutto which `would have held the country together without the need for a return to Mushararff's more outright repression.

[Louis Pio]

I agree that the US was counting on using Bhutto as they have done previously, however I already think that plan got shot down when they saw the reception she got upon her return, one thing is what she and the US wanted a whole other thing is what her supporters expected from her.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Comrades,

I'm trying to digest this information, watching the news. I will offer my humble opinion later.

For now, all I will say is this:

Benazir Bhutto (I shall refer to her as "BB", like we do in Pakistan) was the leader of Pakistan's one true mass party.

The quasi-socialist slogans of her father won her immense popularity among the actual working-class.

She was not a loyal representative of our workers and peasants, of course. She wanted power, and was prepared to work with the military and with US imperialism to get it.

Yes, all of that is true.

She had to be sidelined from the PPP, and better leaders like Aitzaz Ahsan had to take over the leadership of the opposition.

All of that is true.

But look at the WAY she went. This upsets the whole balance of power. It is utterly unbelievable.

Look at the violence on the streets of Pakistan at this very moment, as I type my post.

PPP was a mass-party, and is still a mass party. Benazir Bhutto, unwillingly, was forced into taking an anti-military stance, because her party refused to support her sell-out strategy.

For better or for worse, the Bhutto clan was once again raised by circumstances to become a major opposition force. Circumstances and popular opinion forced Bhutto to give up at least some of her opportunism over the past few weeks. Unwillingly, she was forced to take some sort of stand against the military establishment (and consequently, US imperialism).

Her death in this manner is kind of like throwing a burning match-stick into a barrel of fuel.

I don't consider this a positive development, even though I am a sworn opponent of BB's opportunism.

In fact, this is the single worst thing that I can think of for the political process in Pakistan at the moment.

BB had to be sidelined gradually, not blown to bits.

[Guest1]

Pakistan: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto (http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-assassination-benazir-bhutto271207.htm)
By Alan Woods
Thursday, 27 December 2007

Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a suicide bomb attack.

The leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) had just addressed a rally of PPP supporters in the town of Rawalpindi when the attack took place. First reports talked of at least 100 killed in the attack, but more recent news put the figure at 15.

This murderous onslaught on the PPP came in the middle of an election campaign where, after years of military dictatorship, the masses were striving for a change. There was a wave of support for the PPP, which was sure to win National and provincial assembly elections that were due to be held on 8 January 2008.

The campaign was gathering strength, and the PPP Marxist wing was getting enthusiastic support for its revolutionary socialist message in places as far apart as Karachi and the tribal areas of Waziristan in the far north. These elections would have reflected a big shift to the left in Pakistan. This prospect was causing alarm in the ruling clique. That is what was behind today's atrocity.

This was a crime against the workers and peasants of Pakistan, a bloody provocation intended to cancel the elections that the PPP was sure to win and to provide the excuse for a new clampdown and the possible reintroduction of martial law and dictatorship. It is a counterrevolutionary act that must be condemned without reservation.

Who was responsible? The identity of the murderers is not yet known. But when I asked the comrades in Karachi, the reply was immediate: "it was the mullahs". The dark forces of counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan habitually dress up in the garb of Islamic fundamentalism. There are even rumours in circulation that Benazir was shot from a mosque, although the western media insist that the murder was the result of a suicide bomber.

Whatever the technical details of the assassination, and whoever was the direct agent of this criminal act, the threads of the conspiracy undoubtedly reach high up. The so-called Islamic fundamentalists and jihadis are only the puppets and hired assassins of reactionary forces that ere entrenched in the Pakistani ruling class and the state apparatus, lavishly funded by the Pakistan Intelligence Services (ISI), drug barons with connections with the Taliban, and the Saudi regime, always anxious to support and finance any counterrevolutionary activity in the world.

The war in Afghanistan is having a ruinous effect on Pakistan. The Pakistan ruling class had ambitions of dominating the country after the expulsion of the Russians. The Pakistan army and ISI have been meddling there for decades. They are still mixed up with the Taliban and the drug barons (which is the same thing). Huge fortunes are made from the drugs trade that is poisoning Pakistan and destabilizing its economy, society and politics.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is just another expression of the sheer rottenness, degeneration and corruption that is gnawing at the vitals of Pakistan. The misery of the masses, the poverty, the injustices, cry out for a solution. The landlords and capitalists have no solution to this. The workers and peasants looked to the PPP for a way out.

Some so-called "lefts" will say: But Benazir's programme could not have provided the way out. The Marxists in the PPP are fighting for the programme of socialism - for the original programme of the PPP. But the masses can only learn which programme and policies are correct through their own experience.

The January elections would have give the masses an opportunity to advance at least one step in the right direction, by inflicting a decisive defeat on the forces of reaction and dictatorship. Then they would have had the possibility of learning about programmes and policies, not in theory but in practice.

Now it seems most likely that they will be denied this opportunity. The purpose of this criminal provocation is quite clear: to cancel the elections. I have not yet seen the response of the Pakistan authorities, but it would be unthinkable that the elections could now take place on 8 January. They will be at least postponed for some time.

What effect will this have upon the masses? I have just spoken on the phone to the comrades of The Struggle (http://www.struggle.com.pk/) in Karachi, where they have been battling the reactionary thugs of the MQM in a fierce election campaign. They tell me that there is a general feeling of shock among the masses. "People are weeping and women are wailing in their houses: I can hear them now," the comrade said.

But the shock is already turning into anger: "There is rioting in the streets of Karachi and other cities. People are blocking the roads and burning tires." That is a warning to the ruling class that the patience of the masses is now exhausted. The movement of the masses cannot be halted by the assassination of one leaser - or by a thousand.

The masses always adhere to their traditional mass organizations. The PPP developed in the heat of the revolutionary movement of 1968-9, when the workers and peasants came close to taking power.

The dictator Zia murdered Benazir's father. That did not prevent the resurrection of the PPP in the 1980s. The forces of state terrorism murdered Benazir's brother, Murtazar. Then they exiled Benazir and installed a new dictatorship. That did not prevent the PPP from experiencing a new resurrection when 2-3 million people came onto the streets to welcome her back.

The masses will recover from the momentary shock and grief. These emotions will be replaced in time by anger and the desire for revenge. But what is needed is not individual revenge, but collective revenge. What is needed is to prepare the masses for a new revolutionary offensive that will tackle the problems of Pakistan by the roots.

The ruling clique may delay the date of the elections, but sooner or later they will have to be called. The reactionaries calculate that the removal of Benazir will weaken the PPP. That is a serious miscalculation! The PPP cannot be reduced to a single individual. If that were true. It would have disappeared after the judicial murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The PPP is not one individual, It is the organized expression of the will of the masses to change society. It is the three million who came on the streets to greet Benazir's return. It is the tens of millions more who were preparing to vote for a change in the January elections. These millions are now mourning. But they will not mourn forever. They will find effective ways of struggle to make their voice heard.

The masses must protest the murder of the PPP leader through a national protest movement: mass rallies, strikes, protest demonstrations, culminating in a general strike. They must raise the banner of democracy. Against dictatorship! No more martial law! Call new elections immediately!

The PPP leadership must not capitulate to any pressure to delay the elections. Call the national and provisional elections! Let the people's voice be heard! Above all, the PPP must return its original programme and principles.

In the PPP's founding programme is inscribed the aim of the socialist transformation of society. It includes the nationalization of the land, banks and industries under workers control, the replacement of the standing army by a workers and peasants militia. These ideas are as correct and relevant today as when they were first written!

There is nothing easier than to take the life of a man or a woman. We humans are frail creatures and easily killed. But you cannot murder an idea whose time has come!

[Guest1]

Though Bhutto was no revolutionary, the masses were behind her, and they will be looking for revenge against the ruling class.

[Colonello Buendia]

I agree, she was the lesser of two evils but this could allow for stronger left wing parties to shine and take power from Musharraf

[spartan]

I heard that the other oppossition politician Sharif also suffered a similar attack but wasnt harmed.

Is this true?

Because if it is true then i think that it is obvious that it is Musharraf who is behind these assassination attempts not Islamists (Or maybe Musharraf secretly allowing the Islamists an easy hit?).

If it is the latter then this will allow Musharraf the excuse to hang on to power for even longer to tackle the extremists (Though i seriously doubt that the majority of the Pakistani people will buy this excuse and let Musharraf get away with this).

[Zurdito]

no way is it Musharraf. Bhutto was needed to save the Pakistani ruling class, she was totally pro-bourgeois and pro-US, just like Musharraf. Musharraf and his supporters had no cause to assasinate her whatsoever.

