The Situation in Pakistan

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:24 pm

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others and plunged the nuclear-armed country into chaos ahead of a general election she had hoped to win.

My opinion of Benazir Bhutto is mixed - she was, at least, the 'secular democratic' voice of Pakistani politics, even with the previous allegations of government corruption against her - but I can't see this assassination as anything but a horrific action fraught with major international implications.

It appears Muslim extremists have taken responsibility for the attack, despite the suspicions of many that it might have been orchestrated by the Mussaraf military government. I don't find the idea of the religious fundamentalists carrying this out hard to grasp - I honestly believe it takes a religious martyr to blow oneself up - a military assassin would settle for a bullet and a quick get away.

But, because of the extreme (and honestly justified) paranoia against Mussaraf, this action threatens to bring Pakistan to civil war. As the only nuclear armed Muslim nation, this has terrifying consequences to the US and the western world. A destabilized government is exactly what the religious fanatics need to cement power in Pakistan, and give them access to the bomb.

Anyone else been following the news reports or have some commentary or analysis on the subject?

AT

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:31 pm

I agree, its a threat, and it should be taken care of by U.S.--to solve the threat to US only though.

Olex showed me a fun article yesterday:
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/20 ... rorism.asp

What do yout think?

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:22 pm

I thought Benazir Bhutto was Pakistan's best chance to control the Islamists. President Mussaraf seems like a moderate type of guy when you see him on the Daily Show, but he is the front man for all the radical Hill Billys running around in those opium fields. It has never been Mussaraf’s desire to curtain Islamic control of that country.

This tragic assassination, unfortunately, means the religious zealots will continue the run that country. Ultimately some towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride named Aisha gets the keys to the nukes. This situation only leads to war. But likely it will not be war against the US, but war against India. India will fix it they have surplus population.

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:08 pm

Well, I'm sure we have troops in both those countries.... lets hope we get them out of there while they have their wars.

Sophid · Post by **Sophid** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:02 am

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I agree, its a threat, and it should be taken care of by U.S.--to solve the threat to US only though.

Olex showed me a fun article yesterday:
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/20 ... rorism.asp

What do yout think?

I think it is a fun article, but I also think that the US's interventionalist policies are a big part of the reason we are hated in many middle eastern countries.

The British and the Soviets (US allies) invaded Iran to secure supply lines in Operation Countenance, from August 25 to September 17, 1941. The US and Britain orchestrated Operation Ajax in 1953, which was basically a coup d'etat against the democratic Iranian regime. Even though the US did little to support Shah Pahlavi during the 1978 Iranian revolution, our attempt to interfere was not well received and may have helped contribute to the ability of the radical, anti-western faction to take over.

We talk about bombing Iran out of existence now because of the threat they represent, but we often forget what we did to earn their hatred...

If an Objectivist-American government announced that we would no longer interfere in the affairs of other nations, would we still need to worry about terrorists?

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:26 am

Sophid wrote:If an Objectivist-American government announced that we would no longer interfere in the affairs of other nations, would we still need to worry about terrorists?

Oh yes. Even if past transgressions could be forgotten. The Islamic faith is not compatible with the infidel. They tell us all the time…

Don’t draw pictures of Allah (PBUH) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t write a book that makes tangential negative references against Islam (The Satanic Verses) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t name a child’s stuffed animal Mohammed or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t decide to quit being a Muslim or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t allow a boy to walk next to a girl or we will rape the boy’s sister as punishment (but only if she’s cute)….

These Muslims are just out of control and trying to force their religion on the entire world. So yeah, as long as you are not wearing a towel on your head there will be terrorists.

Sophid · Post by **Sophid** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:40 am

musashi wrote:These Muslims are just out of control and trying to force their religion on the entire world. So yeah, as long as you are not wearing a towel on your head there will be terrorists.

