Talk about being "your own worst enemy". Al Qaeda seems bent on redefining that concept. Good thing they haven’t officially recruited the Democrats, they would be double the trouble... |
| |
Written By:
Keith_Indy
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
I’m still trying to puzzle out how this sort of a murder benefits al Qaeda The fact that they prevented a woman from speaking in public is enough to benefit Al-Qaeda. They feed off chaos. Everyone who disagrees with them is the enemy and needs to be destoryed for their own sake. They don’t seem to be the truce-making type, as in the "moderate" terrorists of the Al-Fatah party in plaestine. |
| |
Written By:
Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL:
www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
|
McQ writes:I’m still trying to puzzle out how this sort of a murder benefits al Qaeda. From an Islamic perspective, al Qaeda put the woman in her place. The object is to rally Islamist sentiment while striking fear into secularists, especially those who would let a woman be in charge of a Muslim country.
Al Qaeda’s motive might be more complex than that, but if you want to put your finger on just one thing, I think that’s it. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
|
The fact is that just being able to finally flex muscle somewhere benefits AQ at this juncture. A point was made- and to be honest, the West probably wasn’t the intended target audience either. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
From an Islamic perspective, al Qaeda put the woman in her place. The object is to rally Islamist sentiment while striking fear into secularists, especially those who would let a woman be in charge of a Muslim country. Oh, I understand all of that, although the fact she’d been PM twice previously would seem to argue that for that particular Islamic country, such a concern is water under the bridge.
I guess the biggest puzzle to me is how strategically inept they seem. It is as if they simply act on impulse without thinking through the strategic ramifications of their actions and how it effects their supposed ultimate goal of reinstating the caliphate. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
|
I think al-Queda gains because Bhutto’s place in governnment is symbolic of the westernization and modernization in an Islamic country and could not be allowed to proceed. I think her earlier public office was prior to the radicalization in that region by the Taliban and al-Queda. |
| |
Written By:
tom scott
URL:
http://
|
McQ wrote:I guess the biggest puzzle to me is how strategically inept they seem. It is as if they simply act on impulse without thinking through the strategic ramifications of their actions and how it effects their supposed ultimate goal of reinstating the caliphate. Perhaps because they figured the murder would get pinned on Musharraf himself? Maybe they hoped people would give in to the obvious conspiracy theory (after all, Musharraf and Bhutto weren’t exactly BFF) and turn against Musharraf. That way, AQ kills two birds with one stone, allowing some Islamist leader to step into the vacuum. Well, my speculation anyhow. It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve overreached, like in their Iraq campaigns. |
| |
Written By:
James O
URL:
http://
|
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is a load of crap.
They’ve always planned to rule by terror. Executions of potential rivals is consistent with how the expect to rule when they take over.
In fact, I’ve always said terrorists are larval tyrants waiting to rise to power.
And in this specific case, they bring some Muslims that would have followed Bhutto back into the fold.
|
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
The problem is Maulvi Sahib isn’t even a name - the last part is just an honorific and the first refers to someone who leads Friday prayers. Anwar Shah has to be one of the most common names in Pakistan - even Mushie’s Assistant Political Agent for South Waziristan is called that! And "Maulvi Sahib" nowhere actually refers to Baitullah Mehsud by name - he calls the person he is talking to "Emir" (Chief) throughout. Pretty damn flimsy proof.
If Mehsud is in fact an Al Qaeda leader, what was Musharraf doing pardoning him and 35 of his lieutenants in 2005?
Mehsud was also blamed for the October attempt on Bhutto’s life, but he later denied ever threatening her and Bhutto herself described him as a pawn in a bigger conspiracy in which the real culprits were "some retired army officers in the establishment".
There are still more questions than answers.
Regards, C
|
| |
Written By:
Cernig
URL:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/
|
Pretty damn flimsy proof. Well first of all, no one is calling it ’proof’ - thus "allegedly intercepted" to be found in the post.
Secondly, it is possible the names were purposely changed or omitted.
Third:If Mehsud is in fact an Al Qaeda leader, what was Musharraf doing pardoning him and 35 of his lieutenants in 2005? For the same reason things like that occur elsewhere - politics.
Lastly:Mehsud was also blamed for the October attempt on Bhutto’s life, but he later denied ever threatening her and Bhutto herself described him as a pawn in a bigger conspiracy in which the real culprits were "some retired army officers in the establishment". Perhaps then, the "joke" is on Bhutto (yeah, if I were accused of attempting to assassinate a leader, I’m sure I’d confess to doing so).There are still more questions than answers. Indeed. No one here is suggesting otherwise. Instead there is a point of interest in trying to figure out why something like this would benefit al Qaeda. So far, I’m not buying into the suggestions. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
|
Al Quaeda believes that just about everyone who does not follow their extremely narrow interpretations of the Koran and the few bits of the Sunna that they accept is an enemy of Islam. So for them as long as Pakistan does not have a sufficiently theocratic goverment or proper inplementation of hanbalite sharia, it is "jahiliyyah" and must be destroyed. So the motive is definitly there; yet as you mentioned this is by no means proof. |
| |
Written By:
J Zaner
URL:
http://
|
|
All I can say is that this episode demonstrates America’s decline in power...decline, decline, quagmire, decline.... |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
1. By all accounts, Bhutto was prepared to work even more closely with the US against AQ/Taliban.
2. She was also willing to fight harder than Musharraf, who’s always been trying to ride the tiger and compromise.
3. She’s a symbol of "Westernization."
4. If they can pin it on Musharraf then it’s a bonus, since he’s less effective.
5. And finally, they know that the usual suspects here will blame Bush and propose insane ideas like Richardson’s "force Musharraf to resign" nonsense. |
| |
Written By:
SDN
URL:
http://
|
|
Joe, :-P |
| |
Written By:
Synova
URL:
http://synova.blogspot.com
|