[spartan]

no way is it Musharraf. Bhutto was needed to save the Pakistani ruling class,s he wass totally pro-bourgeois and pro-US, just like Musharraf. Musharraf and his supporters had no cause to assasinate her whatsoever.
They themselves had no reason to assassinate her no, but what if they allowed the Islamists (Probably the biggest threat to peace and security in Pakistan right now) an easy hit?

If this was the case then this would give Musharraf the excuse to hang on to power, because of the threat of the Islamists, and it would also get rid of any of his political oppossition enemies who, though against the Islamists like Musharraf, pose a more significant threat to his own, and the militaries of which he was (Though obviously still is) head, power right now.

Though Musharrafs main enemies are the Islamists, his biggest concern is holding on to power, and the moderate oppossition politicians posed a bigger threat to his losing power then the Islamists did at this current moment in time.

[Red Terror Doctor]

The U.S. got what it deserved! It's only a matter of time before the whole region explodes into fury.

[luxemburg89]

I didn't know she'd been killed. That's pretty much shocked me - even though I didn't really have an opinion on her in life. Musharraf has made a BIG mistake, the Pakistani people will not let him get away with this, the elections will reflect that.

[Faux Real]

I have to agree with SoS for those very reasons, this is definitely not a positive step froward towards progressive politics in Pakistan.

If anything there will be more undirected violence in the country, now in the name of her loss. Now if there was some way to channel that against Musharraf and the ruling class, that wouldn't be so terrible an outcome.

[spartan]

I didn't know she'd been killed. That's pretty much shocked me - even though I didn't really have an opinion on her in life. Musharraf has made a BIG mistake, the Pakistani people will not let him get away with this, the elections will reflect that.
I heard that elections have been postponed until a later date following this assassination.

Anyway the Islamists will undoubtedly be emboldened by all this and increase their pressure whilst the oppossition politicians (Imran Khan and Sharif) and their supporters will more than likely start to get more violent in their protests against Musharraf and the militaries rule.

I think that it would be a safe bet to predict some sort of violent civil conflict between oppossing political factions in Pakistan sooner than later after all this.

Is there any sort of left wing movement in Pakistan?

And if so then what is there take on all this?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:49 pm
Is there any sort of left wing movement in Pakistan?

And if so then what is there take on all this?
The PPP are somewhat lefty in their rhetoric.

I believe that their base, without Bhutto to look up to, will now have to come together with less of a top-down leadership and more of a collective body governing it's consensus. As for their take on this, they see it as a major loss.

[spartan]

If anything there will be more undirected violence in the country, now in the name of her loss. Now if there was some way to channel that against Musharraf and the ruling class, that wouldn't be so terrible an outcome.
I read an article from the Guardian newspaper that said that her supporters gathered outside the hospital that she had been taken to and started chanting against Musharraf saying "Musharraf is a murderer" and "Long live Bhutto".

Here it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2232619,00.html

Musharraf was quick to say that "This is the work of those terrorists with whom we are engaged in war," and "We will not rest until we eliminate these terrorists and root them out." which leads me to think that he is behind this as it gives him the perfect excuse to hang on to power to stop the Islamists.

Fortunately it seems that Bhuttos supporters arent falling for this crap and wont allow this assassination to go unavenged.

[Asoka89]

Pakistan's legacy of lack of democracy is a direct result of British Imperialism, which created Pakistan, Islamic imperialism before that invaded the region, and US imperialism that propped of Pakistan's military dictatorships.

Bhutto was some hope for Pakistan's women and would have done some work attacking Islamic fascists; there was some hope for political democracy, which obviously is needed for the road to socialism.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm sure this isn't wht Musharef wanted, people have been rioting and are blaming his regime. This has turned Bhutto into some kind of martyr and I'm sure her party will play it up, although Musharef will likely rig the elections, so it won't matter.

[Kerfuffle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:39 pm
I'm sure this isn't wht Musharef wanted, people have been rioting and are blaming his regime. This has turned Bhutto into some kind of martyr and I'm sure her party will play it up, although Musharef will likely rig the elections, so it won't matter.
Absolutely agreed. I have a very hard time imagining Musharraf being behind this. Quite apart from the consequences, this was a suicide bombing. To put it crudely, where`s he going to find a suicide bomber? And in the full glare of the world`s eye amidst all the hype and media attention, at that?

No. This was a victory for the Islamists.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Red Terror [email protected] 27, 2007 07:48 pm
The U.S. got what it deserved!


14 Pakistani civilians were murdered. How is that the US getting what it deserves? Pakistanis will be the ones who suffer most from this.

[spartan]

This has to be the work of Musharraf as who else would benefit from her death?

Musharraf wanted to avoid elections anyway possible and then had to agree to elections due to pressure from his "allies".

No one seems to remember that Bhuttos convoy was attacked by a bomb the day she came back to Pakistan from exile and that Musharraf had also exiled the other oppossition leader Sharif.

The "terrorists" seem to be working hard to get rid of all oppossition to their main enemy Musharraf :rolleyes:

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 27, 2007 07:05 pm
Though Bhutto was no revolutionary, the masses were behind her, and they will be looking for revenge against the ruling class.
I definitley think so too. It seems people all over are fed up with religious fanatics whether they be Christian or Muslim or whatever. I'm glad for one for that but I'm sad so many people have had to die. I can't say I'm surprised though this happened. :(

[Cheung Mo]

The Muslim wackos, the cappies, and the bourgeois social democrats are all in cahoots whether they are fully cognizant of the fact or not.

[chebol]

Here is the response from Farooq Tariq of the marxist Labor Party Pakistan, interviewed in the Pakistani Daily Times (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C12%5C28%5Cstory_28-12-2007_pg7_15)

The Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) spokesman Farooq Tariq spoke to Daily times and said that the LPP was in intense shock. He termed the incident a message from the fundamentalists who were against a democratic Pakistan. He said that Pervez Musharraf was responsible for this unfortunate incident as he simply failed to provide proper security for the now deceased Benazir Bhutto. He also said that it was not an act of individuals, but rather a properly planned incident with the aid and help of agencies who were already in contact with religious fundamental forces. He said that the LPP had announced the postponement of all its political activities and extended full support and sympathy to Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) despite the fact that the politically LPP was against PPP. Talking about BB’s political scenario, he said that the PPP would not disintegrate but rather it would survive and a much bigger sympathetic wave would emerge in favour of the PPP from all over the world. He said that the LPP demanded that a joint movement be initiated against Musharraf and that his fascist regime be put to an end to terminate the state’s atrocities for good.

[chebol]

Tariq Ali article in the Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2232632,00.html)

[chebol]

Nawaz Sharif to boycott elections, calls for general strike and for Musharraf to resign! (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/opposition-leader-nawaz-sharif-to-boycott-elections/2007/12/28/1198778650223.html)

[Asoka89]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 02:12 am
The Muslim wackos, the cappies, and the bourgeois social democrats are all in cahoots whether they are fully cognizant of the fact or not.
That's absurd:

The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

And Social-Democrats fight, real ones, like Socialists for human rights and human values, they fight against poverty, and they try to do it within the Capitalist framework, yes they are too weak, and no they are not concious of the limits of Capitalism, but to lump them with Islamists is unfair.
---
This was no victory against America; innocent working Pakistani men and women died today, this was a victory to Islamic Fascism and destablization, this is a sad day.

You wonder why the Left's ideas are so ill recieved in places, its because many of the people pretending to be Leftist display low levels of judgement and human decency

[chebol]

A response/ comment someone posted on the Marxmail list to the Alan Woods article:

"1. This romanticized notion of the current "election campaign where,
after years of military dictatorship, the masses were striving for a
change" is quite off-base. The election was going to be a sham and
that was a foregone conclusion. It was already being referred to in
the streets as a "selection" rather than an "election". The US had
already worked out a powersharing agreement between Musharraf and
Benazir and that is what was going to be abided by. Tariq Ali called
it an "arranged marriage" in a recent piece on Benazir "Daughter of
the West" in LRB, and that description is very apt.

2. Several groups, including political parties, religous parties,
lawyers groups, human rights groups etc. had issued a call for
boycotting the elections considering that the jailed lawyers and
judges have still not been released, the courts have been stuffed full
of Musharraf's cronies and the stringent curbs on the press still
remain. In spite of the congratulatory messages from Bush and co
about restoration of democracy in Pakistan, and western media stories
about lifting of emergency, many activists were trying hard to get the
word out to the international media that "Emergency has not yet been
lifted". Benazir had been asked to support the boycott of the
elections--to highlight this very fact--but she refused. Had she
agreed, Musharraf would have had a hard time pulling off this election
farce. Some of the progressive leaders in her own party (PPP), such
as Aitzaz Ahsan--one of the leaders of the lawyer's movement--withdrew
his candidature on the PPP ticket and endorsed the call for an
election boycott, and she publicly rebuked him for not being loyal to
the party.