Many religions and cultures are imperfect. Millions died at the hands of Christians throughout history (inquisitions, crusades, heresies, doctrinal
conflicts).

musashi wrote:"Don’t draw pictures of Allah (PBUH) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t write a book that makes tangential negative references against Islam (The Satanic Verses) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t name a child’s stuffed animal Mohammed or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t decide to quit being a Muslim or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
Don’t allow a boy to walk next to a girl or we will rape the boy’s sister as punishment (but only if she’s cute)…."

Yup, those are troublesome. Would I write off an entire religion because of the actions of a few extremists? No. But in specific regard to muslim hatred toward infidels, keep this in mind, on a national level....

Colonists from europe wiped out native americans through disease, and when they realized what was happening, they started spreading sickness deliberately (trade blankets with measles). The United States' policies toward the native americans in the 1800's could easily be classified as genocide. So our our hands clean here in the US? No.

What is now modern day Iraq was taken from the Ottoman empire by the League of Nations and awarded to Britain in 1921, who brutally supressed rebellions by both the Arabs and the Kurds until 1932, when it became an independent state under a british puppet. The country was then invaded in 1941 when it appeared as if the country might cut off oil supplies, and it suffered military occupation and martial law until 1947. Puppets of the United Kingdom ruled until 1958, when a military coup d'etat occured. And that was one of the countries that was the least of our problems. Don't forget that we supported them against Iran during the 1990-1998 war.

Indonesia, the most populous muslim country in the world, was under Dutch rule until world war II, when the country was too weak to continue to supress their independence movement. The british held the islands in 1945, fighting the republican forces until the Dutch could land forces in 1946. The bloody conflict ended in 1949 with the dutch recognition of their independence. Estimates are that 100,000 civilians died during this conflict.

Britain invaded Egypt in 1882 to "protect its investments," and declared Egypt a protectorate after they tried to align with the Ottoman Empire in 1914, deposing the Egyptian king and replacing him with his more compliant uncle. They were granted independence in 1922 because of constant revolting. However, the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty gave the United Kingdom considerable influence in the country. The 1952 revolution began with rioting caused by the british assault on a police barracks in Ismailia.

I could find similar examples in almost every middle eastern or islam dominated country. Keep in mind that the cause of the current state of relations between muslims and non-muslims (ie. europeans) is much more complex than wearing a towel on your head.

Sophid · Post by **Sophid** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:20 am

Sophid wrote:Don't forget that we supported them against Iran during the 1990-1998 war.

Typo, 1980-1988.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:42 am

Sophid wrote:
Musashi wrote:[*]Don’t draw pictures of Allah (PBUH) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
[*]Don’t write a book that makes tangential negative references against Islam (The Satanic Verses) or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
[*]Don’t name a child’s stuffed animal Mohammed or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
[*]Don’t decide to quit being a Muslim or we will issue a fatwa and kill you…
[*]Don’t allow a boy to walk next to a girl or we will rape the boy’s sister as punishment (but only if she’s cute)…."
Yup, those are troublesome. Would I write off an entire religion because of the actions of a few extremists? No.

The list above happened in a wide variety of places
Denmark
England
Sudan
Pakistan
Afghanistan

I do not consider them isolated or fringe. This is main stream Islam. Don’t believe me? Go draw a chalk cartoon of Mohammed on the side walk in front of the nearest Mosque and see how that plays out.

Those are extreme examples, but Islam is one of the few religions that isolates itself, reverting to archaic customs. They want to be diferent and to create change. Islam thrives on the concept of ‘victimization”. Yes bad things happen to everyone, but Islamists seek out and in some cases trump up situations where they can claim to be oppressed. Coincidentally, Islamists find their most fertile recruitment bases in oppressed populations. And the Holy Koran is one of the few religious books I’ve read that openly tells the faithful to kill the non-believers. On the good side the Koran is skinny and makes a good leveling wedge under my uneven patio table leg (a crime punishable by death according to Shiara Law).