3. It is true that PPP has some mass base, especially in Sindh.
That's the legacy from her father's time, and also due to the strong
ethnic, linguistic alliances that work well in south asian politics.
However, she was also despised on the streets for being a US lackey.
She had strongly supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, giving
interviews all over the US media in 2001 about how a US invasion
would bring peace to her country. Earlier this year, she had again
reaffirmed that she would take US help to root out terrorism in
Pakistan. Her opposition to the Pakistani Emergency was only
lukewarm, her eager participation in the elections was proof positive
that all she cared about was being reinstated in power.

4. While speculation is rife over who is behind her assassination, it
should be kept in mind that the Pakistani Military in all likelihood
had some role to play. The Military pretty much runs the country, and
has always opposed PPP ever since the military dictator Zia hanged
Benazir's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Earlier this year, in October,
when her rally was attacked and 130 people killed--she had claimed
that the Pakistani military was behind these attacks. Given that the
carnage happened in Rawalpindi, a garrison city that houses the Army's
headquarters, it is very likely that the military was involved in some
capacity. This should not come as a surprise considering that many of
the "jihadi extremists" in Pakistan (including elements of Taliban)
are the Pakistani military's creation (with US support and backing, of
course!).

5.All said and done, BB's assassination is a horrendous tragedy for
the Pakistani people. The country is being torn asunder by political
violence and this latest crime comes as a severe blow. There is a
good likelihood that this bout of violence will lead to Musharraf
reinstating Emergency, or the Army declaring Martial Law or US or
India deciding to intervene in some way to "ensure stability". All of
these scenarios are too horrible to contemplate.

-sg"

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:01 pm
Tariq Ali article in the Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2232632,00.html)
Thanks for the link, reading his reflection about his early days knowing Benazir were quite touching.

He is correct in analyzing that if the PPP ends up dissolving because of her loss rather than coming together to push towards a more grassroots direction will be another disaster for Pakistanis.

[Guest1]

On the murder of Benazir Bhutto (http://www.socialist.net/on-the-murder-of-benazir-bhutto.htm)
By Rob Sewell
Thursday, 27 December 2007

Today's cold-blooded assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi has once again thrown Pakistan into political turmoil, less than two weeks before national elections. Thirty more people have died and 40 injured in the bomb blast after the assassin blew himself up. Millions of supporters of the Pakistan Peoples Party are in a state of shock, disbelief and grief. But they are also angered by this murderous act by the forces of black counter-revolution.

Thousands have taken to the streets throughout Pakistan in protest at this outrage. People flocked to the Rawalpindi General hospital and have been chanting anti-Musharraf slogans, including describing him as a "dog". The street protests have also spread, with reports of demonstrations in Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar, Multan, and Quetta. The Pakistan army has been put on ‘red alert' and an emergency meeting has been convened by Musharaff of top officials to decide the fate of the forthcoming election. There is a danger that emergency rule will be re-imposed.

Who benefited from this murder? Those behind the killing clearly wanted to prevent the victory of the PPP on 8th January. They are the Pakistani ruling elite, which has brought the country to ruin. The fact that the assassin was able to shoot Benazir at close quarter after passing through several levels of security checks, indicate the involvement of sections of the security forces. Once again the assassination points to the Islamic fundamentalists linked to al-Queda, who have close links with the security forces (ISI) and have stepped up their attacks, especially since the storming of the Red Mosque in July. Already this year, nearly 1,000 people have been killed by suicide and armed attacks.

This whole situation underlines the counter-revolutionary role of fundamentalism, which despite its demagogy, carries the banner of black reaction, and is linked by a thousand threads to the ruling elites of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere.

On Benazir's return on 18th October, the first assassination attack came at a mass rally the following day, claiming 140 deaths and 500 injured. Bhutto pointed her finger at the Islamic groups for the bloody attack. During the election campaign, attacks have continued, most notably in Peshwar and Islamabad. Today, minutes before to Benazir's murder, a simultaneous attack resulted in four people being shot dead at an election rally of Naswar Shariff in Islamabad.

The West's plans and calculations of "managed transition" are in complete disarray. The American imperialists had supported General Mushariff, but this role had been discredited. They were hoping that a "conconciliation" would take place between him and Benazir. They were hoping that Benazir would pursue their interests. However, behind Benazir and the PPP stood the millions of workers and peasants who were yearning for fundamental change.

"We stand with the people in Pakistan in the struggle against the forces of terror and extremism," said George Bush. But the plans of Washington have now gone up in smoke. It was their actions (the so-called war on terror) which have built up the fundamentalists throughout the region. They initially financed and armed al-Qaeda and their supporters, which has now fallen to the drug barons and secret services to continue. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have added to the chaos. The imperialists are in uncharted waters. The UN security council has even called an emergency session to discuss the assassination. There is a note of alarm in their statements, fearing that the region could spiral out of control.

The campaign to postpone the elections is an attempt to block these pressures welling up in Pakistan for revolutionary change. Despite Musharrif's calls for calm, shops and businesses have been closed and demonstrators have taken to the streets across Pakistan. Police cars and other vehicles have been set alight. It is a spontaneous protest against the counter-revolution. It is defiance against those responsible for the attack and the beginning of a fight back by the masses.

Whatever the immediate outcome, including the likely postponement of the national elections, the masses will seek to push the PPP into power at the earliest possible moment. They will seek the road of fundamental socialist change by demanding that the PPP return to its revolutionary roots as the only way forward. The death of Benazir Bhutto, despite the initial shock, will act as a spur to the further radicalization the party and the millions that follow it throughout Pakistan. The assassination will certainly not break the will of the masses to change society. It will harden their determination.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:33 am
The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

I'll take bets on how long before this clown is restricted.

[Louis Pio]

Just a note on the elections, also in regards to Chebol.
As we all know it is true that elections in Pakistan are rigged, however as it has been shown before it is possible to get through if left candidates build enough of a massbase in the areas were they stand.
Sharifs calls for boycot are stupid to say the least from a left point of view, and are exactly what the forces behind the attack were hoping for (probably military intelligence), somehow I think Sharif is maybe hoping for some kind of intervention that would place him in charge, after all let's remember what side he is on. Also why I never got why one should join in alliance with groups like his as some groups on the left seems to think, the choice in Pakistan has never been between "democracy" and dictatorship, rather it's between socialism or barbarism.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 28, 2007 03:57 am--> (Zurdito @ December 28, 2007 03:57 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 04:33 am
The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

I'll take bets on how long before this clown is restricted.[/b]
I doubt it. He most likely means the political Islamists rather than Muslims as a whole, certainly not in a country where nearly everyone is Muslim. Islamism is indeed a detriment to getting socialist values across the hearts and minds of the people. Calling it 'fascism' may be a stretch, though.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by comrade in arms+December 28, 2007 12:08 pm--> (comrade in arms @ December 28, 2007 12:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:57 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 04:33 am
The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

I'll take bets on how long before this clown is restricted.
I doubt it. He most likely means the political Islamists rather than Muslims as a whole, certainly not in a country where nearly everyone is Muslim. Islamism is indeed a detriment to getting socialist values across the hearts and minds of the people. Calling it 'fascism' may be a stretch, though. [/b]
he said "the greatest threat".

let's look at Pakistan: in the name of fighting America's resource wars, Musharraf has waged war on entire regions of his country, slaughtering them for US corporate interests. He has been backed up as an agent of the US in pursuing policies keeping most Paksitanis desperately poor and getting poorer. The US govt. phoned him up on the eve of war with Afghanistan and said "support us or we bom you back to the stone age". Yet, when some of the poor, opressed and understandably pissed off youth in Pakistan get lured into Islamism, this person tells us that it's Islamism ITSELF which is the biggest threat to socialist values, and not the sick system which created it, on the back of systematic slaughter and degradation of most of the worlds population, just to serve the interests of a tiny minority.

Anyone who says then that Islamism is the biggest threat we face is anti-materialist. The policies of neo-liberalism, of treating Pakistanis not as human beings but as a problem to be dealt with so the US can carry on getting its oil and gas from its neighbours, is what the problem is here. If this guy can't see that then I don't think he will last long.

PS I agree that Islamism of course is a detriment to socialism, like all false consciousness is. But why is Islamism growing worldwide? Because it is leading the resistance to imperialism: a just resistance. So, to defeat it, we have to tae the leadership of that resistance to imeprialism. What we must not do is be idealistic and buy into the propaganda about "evil" islamists who wnat to destroy our progressive "freedoms".

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:34 pm
Discuss. I think she was corrupt, so no big loss.
This was a political murder, not a moral one. So her being "corrupt" (what a petty-bourgeois concept!) is immaterial.

I don't thing Musharraf is behind that. But I also don't thing that Musharraf is the Pakistani State. And we know very well that the Pakistani State, particularly the ISI and other repressive agencies, are deeply infiltrated by "political Islamism". In fact, in this sence, it is a situation that resembles fascism: a movement outside the State, and in fact acting illegally, but doing so with the help or complacency of the State or sectors within it.

And that is the logic behind Benazir's murder. The criminals are pushing Musharraf to the right, knowing that he won't be able to find them, prosecute them, punish them: even if Musharraf vehemently wished to put those guys in jail, who will do that for him? the Pakistani police? :rolleyes:

So, Musharraf is doomed. If he tries to crackdown on the murderers of Benazir, he will find himself at struggle against a huge part of the State, and will probably be unable to handle it. If he doesn't, he gets further demoralised, as someone who has no real control over the State apparatus. His only hope would be either to resort to the masses against the mullahs (but this is something he probably can't even think of doing), or to accept his position as a puppet of political Islam.

Political Islamism shows again how politically clever it can be. In one move, they have beheaded the PPP and handcuffed Musharraf. Let's wait and see; at the moment, I would put my hopes at the PPP's rank-and-file.

Luís Henrique

[chebol]

Labour Party Pakistan mourns Benazir’s tragic death

It's a murder of democracy. Musharraf should resign

A tragedy wrought by combination of dictatorship, fundamentalism, imperialism

Lahore (PR): The Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) strongly condemns the tragic murder of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister and chairperson Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).

In a joint statement issued here on Friday, LPP spokesperson Farooq Tariq and National Secretary Nisar Shah said: ‘ It is not mere a murder of an individual but murder of democracy and political culture in Pakistan’.

They said it was the duty of the regime to provide Benazir Bhutto with a fool-proof security. ‘This is a failure on the part of the regime hence exposing country to an unprecedented danger and chaos. Therefore, we demand an immediate resignation of Pervez Musharraf and his cabinet,’ they added.

They said the tragedy that struck Pakistan yesterday was yet another expression of the instability created in the region owing to the US presence in the region. ‘Her brutal murder is a tragedy jointly wrought by religious fundamentalists, military dictatorships in Pakistan and the USA’, they commented.

They said Al-Qaida had taken upon itself the responsibility for this horrendous crime according to media reports. ‘But the Frankenstein of Al-Qaida would not have been ruling the roost in Pakistan had it not been created by the USA and pampered by military dictatorships in Pakistan’, they said.

Urging the PPP workers restraint, they said LPP workers were with them in that hour of grief. ‘We must turn this anger on the culprits who plotted this dastardly murder'’, they said. They appreciated Pakistan Muslim League (N)’s decision to boycott the elections due on January 8 and APDM decision to suspend the campaign recently launched for the boycott of elections.
(ends)

(via Farooq Sulehria - www.jeddojuhd.com)

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 28, 2007 12:50 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 28, 2007 12:50 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 01:34 pm
Discuss. I think she was corrupt, so no big loss.
This was a political murder, not a moral one. So her being "corrupt" (what a petty-bourgeois concept!) is immaterial.

I don't thing Musharraf is behind that. But I also don't thing that Musharraf is the Pakistani State. And we know very well that the Pakistani State, particularly the ISI and other repressive agencies, are deeply infiltrated by "political Islamism". In fact, in this sence, it is a situation that resembles fascism: a movement outside the State, and in fact acting illegally, but doing so with the help or complacency of the State or sectors within it.

And that is the logic behind Benazir's murder. The criminals are pushing Musharraf to the right, knowing that he won't be able to find them, prosecute them, punish them: even if Musharraf vehemently wished to put those guys in jail, who will do that for him? the Pakistani police? :rolleyes:

So, Musharraf is doomed. If he tries to crackdown on the murderers of Benazir, he will find himself at struggle against a huge part of the State, and will probably be unable to handle it. If he doesn't, he gets further demoralised, as someone who has no real control over the State apparatus. His only hope would be either to resort to the masses against the mullahs (but this is something he probably can't even think of doing), or to accept his position as a puppet of political Islam.

Political Islamism shows again how politically clever it can be. In one move, they have beheaded the PPP and handcuffed Musharraf. Let's wait and see; at the moment, I would put my hopes at the PPP's rank-and-file.

Luís Henrique [/b]
A brilliant analysis, comrade.

We must put our hopes in the PPP rank-and-file. Even now, when riots are spreading through major cities, the military is taking control of working-class areas of Karachi, like Malir and Bin Qasim Town.

Their effort to terrorize the working-class must not succeed.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:47 pm
Well after Musharraf's spectacular failure, I think the US was counting on Bhutto restoring some legitimacy to the Pakistani state and continuing the country's role as loyal servant to American imperialism: neo-liberal economics and militarism. They may be forced to return to backing a military regime, as from, what I can tell it was only the personality cult around Bhutto which `would have held the country together without the need for a return to Mushararff's more outright repression.
Quite right. The US would like a democratic facade -- and BB has always been a compliant instrument of US imperial policy. Rumor has it she was intending to institute more "neoliberal reforms."

Musharraf's failure hasn't been "spectacular": the country is increasingly ungovernable. I'm not saying he's competent, but I don't think anyone can run the place.

[spartan]

he said "the greatest threat".
First off by "Islamists" he obviously meant political Islam or Islamism which is just religious Fascism.

Secondly by "the greatest threat" he didnt mean in the whole world but to this specific region where Islamism is a threat to Socialist values.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:06 pm
Secondly by "the greatest threat" he didnt mean in the whole world but to this specific region
Islamism is a greater threat to the region than American imperialism? Are you a materialist or an idealist?

Also, can you define fascism for me?

[Guest1]

Don't be fucking stupid, American imperialism created Islamism as a political force in order to fight the socialist movement on the subcontinent.

In this case, the bourgeois state in Pakistan is deeply entwined with political Islamism, and the ruling party props up Islamist fascist gangs who have been beating up and killing rank and file PPP militants, including the Marxists in The Struggle.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 28, 2007 11:57 am--> (Zurdito @ December 28, 2007 11:57 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 04:33 am
The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

I'll take bets on how long before this clown is restricted. [/b]
If Asoka89 were to be restricted, you'd have to restrict me as well, because I agree with Asoka completely. If the clerical fascists were to orchestrate an uprising, it would be reactionary, rather than revolutionary. This is one of the reasons why there needs to be a revolutionary vanguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party). This is not to be taken as being hostile towards muslims as people of faith. In fact the Pakistani People's Party's manifestoe mentions that Islam is there religion.http://www.ppp.org.pk/manifestos/2008.pdf

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by RedKnight+December 28, 2007 08:24 pm--> (RedKnight @ December 28, 2007 08:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:57 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 04:33 am
The Islamists are in the realm of Fascism, they are the greatest threat to socialist values.

I'll take bets on how long before this clown is restricted.
If Asoka89 were to be restricted, you'd have to restrict me as well, because I agree with Asoka completely. If the clerical fascists were to orchestrate an uprising, it would be reactionary, rather than revolutionary. This is one of the reasons why there needs to be a revolutionary vanguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party). This is not to be taken as being hostile towards muslims as people of faith. In fact the Pakistani People's Party's manifestoe mentions that Islam is there religion. [/b]
ah well your avatar says it all. ;) I'm going to make a thread on this in fact

[Sky]

In many ways she was the ideal US face on the "democracy promotion" lie: Benazir was "educated" at the Imperial University of Harvard, she was articulate when speaking the lies of imperialism (couched in terms of "democracy") and could even appeal to some of the lslamophobic liberal-left crowd with her fake social-democratic credentials, and she was considered "beautiful" by the gossip rags. She was a crook, a bad Muslim, and a traitor to the political legacy of her father.

Benazir Bhutto must be condemned for her dangerous provocations and for her incessant attempts to subvert Pakistan. Liberal western degeneracy propagated by the likes of Bhutto poses a serious threat to the nations of the Middle East. The mujahideen have no choice but to resist this kind of aggressive subversion. The seizure of power by Bhutto would have had dangerous ramifications for Pakistan and the world as a whole. Bhutto’s family should have to compensate for the damage caused by her unwanted presence in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was a traitor and collaborationist who aligned herself with predatory imperialist powers waging a genocidal war on Islaam. She is responsible for what happened on 27 December: she declared war on the mujahideen in the northwest and conspired to unleash destruction in the Pashtunistan under the pretext of “fighting extremists”. Bhutto and her ilk are the same ones that greeted the Nazis as liberators: she was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. military aggression in 2001 against Afghanistan. Historical precedent allows for such treason to be punished by death.