I don’t like most religions. And the Muslims don’t hold the entire franchise on religious idiocy. They just happen to be the religion at the moment that is trying to kill me and every other person that does not want to be their slave.

Oleksandr · Post by **Oleksandr** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:50 pm

Sophid wrote:Colonists from europe wiped out native americans through disease, and when they realized what was happening, they started spreading sickness deliberately (trade blankets with measles). The United States' policies toward the native americans in the 1800's could easily be classified as genocide.

I would like to see some historical evidence for your claims, Sophid.

As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods. Thus, they have no moral and no practical claim on any land.

Europeans have brought them a civilization with concepts of Freedom and Individual Rights.

But I would like to see evidence for blankets.

Because as far as I can see, European's response to disease was horror and not happiness with adding more disease to Indians.

--

Sophid wrote:So are our hands clean here in the US? No.

Now you are being racist.

Who is our? Definitely not mine. I didn't kill any Indians nor you did.

Thus, you imply because somebody killed an Indian 200-300 years ago on the same geographical location, then we who live here now are guilty by geographical association.

That's plain racist.

---

Meanwhile, here's an article from Ayn Rand Institute:
"No Apology to Indians"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... e&id=11163

Oleksandr · Post by **Oleksandr** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:02 pm

Sophid wrote:I could find similar examples in almost every middle eastern or islam dominated country. Keep in mind that the cause of the current state of relations between muslims and non-muslims (ie. europeans) is much more complex than wearing a towel on your head.

You are making an error of assigning rights to a nation of people who recognize no Individual Rights.

The only people who have rights are those who acknowledge them. Insane, religious, savage people of Middle East never had any care for those rights. It was all about killing infidels.

And, no, the cause is simple - it's the difference in philosophy only, just as it was between USSR and USA.

It is a big error to assign any guilt to USA for any Middle East problems now.

A nation who recognizes no rights has no rights.
Muslim nations do not have a right to existence. Thus, any blame to dealing into their business is groundless and plain wrong.

The country was then invaded in 1941 when it appeared as if the country might cut off oil supplies, and it suffered military occupation and martial law until 1947.

Ooh, this is great. I wish USA would do this now.

The oil was never theirs. It was developed and created by USA and Europe. Muslim countries don't have any claim on somebody else's property.

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:43 pm

As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods. Thus, they have no moral and no practical claim on any land.

Europeans have brought them a civilization with concepts of Freedom and Individual Rights.

But I would like to see evidence for blankets.

Thus, you imply because somebody killed an Indian 200-300 years ago on the same geographical location, then we who live here now are guilty by geographical association.

That's plain racist.

---

Meanwhile, here's an article from Ayn Rand Institute:
"No Apology to Indians"
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... e&id=11163

Excuse me, but who is being racists?!?!

Native American's were savages with no concepts of property rights? Have you ever actually _read_ an archaelogy/anthropology text? The various Native American tribes not only had concepts of the rights of individuals, they had a thriving trade culture. There's evidence of the production and distribution of goods in every corner of the 'New World'. They've found archaelogical evidence of Obsidian knives created in Central Mexico in the burial mounds of Northeastern tribes, and pottery from the Northeast in Texas. The individual tribal members traded their production amongst each other in exactly the same way Middle Age Europeans traded wool and wheat amongst each other.

Evidence for the historical use of 'plague blankets' can be found in Jared Diamond's excellent book Guns, Germs & Steel; I suggest you hurry to Amazon and purchase a copy to clean the ignorant non-sense out of your head.

And as for whether the United States is 'responsible' for the atrocities made carried out against the Native American tribes - consider this -

"If I am the CEO of a steel company, and I purchase a ton of coal from you, but die of a heart attack before my payment reaches you, does my successor have a right to say 'Sorry, we aren't going to pay you, because the debt belonged to guy who was in charge _before_ me, and he's dead now.'"

Don't try to tell me _that_ agrument would fly anywhere in the 'civilized' world.