In this context, the Musharaff clique that has made peaceful overtures towards the Taliban resistance and Pashtun tribes as of late is by far a lesser evil. By contrast, Bhutto threatened to do the bidding of the U.S. imperialists.

[img]http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg' alt='' width='465' height='346' class='attach' /> (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg)

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:34 pm
In this context, the Musharaff clique that has made peaceful overtures towards the Taliban resistance and Pashtun tribes as of late is by far a lesser evil. By contrast, Bhutto threatened to do the bidding of the U.S. imperialists.


[img]http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg' alt='' width='465' height='346' class='attach' /> (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg)
I agree as a matter of fact. Bush has been pressing Musharraf hard, and welcoming Bhutto, and I think that she would have been a puppet for imperialism.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:34 pm
In many ways she was the ideal US face on the "democracy promotion" lie: Benazir was "educated" at the Imperial University of Harvard, she was articulate when speaking the lies of imperialism (couched in terms of "democracy") and could even appeal to some of the lslamophobic liberal-left crowd with her fake social-democratic credentials, and she was considered "beautiful" by the gossip rags. She was a crook, a bad Muslim, and a traitor to the political legacy of her father.

Benazir Bhutto must be condemned for her dangerous provocations and for her incessant attempts to subvert Pakistan. Liberal western degeneracy propagated by the likes of Bhutto poses a serious threat to the nations of the Middle East. The mujahideen have no choice but to resist this kind of aggressive subversion. The seizure of power by Bhutto would have had dangerous ramifications for Pakistan and the world as a whole. Bhutto’s family should have to compensate for the damage caused by her unwanted presence in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was a traitor and collaborationist who aligned herself with predatory imperialist powers waging a genocidal war on Islaam. She is responsible for what happened on 27 December: she declared war on the mujahideen in the northwest and conspired to unleash destruction in the Pashtunistan under the pretext of “fighting extremists”. Bhutto and her ilk are the same ones that greeted the Nazis as liberators: she was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. military aggression in 2001 against Afghanistan. Historical precedent allows for such treason to be punished by death.

In this context, the Musharaff clique that has made peaceful overtures towards the Taliban resistance and Pashtun tribes as of late is by far a lesser evil. By contrast, Bhutto threatened to do the bidding of the U.S. imperialists.

[img]http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg' alt='' width='465' height='346' class='attach' /> (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg)
Islamism -- whether acting in its capacity as an ally or as an enemy of neo-liberal interests -- is a direct consequence of neo-liberalism's raping the Middle East. I consider Islamist leaders to be enemies and those who follow them to be victims of circumstance.

[Asoka89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:34 pm
In many ways she was the ideal US face on the "democracy promotion" lie: Benazir was "educated" at the Imperial University of Harvard, she was articulate when speaking the lies of imperialism (couched in terms of "democracy") and could even appeal to some of the lslamophobic liberal-left crowd with her fake social-democratic credentials, and she was considered "beautiful" by the gossip rags. She was a crook, a bad Muslim, and a traitor to the political legacy of her father.

Benazir Bhutto must be condemned for her dangerous provocations and for her incessant attempts to subvert Pakistan. Liberal western degeneracy propagated by the likes of Bhutto poses a serious threat to the nations of the Middle East. The mujahideen have no choice but to resist this kind of aggressive subversion. The seizure of power by Bhutto would have had dangerous ramifications for Pakistan and the world as a whole. Bhutto’s family should have to compensate for the damage caused by her unwanted presence in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was a traitor and collaborationist who aligned herself with predatory imperialist powers waging a genocidal war on Islaam. She is responsible for what happened on 27 December: she declared war on the mujahideen in the northwest and conspired to unleash destruction in the Pashtunistan under the pretext of “fighting extremists”. Bhutto and her ilk are the same ones that greeted the Nazis as liberators: she was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. military aggression in 2001 against Afghanistan. Historical precedent allows for such treason to be punished by death.

In this context, the Musharaff clique that has made peaceful overtures towards the Taliban resistance and Pashtun tribes as of late is by far a lesser evil. By contrast, Bhutto threatened to do the bidding of the U.S. imperialists.

[img]http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg' alt='' width='465' height='346' class='attach' /> (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg)
Right, and right-wing Islamic Fundamentalism isnt a greater threat than US Imperialism?

Get a grip, no self-respecting Socialist would support a military dictator, or right-wing Islamic extermists... US Imperialism is undeniable, but the fact that a Pakistani leader and dozens of Pakistani's died is a tragedy.

Pakistan is a police state that has killed dozens who are protesting since yesterday.. those people are working people, working Pakistani's who want a better life and believed that Bhutto could help them do so?

Does that mean Bhutto herself was really a great person, no, but she was the lesser evil.

If you can't see the Islamic fascism of the Taliban as a threat I dont understand where your coming from. Political democracy is needed on the road to economic democracy, Islamic fundamentalism, and religion in general in the region is standing in the way.

I dont see how calling her a "bad muslim" is an insult.

[Sky]

Get a grip, no self-respecting Socialist would support a military dictator, or right-wing Islamic extermists...
I am in fact staunchly opposed to Musharaff.

If you can't see the Islamic fascism of the Taliban as a threat I dont understand where your coming from.
The fact of the matter is that the Taliban are the authentic representatives of the Pashtun tribes. More than any other group that have valiantly resisted the brutal United States occupation and its surrogates of the Karzai "government". The mujahideen has the unconditional support of working people in their struggle for self-determination.

Political democracy is needed on the road to economic democracy, Islamic fundamentalism, and religion in general in the region is standing in the way.
I disagree. Islam has proven to be necessary in the region to establish cohesive states. The teachings of the prophet Muhammad were a response to the acute crisis in Arabian society brought about by the breakdown of tribal relations and the undermining of corresponding moral-ethical and religious (polytheistic and fetishistic) concepts and by the emergence of early class society. The times required the creation of a stable sate and social organization in Arabia, and it fell to the religious and political movement of Islam to accomplish this task.

The religious-egalitarian ideal of Islam, the extreme ease of conversion, and the absence of an ecclesastical hierarchy contributed to the univerisilization of Islam. Islam in principle excludes mediators between man and god. The professional jurists-theoogians were not bearers of "divine grace" and unlike the Christian clergy had no exclusive right to perform religious ceremonies, to excommunicate, or to pardon sins. Islam, as a universal ideology of the peoples professing it, often objetively aided the rise of their national liberation movements, in turn assuring Islam's great influence in social life and rendering Islam's division into secular and religious spheres extremely problematic and uncertain.

[spartan]

Lets not forget that the Taliban were funded, and had most of their camps and got most of their volunteers, from Pakistan (Who are allies of the US and who agreed to be the middle man for US funding to the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and eventually the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's and the Afghan civil war in the 90's).

Islamism was set up by religious Fascists and funded by the US to stop the spread of Socialism in the mainly Islamic middle east.

Of course now we see that Islamism is now fighting the US but that is because of the USA's hunger for this regions resources (Economic Imperialism) not because of any hatred of Islam on the part of the US (Rather it was the Islamists hatred of the west and its Liberal culture which lead to 9-11 and the US excuse to invade these resource rich regions).

Though of course the western media has to do their obligitary scaremongering of the current "enemy" of the west Islamism (Who are resisting US attempts at gaining their resources amongst other things).

Though the question has to be asked: Should we support these groups, with their Fascist like reactionary ideologies that are both homophobic and sexist, just because they are resisting Capitalist Imperialism?

I wouldnt as this is a perfect example of the enemy of my enemy isnt my friend.

Remember that even Marx and Engels agreed that Capitalism is progressive in under developed areas as it developes these areas and the Bourgeoisie employ the local inhabitants as workers (Thus creating the material conditions necessary for Socialism which obviously doesnt exist in Afghanistan right now).

[Sky]

Lets not forget that the Taliban were funded, and had most of their camps and got most of their volunteers, from Pakistan
Similarly, the Serbs and Bulgars were assisted by the tsarist Russian regime in their struggle for national liberation. That they appealed to larger powers for assistance should not discredit their inherently progressive movement.


Islamism was set up by religious Fascists and funded by the US to stop the spread of Socialism.
This is not a fair assessment. Islamism helped to restore the independence of Iran.