Sure, the individuals who made up the 'United States' at that time period are all dead, but the United States, as a nation, is continguous through time between then and now. No different from a corporation that is contiguous through time. If a court were to decide that the United States is responsible for a crime against a Native American nation, and that the indigenous nation was entitled to a repayment of stolen property, I see no reason why that would be different than the example I outlined above. The steel company would be required to pay the coal company, regardless of the makeup of it's individual members. In the Native American example, there's no _individual_ responsible for the murder of Native Americans in those times, but 'the aggressing company still owes the infringed company'.

AT

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:00 pm

UGH!! I am so angered by the last couple posts I could shriek!

How can one take seriously the proposition that Native American's had no Rights of Life and Property?!

Where the hell do you think the European's got corn from? Many Native American Tribes were agricultural - maize was a primary agricultural product. The Europeans came in, and stole the agricultural land the Native Americans had been farming for _generations_.

So you are telling me that it is acceptable, under your interpretation of the 'right of property' for me to go to the home of some random farmer today and kick him off, saying - "well, you may have a right to the food you've grown, but you have no right to the land you grew it on."?!?!

The ten-thousand tons of silver and gold taken by the Spainards and Portugese from the Aztechs and Incas they wholesale slaughtered - where the hell do you think that gold and silver came from? It 'magically' appeared on the Native Americans? Hell no...the Native American's got it the same way any European did - they prospected, they located, and they DUG IT UP. There are the remains of Aztech and Incan mines all over Mexico, Central and Southern America - facts easily discerned for a five minute inspection of the archaelogical literature, but you think these Native American tribes had _NO_ right to the objects they created with their own two hands?

I've never heard such an incredible statement.

AT

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:28 pm

I'm interested in some info Musashi probably has on this subject. Someone who has been through the school system in more detail than I:

How many good anthropology text have you read that didn't lie?

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:58 pm

How many good anthropology text have you read that didn't lie?

Are you suggesting that scientifically peer-reviewed text are 'lying'? To what purpose? I'd expect such a statement to come from a conspiracy nut, not a rational debater.

Documenting the physical location of a recovered archaelogical artifact, complete with its context and those processes used to age the object is a well understood part of the _scientific_ study of ancient cultures. If you like, I suppose I can go hunting specific references to carbon dating and pre-European archaelogical digs, etc.

AT

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:02 pm

Oleksandr wrote:
Sophid wrote:Colonists from europe wiped out native Americans through disease, and when they realized what was happening, they started spreading sickness deliberately (trade blankets with measles). The United States' policies toward the native Americans in the 1800's could easily be classified as genocide.
As far as I can see, Native Indians were savages with no concepts of Individual Rights, who killed each other without nay regard, and slayed thousands to some gods. Thus, they have no moral and no practical claim on any land.

Europeans have brought them a civilization with concepts of Freedom and Individual Rights.

To add to what Sophid wrote in reply. The European settlers came from monarchic traditions. Once in the new world the organizational structures of the Native American tribes were emulated in many ways by the settlers. The Five Civilized tribes are often cited.

It would seem that American democracy is a fusion of many different influences, from ancient Greece and Rome to European monarchy. We can’t dismiss out right the impact of Native Americans.

Little factoid: Did you know at the time the New World was discovered Mexico City was the largest city in the world? They must have been doing something right.

BTW this Link cites two examples of intentional biological warfare against the Delawares and the Mandan’s. Of course its just Wikipedia so we have to take it with a grain of salt. But this provides a convenient citation. Hey the Native Americans had their own biological warfare; the Europeans received Syphilis.

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:02 pm

You are right on this one. I was thinking about cultural Anthropology books. Those really are crap.

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:05 pm

There were some tribes that were okay. But we are talking about the majority. This isn't deduction, its induction.

Americans made some mistakes, no doubt--but the majority of natives were quite hostile.

I'll find some good articles and post them here.

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:06 pm

I'd expect such a statement to come from a conspiracy nut, not a rational debater.

I don't think this was needed. I would of gotton the point without it.

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:22 pm

I'd expect such a statement to come from a conspiracy nut, not a rational debater.
I don't think this was needed. I would of gotton the point without it.

You have my sincere apologies for the offense - I allowed my emotional involvement in the discussion to get the best of me. I have been warned to remain civil, and I accept that I am at fault. It will not be repeated.

AT

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:37 pm

Arakasi Takeda wrote:You have my sincere apologies for the offense - I allowed my emotional involvement in the discussion to get the best of me. I have been warned to remain civil, and I accept that I am at fault. It will not be repeated.

Thanks

Here are some articles I have found in a few moments

This first one is pretty telling, especially starting at section III

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32 ... icans.aspx
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... e&id=11163
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... le&id=7898

Arakasi Takeda · Post by **Arakasi Takeda** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:41 pm

There were some tribes that were okay. But we are talking about the majority. This isn't deduction, its induction.

Americans made some mistakes, no doubt--but the majority of natives were quite hostile.

I'll find some good articles and post them here.

Actually, my reading of the scientific literature comes to exactly the opposite conclusion. The majority of the Native American tribes were non-hostile, and developed mature civilizations (not technologically advanced cultures, in the way we measure their European contemporaries, but that is a result of their isolation more than their innovativeness. Given more time, they may well have increased their scientific advance to be on par with Europe. We will never know, because history isn't interested in theoretical cases, only in what actually occurs].

In regards to the hostility of the Native American Tribes - if I were to arrive at your home with a gun, demanding all your money, land, and goods, and claiming that 'God' granted me the right to take them - exactly how you'd you react to me, especially if you'd never seen a gun before? I would argue that the reactions to the Europeans by the Native American's is completely understandable from the standpoint of self-defense. They were exercising their Right to Life in the face of a vastly superior technological culture. And they lost - proving that a Right to something isn't necessarily a shield protecting you from anything.

AT

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:51 pm

Arakasi Takeda wrote:If a court were to decide that the United States is responsible for a crime against a Native American nation, and that the indigenous nation was entitled to a repayment of stolen property…

Interestingly enough there is a current event related to this. The US Government recognized the sovereignty of many tribes throughout history. The US agreed on regions of land for many of the tribes – called reservations. The US placed the reservations under the management and care in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Tribes and individual native Americans own the land, but the BLM decides how the land will be used: leasing things like mineral rights, water rights and grazing rights. The problem came in that the BLM had a very poor record for passing on the income to the property owners. The tribes petitioned the courts in Cobell v. Kempthorne. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, and the court rules in favor of the Indians. The situation triggered the Native American Trust Fund Accounting and Management Reform Act of 1993 and required the GAO to perform an accounting. It is the largest single accounting effort ever undertaken, and the process continues to this day.

Best guess is that the the US government is not properly dispersing billions of dollars each year to the recognized land owners. So yeah, this stuff is still going on to this day.

Tolthar Lockbar · Post by **Tolthar Lockbar** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:01 pm

Thats a false analogy. The first natives did not act as such. They were peaceful and were actually looking for friends/allies. It was another tribe that started the war. And the top article explains their savageness in it.

It even said that all the other tribes were scared of the strongest in the area, and did what the strongest said. The strongest was also the most cruel and savage. It was a society based on the concept of the brute (from AS).

The colonist had some issues too, but they at least had some understanding of rights and civilization. They held trials for cruelity, some of the natives held meals. And many other natives followed.

EDIT: fixed me grahmmeeir

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:03 pm

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I'm interested in some info Musashi probably has on this subject. Someone who has been through the school system in more detail than I:

How many good anthropology text have you read that didn't lie?

Every source has a bias. It is impossible to eliminate bias. We have to recognize this as we learn. Bias does not always translate into “untruth” (it can). Most often, I try to consider the differences in what I learn, as differences in perspective.