Remember that even Marx and Engels agreed that Capitalism is progressive in under developed areas as it developes these areas and the Bourgeoisie employ the local inhabitants as workers
Right. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a profoundly bourgeois revolution seeking to do away with the obsolete monarchist-feudal structure.

[spartan]

Right. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a profoundly bourgeois revolution seeking to do away with the obsolete monarchist-feudal structure.
Yes and it replaced it with a reactionary Fascist religious Theocracy, that is both homophobic and has now started to be sexist by forcing women to dress "modestly", instead of a "progressive" Liberal Democracy that would have better developed this region and have made the exploited workers realise the real reasons for their exploitation and lead them to adopting Socialism as their liberating ideology (Instead of religious Fascism like all the resistance groups in Iraq are adopting right now).

[Asoka89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:34 pm
Lets not forget that the Taliban were funded, and had most of their camps and got most of their volunteers, from Pakistan (Who are allies of the US and who agreed to be the middle man for US funding to the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and eventually the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's and the Afghan civil war in the 90's).

Islamism was set up by religious Fascists and funded by the US to stop the spread of Socialism in the mainly Islamic middle east.

Of course now we see that Islamism is now fighting the US but that is because of the USA's hunger for this regions resources (Economic Imperialism) not because of any hatred of Islam on the part of the US (Rather it was the Islamists hatred of the west and its Liberal culture which lead to 9-11 and the US excuse to invade these resource rich regions).

Though of course the western media has to do their obligitary scaremongering of the current "enemy" of the west Islamism (Who are resisting US attempts at gaining their resources amongst other things).

Though the question has to be asked: Should we support these groups, with their Fascist like reactionary ideologies that are both homophobic and sexist, just because they are resisting Capitalist Imperialism?

I wouldnt as this is a perfect example of the enemy of my enemy isnt my friend.

Remember that even Marx and Engels agreed that Capitalism is progressive in under developed areas as it developes these areas and the Bourgeoisie employ the local inhabitants as workers (Thus creating the material conditions necessary for Socialism which obviously doesnt exist in Afghanistan right now).
Sky some of your analysis of Early Islam is very enlightening, thank you for that, but I must concur with Spartan, almost to the letter.

And the 1979 Revolution in Iran was hijacked by Islamists, there was a large, secular, left-leaning/leftist base around it and it was stolen by those who wanted to replace despotism with theocracy.

[Zurdito]

Remember that even Marx and Engels agreed that Capitalism is progressive in under developed areas as it developes these areas and the Bourgeoisie employ the local inhabitants as workers (Thus creating the material conditions necessary for Socialism which obviously doesnt exist in Afghanistan right now).

Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy which has already been pointed out to you countless times? Marx and Engels were speaking *before* capitalism had been fully established even in western Europe. We now live in the imperialist stage of capitalism where imperialists states deny development to the third world. FFS the imperialists put the Taliban in pwoer, how do you expect them to cure Afghansitan's underdevelopment? Across the world they have DESTROYED industry and often even reduced third world nations back to a pre-industrial condition.

[Asoka89]

Zurdito can you post more on this imperialist stage of Capitalism, is that analysis from Lenin's view of Imperialism and Empire? Or from elsewhere?

Thanks comrade

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:34 pm
Islamism was set up by religious Fascists and funded by the US to stop the spread of Socialism in the mainly Islamic middle east.
Islamism goes further back, originating in Egypt (The Muslim Brotherhood) as an anti-colonialist response to the British Empire's partitioning of the Arab states post-WWI. Just a quick heads up.

[spartan]

Zurdito if you think that Afghanistan has the material conditions necessary for Socialism then you are sadly mistaken.

The US wants to build pipelines through Afghanistan to pump oil and gas from central Asia.

Now to do this the Capitalists would need to develop Afghanistan as it currently does not have the means to do this by itself.

Now by developing Afghanistan the Capitalists will be unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot as they will have to employ the local inhabitants (Who have never worked in a truely modern industrial Capitalist economy before) because they provide cheap labour which helps the Capitalists gain a profit.

Now this action will lead to the exploitation of the cheap labour provided by these native inhabitants and will in turn (Hopefully) lead the exploited workers to adopt Socialism as their liberating force instead of Fascist reactionary religion like the main anti-Imperialist resistance groups in Afghanistan are advocating right now.

For Gods sake the Taliban, the main anti-Imperialist resistance group in Afghanistan, are advocating a primitive Feudalism from the time of the prophet Muhammad as their economic model for Afghanistan!

Now surely the "Capitalism is progressive" theory is much better for Afghanistan then what the Taliban is advocating (Which would be going backwards from the primitive un-industrial Capitalism that Afghanistan has now to the Feudalism of the prophet Muhammad's time).

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:47 am




Zurdito can you post more on this imperialist stage of Capitalism, is that analysis from Lenin's view of Imperialism and Empire? Or from elsewhere?

Thanks comrade

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

this should answer your questions.


Zurdito if you think that Afghanistan has the material conditions necessary for Socialism then you are sadly mistaken.

where did I say that?


Now by developing Afghanistan the Capitalists will have to employ the local inhabitants (Who have never worked in a truely Capitalist economy before) and this action will lead to the exploitation of the cheap labour provided by these native inhabitants and will in turn (Hopefully) lead the workers to adopt Socialism as their liberating force instead of Fascist reactionary religion like the main anti-Imperialist resistance in Afghanistan is advocating right now.

An economy based mostly on extracting raw resources is not highly developed.

Oil gets pumped across the Middle East. Workers are employed doing so. But the conditions don't exist for socialism. Why? Because the imeprialist system prevents the wealth from being kept within the coutnry and invested into industrialisation. Regimes who try to develop the means to use the oil for the building of an internal market and to industrialise its extraction, are opposed by imperialism.

[spartan]

Zurdito if you think that Afghanistan has the material conditions necessary for Socialism then you are sadly mistaken.
where did I say that?
You support resistance to the progressive industrial Capitalism, that will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism, that is being brought by the west to this under developed and un-industrial region to steal their resources (This will make the Afghan workers, employed by the west as cheap labour for this new industrial base, better understand their exploitation and lead them to Socialism rather than religious Fascism as their liberating force).

Thus i can only deduce from your support of the resistance that you must believe that the material conditions necessary for Socialism are a reality in Afghanistan as you wouldnt be against the economic Imperialism of the west (Which will bring about industrialisation of this under developed and un-industrial region so that the Capitalists can steal its resources) otherwise.

There will never be Socialism as long as two different economic worlds exist (The first world with its industrial Capitalism and the third world with its under developed and un-industrial primitive Capitalism).

It should be noted though that the first world now wants to bring all its industrial factory style jobs to the third world as third world workers provide much cheaper labour then first world workers which will give the Capitalist owners of these industries a much bigger profit as they dont have to give as big a percentage of any of the profits made to the workers as wages.

The advantages of this are that it will lead to the third world becoming industrialised and will eventually give its people better living standards whilst the west will suffer from a lack of an industrial base.

Now this will lead to the first and third worlds becoming closer in wealth and living standards which will make the workers in both worlds equal in there oppression and thus the material conditions necessary for Socialism for the whole planet, not just one part of it which would prevent Socialism, a reality.

There is a reason why the Socialist movement is Internationalist in outlook you know.

Hence the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!" not "Workers from one part of the world that is developed and industrialised, unite!".

[Luís Henrique]

Those who believe political Islam fights against American imperialism deal in dangerous delusions.

Political Islam fights against some of the consequences of imperialism: secularisation of society, marginalisation of traditional elites, introduction of modern technology. As long as imperialism doesn't bring that, those reactionaries have absolutely nothing against "their" people's labour being reaped by imperialist companies.

To believe political Islam is at odds with imperialism per se is to ignore its pro-imperialist role in Saudi Arabia. There, where the reactionaries were able to keep the country untouched by modernisation, political Islam has no qualms about imperialism.

On the other hand, to believe imperialism can be progressive, even in hellholes like Afghanistan, is equally deluded. It was imperialism that put an end to the Afghanistan progressive regime, and directly financed the reactionary gangs that toppled Najibullah. Imperialism has no intention to remove the reactionary oligarchies from power in these countries; on the contrary, it systematically supports them.

It is true that capitalist exploitation generates a revolutionary working class, and it is true that imperialism fosters capitalist exploitation, at least in some degree. But it is quite willing to help the reactionaries in the third world to politically fight against the unintended consequences of capitalist exploitation.

To welcome the murder of Benazir Bhutto is unacceptable - especially in terms of calling her a provocateur, a subversive, a vehicle of "western degeneracy".

What Pakistan need is exactly subversion and degeneracy: its reactionary religiously fanatical establishment must be exploded, defeated, destroyed - not because it opposes imperialism, but, rather in the contrary, because it is, in the long term, imperialism's best ally in the country.

Luís Henrique

[Asoka89]

Well put, let me add that Islam was impressed upon the Indian workers long ago, by Islamic fundamentalism, this and the British strategy of divide and conquer birthed Pakistan.

Supporting religious fundamentalism is contray to all leftist beliefs

[Sky]

To welcome the murder of Benazir Bhutto is unacceptable - especially in terms of calling her a provocateur, a subversive, a vehicle of "western degeneracy".
She was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan. She declared war against the resistance of the mujahideen, vowing to unleash destruction in Pashtunistan. In this context, the resistance had no choice but to act in self-defense against this traitor, collaborationist, and war monger.

She even threatened to recognize the criminal regime occupying Palestine.

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?...d=178&nid=14909 (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14909)

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:40 am

To welcome the murder of Benazir Bhutto is unacceptable - especially in terms of calling her a provocateur, a subversive, a vehicle of "western degeneracy".
She was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan. She declared war against the resistance of the mujahideen, vowing to unleash destruction in Pashtunistan. In this context, the resistance had no choice but to act in self-defense against this traitor, collaborationist, and war monger.

She even threatened to recognize the criminal regime occupying Palestine.

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?...d=178&nid=14909 (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14909)
The Taliban was sheltering, and also aiding, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked our people, and land on September 11, 2001. It was not therefore aggression to retaliate by toppling an aggressive, as well as repressive, regime.

[Asoka89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:40 am

To welcome the murder of Benazir Bhutto is unacceptable - especially in terms of calling her a provocateur, a subversive, a vehicle of "western degeneracy".
She was unequivocal in her support of the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan. She declared war against the resistance of the mujahideen, vowing to unleash destruction in Pashtunistan. In this context, the resistance had no choice but to act in self-defense against this traitor, collaborationist, and war monger.

She even threatened to recognize the criminal regime occupying Palestine.

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?...d=178&nid=14909 (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14909)
The Taliban and the Majahideen are no friends of Socialism, they are no friends of secularism, they are no friends of ours.

Islamic fascism is a real threat, it threatens worker's movements across the Muslim world, resistance to Empire does not give an excuse to supporting those with evil idealogies.

I do not agree with supporting the Israeli regime--- the solution to the conflict is the merging of Palestine and Israeli in a democratic regime, one person, one vote, similar to post-Apartheid South Africa. That is still no reason to agree with the death of someone.. and the death of 20+ innocents that were merely NEAR a political leader.

They wouldve been able to oppose them with these false Islamic fundamentalist platform of hate and regression in early Jan..

[RedKnight]

[img]http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg' alt='' width='465' height='346' class='attach' /> (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/28/benazirandperes.jpg) If you take notice of the clutched red rose in the background, you should know that it's the symbol of the Socialist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_international). Both Peres's Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Party_%28Israel%29), as well as Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Peoples_Party), are a part of this association. This does not necessarily mean that she supported all of the policies and/or actions of the zionist regime.

[Asoka89]

Bringing up the SI, oftens means calling in a flaming of this largely Social Democratic organization, keep in mind there are revolutionary socialist elements of the SI and that their support for the Sardinistas were very important in the 1980s.

[spartan]

Al Qaeda has denied any involvment in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
http://www.orange.co.uk/news/topstories/32...1&article=index (http://www.orange.co.uk/news/topstories/32994.htm?linkfrom=hp4&link=ticker_pos_1_link_1&article=index)

[Sky]

The Taliban was sheltering, and also aiding, Al Qaeda.
Irrelevant. The Taliban had nothing to do with events of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda was a non-state entity. There was no declaration of war against Afghanistan, no approval from the UN Security Council. The Nazis at Nuremberg insisted that they had a right to go to war in self-defense as they saw it and that no one could tell them differently. The events of September 11 were terrorist attacks. By no means were they an armed attack by a Government. There is no precedent permitting the invasion of a country on the basis of a terrorist attack.


Al Qaeda attacked our people, and land on September 11, 2001.
The brutality of the United States, Russia, Israel, India, Philippines, Lebanese Christian fascists etc against Working Muslims have been far worse than anything committed by Al Qaeda.


It was not therefore aggression to retaliate by toppling an aggressive, as well as repressive, regime.
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was a peaceful, non-aligned, self-sufficient state that did not attack any state. There was no justification for the aggression against Afghanistan.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:32 pm
Al Qaeda attacked our people, and land on September 11, 2001.
Why this display of chauvinism? What makes "our" people so different from Afghani people?

[chebol]

Unprecedented mass reaction to assassination of Benazir Bhutto

By Farooq Tariq
December 29, 2007 -- Pakistan has never seen so many people protesting in streets all over the country as been the case during the last two days. They were all united across Pakistan to condemn the brutal murder of Benazir Bhutto. The news was heard with a great shock and there was immediate mass anger that erupted in all parts of Pakistan. December 28 was the first day of a general strike called by many groups, ranging from political parties to various professional groups.

Most of election posters, banners, flags and billboards of the Pakistan Muslim League (PMLQ) were the first victim of the mass anger. The PMLQ is a creation of General Musharaf, created after 1999; a major split of Pakistan Muslim League. The rest is headed by Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister. PMLQ has been sharing power with Musharaf after 2002 and is comprised of the most corrupt feudals, capitalists, former army generals and black marketeers.

The PMLQ had spent billions of these advertising material and all that was gone within a few hours of mass reaction. The work to remove all these anti-people election materials was done with utmost sophistication. None of the Pakistan Peoples Party's election material or that of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz was removed.

Then it was the banks mainly in Sind. They were attacked and the buildings were burned in many cities of Sind. Most of ATM machines were destroyed. In some places, people were lucky to bring some money home. Banks had made unprecedented profits during the last few years. There is no free banking anymore, as was the case earlier from sixties.

Hundreds of private buses were burned in all parts of the country. The fares have gone too high during Musharaf's eight years of rule. There were no more public buses. Most of PMLQ government ministers had their own bus companies and were making huge gains out of mass poverty.

There were also incidents of burning of trains in Sind. According to the Daily Jang, 28 railway stations, 13 railway engines and seven trains have been burnt resulting over three billion rupees loss. The rail fares were increased many fold by the Musharaf regime in a bid to reduce the railway losses. It has been partly privatised as well. The whole rail system has collapsed since the night of December 27. Thousands of passengers are on the railway stations waiting for restoration. There is no sign of restoration for some days. Pakistan International Airlines PIA and two private airlines, Air Blue and Shaheen Air, have cancelled all their domestic flights on the name of “rescheduling”. The staff did not turn up.

Thousands of private cars have been damaged all over Pakistan by the angry mobs, mainly youth. They were showing their anger on the car companies' (mainly Toyota, Suzuki and Honda) unprecedented profits during the last few years. Many leasing companies have robbed the growing middle classes by offering cars with abnormal prices. While the massive majority of population have no more subsidised public transport.

The houses and offices of PMLQ politicians, local government mayors and administration are the other victims of the mass reaction. They have either been burnt or damaged.

Over 100 people have so far died in the incidents related to mass protest, either by police or in the crossfire of different groups during the last 40 hours.

Thousands and thousands have raised slogans against the Musharaf regime and US imperialism after the death of Benazir Bhutto. The anger was accumulated during the last eight years and was manifested after this unthinkable incident. This was a response of the masses to the strict implementation of the neoliberal agenda which has resulted in unprecedented price hikes, unemployment and poverty. The anger that was to be shown in boycotting or participating in the elections has come out early after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

There is a great anti-Musharaf consciousness all over. It is been shown in different ways in different parts of the country in different degrees. The so-called capitalist economical growth under Musharaf has left millions in absolute poverty. There was no Pakistan shining as was propagated by the dictatorship all the times.
Year of mass awakening

2007 has been a year of mass awakening. It started with the advocates [lawyers] movement after the removal of the chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan. The chief justice Iftikhar Choudry said a big “No” to resigning under pressure by the generals. He was removed only to be reinstated on July 20 after a massive movement of 80,000 lawyers. They were joined by political activists from almost all political parties but not by the masses. The masses only welcomed the chief justice from the side roads and did not participate in the movement in real terms.

Musharaf got himself elected as president for the second five-year term in a “democratic manner” by a parliament elected for one five-year term. He was still wearing military uniform when elected as a “civilian” president. His theme was “elect me president for the second term and I will take off uniform after taking oath as civilian president”.

The November 2007 imposition of martial law on the name of emergency was used to remove the rather independent top judges of Pakistan. It put restrictions on the media and over 10,000 people were arrested. Musharaf got himself duly “elected president” and took off uniform after removing the top judges. His hand-picked judges gave him all the necessary backing.

He was helped in this process by Benazir Bhutto, who was -- in Tariq Ali's words -- into a “forced arranged marriage” by US and British imperialism. In this unholy alliance, every one was cheating everyone with utmost honestly.

The general elections were announced for January 8, 2008, and the emergency lifted after the large-scale repression and the removal of an independent judiciary. The regime was happy that everything was going according to “plan”. The Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto, the Muslim League Nawaz and Quid Azam (PMLQ), the three major parties, had agreed to participate in these fraudulent elections. The religious fundamentalist political alliance MMA had split on the question of participation. One major part of MMA had decided to contest the elections.

A campaign for a boycott of the election had started when the religious fundamentalists struck and killed Benazir Bhutto on December 27 evening. The “plan” was shattered into pieces. It was big blow to agreed terms and conditions of various participating parties in the elections. It was not a bump on the road but the total destruction of the road of conciliations and compromises.

The murder of Benazir Bhutto is a double-edge sword. While it is a big blow to the plans of British and US imperialism, it will also be no celebration for the religious fundamentalist forces. The initial anger has gone against the military regime and its crony politicians. It can go against the both. No party will be able to celebrate the shocking killing.

But the Musharaf regime has understood this clearly and now is trying consciously to put the direction of the movement against the religious fundamentalists. Last night, December 28, in a two-hour press conference, a military brigadier representing the government named Baitullah Mehsud, an Al Qaeda associate in the tribal areas of Pakistan, as the one who carried out the attack.

Foolishly he tried his best to prove that Benazir Bhutto was not killed by a bullet but by her head hitting the lever of the sunroof of the bulletproof car as she ducked after the bomb blast. What difference does it make, if it is proved that Bhutto was killed not by the bullet but by another way? Not much.

The brigadier's explanation did not satisfy the angry journalists, who asked him again and again about the connections of the secret intelligence agencies of Pakistan with Abdullah Mahsood. The question, Why had Mahsood released quietly more than 200 Pakistan army men on the day of the imposition of emergency, who were kidnapped by his group a week earlier, went unanswered. The military's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has a long relationship with the religious fundamentalists groups dating back to the eighties when the imperialists and the fundamentalists were close friends.
Volatile situation

It is a very volatile, unstable, unpredictable, explosive, dangerous, impulsive, fickle and capricious political situation. It never happened before in many years that mass reaction has erupted to this degree.

The general strike was a total success. All roads were empty. No traffic at all. All shops were closed. All industrial and other institutions were completely shut down.

After an initial inhibition to curb the strike, the regime has now issued strict orders to kill anyone on the spot who is “looting”. It has called the regular army in 16 districts of Sind and paramilitary forces elsewhere in Pakistan.

The regime has so far not postponed the scheduled elections but it will be very difficult to hold elections in this situation. The Muslim League Nawaz and several other political parties have already announced they will boycott the fraudulent elections.

The Labour Party Pakistan is demanding the immediate resignation of the Musharaf dictatorship and the formation of an interim government comprising of civil society organisations, trade unions and peasant organisations. This interim government would hold free and fair general elections under an independent election commission.

The LPP is demanding an immediate restoration of the top judges and investigations of Benazir's and others' murder in this and previous bomb blasts. As part of the All Parties Democratic Movement, LPP is supporting a three-day general strike and linking it to the overthrow of the military dictatorship. It is asking all parties to reject the general elections fraud on January 8 and not to participate in these elections.

[Farooq Tariq is general secretary of the Labour Party Pakistan. Email [email protected], visit http://www.laborpakistan.org or http://www.jeddojuhd.com.]

[Zurdito]

You support resistance to the progressive industrial Capitalism, that will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism,

But it won't.


that is being brought by the west to this under developed and un-industrial region to steal their resources (This will make the Afghan workers, employed by the west as cheap labour for this new industrial base, better understand their exploitation and lead them to Socialism rather than religious Fascism as their liberating force).

Why didn't you define fascism like I asked? If you want to throw the word around you should at least be able to define it.


Thus i can only deduce from your support of the resistance that you must believe that the material conditions necessary for Socialism are a reality in Afghanistan

Well you "deduce" wrong.


as you wouldnt be against the economic Imperialism of the west (Which will bring about industrialisation of this under developed and un-industrial region so that the Capitalists can steal its resources) otherwise.

The imperialists already steal the resources of the region. Why hasn't brought about economic development?


There will never be Socialism as long as two different economic worlds exist (The first world with its industrial Capitalism and the third world with its under developed and un-industrial primitive Capitalism).

That's like saying "there will never be socialism as long as two different classes exist". Obviously. That's self-evident.


It should be noted though that the first world now wants to bring all its industrial factory style jobs to the third world

Global capitalism highly specialises coutnries roles in the world. The imperialists don't want their cars made in Afghanistan. Central Asia/the Middle East are the oil and gas providers to them. That's it. All economic resources must be devoted to that, according to their market logic.

The only country where what you are describing is happening is China, and that's only because the powerful ex-stalinists have managed to keep all of the privatisations owned by the chinese. and they could only do this due to their strong military ability to resist the imperialists demanding better conditions.

Otherwise, none of the investment would have gone into China's infrastrucutre, it would have just gone to pure short term profit.

Also, even now, most hi-tech technolgoy that china uses is made in germany. So even China, which has most benefitted from "market integration", is still third world and highly dependent.


as third world workers provide much cheaper labour then first world workers which will give the Capitalist owners of these industries a much bigger profit as they dont have to give as big a percentage of any of the profits made to the workers as wages.

So unenmployment for first world workers and hyper exploitation of the third world. In other words, you endorse the status quo. Great!

you sound like a Thatcherite. Go tell your doctrine to the workers themselves.

[spartan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...2233446,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2233446,00.html)
Benazir Bhuttos son looks likely to be the next leadership of the party but in a largely symbolic role.

[Reuben]

the idea of her son - a first year history student - becoming joint leader of the PPP is fucking ridiculous. Im sure in the last 10 hours this guy has got like a million facebook friends requests. I'm going to call round and see if I know anyone who knows him.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:01 am
Tariq Ali article in the Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2232632,00.html)
One of the better pieces I've read about this so far. There was also some great stuff in two Flemish newspapers (De Morgen and De Standaard), which I had a chance to read because I was in Antwerp.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+December 30, 2007 06:51 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ December 30, 2007 06:51 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 04:01 am
Tariq Ali article in the Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2232632,00.html)
One of the better pieces I've read about this so far. There was also some great stuff in two Flemish newspapers (De Morgen and De Standaard), which I had a chance to read because I was in Antwerp. [/b]
Tariq Ali's piece was excellent too.

[Zurdito]

If Asoka89 were to be restricted, you'd have to restrict me as well, because I agree with Asoka completely.
:D

[Sleeping Dog]

Islamism goes further back, originating in Egypt (The Muslim Brotherhood) as an anti-colonialist response to the British Empire's partitioning of the Arab states post-WWI. Just a quick heads up.What? the Muslim religion (social disease liken to Christianity) origins date to about 600 AD. :)

[Tower of Bebel]

Islamism doesn't. Islamism differs from Islam. Islamism more political than Islam.

[fabiansocialist]

Discuss. I think she was corrupt, so no big loss.

She was USA's whore and both she and her husband were corrupt as hell. A worthless c**t in every way. Whoever offed her should get a medal.

[fabiansocialist]

she would have been better, even just to re establish some kind of democratic tradition

What the f**k are you talking about? She was prime minister twice and she did squat. What democratic tradition? Votes are bought and sold by feudal overlords in that wretched country. Whoever offed her deserves a medal (albeit Musharraf isn't much better). Whe her old man got hanged, I cheered. Good riddance. The scum of the earth.

[fabiansocialist]

Well after Musharraf's spectacular failure, I think the US was counting on Bhutto restoring some legitimacy to the Pakistani state and continuing the country's role as loyal servant to American imperialism: neo-liberal economics and militarism. They may be forced to return to backing a military regime, as from, what I can tell it was only the personality cult around Bhutto which `would have held the country together without the need for a return to Mushararff's more outright repression.

That "personality cult" wouldn't have held the country together. But the US wanted the sham of a democratic process rather than the overt military dictatorship there is today. Second, Benazir promised the Americans the moon for starters -- fly-over rights, US forces in North Pakistan to look for insurgents, further "liberalisation" of the economy -- these are concessions even the general has shied away from. She would have been more tractable than the general. The general is no paragon of virtue either, but it's a case of choosing between various evils.