Benazir

It's depressing because, again, a fundamentalist loon has derailed the hope of democratic elections in yet another country. The irony is that - a pound to a penny - if free and fair elections were held, the supporters of these loons would gain, if not a majority, a significant voice in the governance of their country. It matters to me because the bullet should never be more powerful than the ballot. Some have said that the politics of Pakistan are simple: 'Keeping up with the Kumars': like all generalisations it may have a kernel of truth. Why should it matter to you? Why shouldn't it? I'm glad it does.

One fundamentalist loon with many thousands hiding behind him like the cowards they are. It is the responsibility of all freedom loving people to turn a spotlight on the jihadists wherever they are found and fight and oppose them with any fraction of the courage shown by Benazir Bhutto.

I think if you tried turning the spotlight on everyone in Pakistan who has some sympathy with Islamism, you'd take out Pakistan's national grid. The fact that Bhutto - with her husband Mr Ten Per Cent in tow - was (probably rightly) seen as the best hope for Pakistan serves mainly as an illustration of just how bad the alternatives are.

Indeed, the likes of our PM and GWB coming out with such strong condemnation is only due to the fact that they are even more terrified of the alternatives. But I liked Bhutto, I'm a sucker for a Harvard/ Oxford mind, even a corrupt one! The saddest thing IMO, is that Bhutto was indispensible to the PPP. In fact the Bhutto family was the PPP. That there is no pro-democracy, moderate, well educated person willing or able to take Bhutto's place is very sad. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I suppose the problem is that if I was that person - who was a moderate democrat but without the dynastic sense of mission - I'd probably choose to get the hell out of Pakistan and have a nice life somewhere else. The idea of Bhutto was certainly appealing but I'm not convinced the reality in power would've been significantly better than it was the first two times. Secular Pakistanis I know in the UK have been broadly sympathetic to Musharraf - although his regime is clearly unsustainable. Once again, an illustration of appalling alternatives.

"Yes Islamists with a nuclear button.OOh I'm getting religion." I'm getting outta here :D Oh dear! I think I ruptured my pomposity.

We might consider referring specifically and with precision to jihadists, not “Islamism” or those who have "some sympathy with Islamism" which is vague and smooshy enough to allow all kinds of interesting intellectual dithering and loopy non-qualifications that avoid taking an actual stand. It’s perfectly accurate to separate, stigmatize, and ostracize the jihadists away from the Islamic faith that they have hijacked. They are an insult to Islam, its deity, and the Muslim community that lives and works in good faith and they do all great harm beyond mass homicide. We need to assist the Muslim community at large while preserving our own viability by identifying jihadist extremists and removing them from our communities in any country. That these low rent Nazi-wannabe genocidists have mixed their sick horror show all in with religion should have been only a temporarily confusing slight-of-hand in our journey of opinion and comedy toward cognitive reasoning about how to manage them. We can continue to procrastinate on taking the jihadist wake up calls with dismissal, sarcasm, and/or any other circular logic we like, but the phone will only continue to ring.

"We might consider referring specifically and with precision to jihadists, not “Islamism” or those who have "some sympathy with Islamism" which is vague and smooshy enough to allow all kinds of interesting intellectual dithering and loopy non-qualifications that avoid taking an actual stand." It's not vague at all. Islamism is political Islam pursued through violence. 'Jihad' doesn't mean terrorism, it means 'struggle in the way of God', which many Muslims interpret as struggling to make themselves better people rather than fighting an external enemy. My original point about support for Islamism in Pakistan is not a joke and is not blurring the distinction between political Islamism and Islam, the religion. Pakistan has a population of 162,000,000 and there's strong chance that in a democratic election, Islamist parties could end up with more support than secular liberals and conservatives. In this context, I'm not sure what 'taking a stand' involves. So far in Pakistan, we've backed the combined forces of military dictatorship, feudalism and grotesque corruption on the basis that they are not Islamists. That is better than Islamism but it's just about keeping a lid on the problems rather than tackling them.

I think assassinating leaders is an old trick. I can think of a couple of presidents, a couple of kings, an arch duke and goodness knows who else who've gone out that way. And Islam, Christianity, The Victorian Empire and god knows what-all-else has been spread by the use of violence. In the end men like killing each other and they're quite adept at it. (I gather that they've been at it for a while now.) Why start expressing surprise at this late juncture? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Who is surprised, Pat? I'm just bitterly disappointed. Ewan

It would be a fine thing if after disappointment came hope. Because I sincerely hope that there's something better for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Palestinians and all of the rest of mankind than this. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

After disappointment comes analysis which might give rise to positive change, or, much more likely, just more disappointment. I don't wish to be overly dramatic Pat, but your hope ain't worth sh*t! You already know that though don't you?

My guess is that life without hope is full of despair. And I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Can anarchic countries stabilise? Yup: Lebanon did after the 1980s. Liberia though still awful is better than it was for much of the last decade and a half. Bosnia and so on....... Countries can and do stabilise given enough support and the right international initiatives, (eg The Marshall Plan after WWII) So, there's a lot to hope for. I hope we can use some known, tried, tested and successful solutions to some existing problems. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I don't know anything about Liberia but I think calling Lebanon stable is taking optimism to a whole new level. Bosnia is stable because Western powers have had thousands of troops stationed there for over 10 years and because it's effectively run by the European Union's 'High Representative'. There's not a war anymore but it's difficult to argue that it either functions as a real country or offers an example to the rest of the world.

I think the examples demonstrate conflict resolution, not conflict adoption! Compare Lebanon in the 80s to today. Bosnian extremism prompted one world war. Another war at the heart of Europe was a motivating factor in bringing about peace enforcement. That is a modern history lesson. We did better in 1999 than we did in 1914! I certainly do think that avoiding major regional wars is an example the world can learn from! My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Well I hope we don’t get lost in hope or hopelessness. Instability is solved by stability. Stable models expand like a sponge over instability. Stable economic models are better than military or paramilitary models, of course. Someone asked if war was an interruption of peace or peace an interruption of war, I forget who, might have been Einstein. Would probably have to be

The problem of course is finding the stable model. Oh and then convincing those with a vested interest in instability that they must stop what they are doing to the world.

I'm not saying what the West did in Bosnia (eventually) was wrong - it's certainly preferable to thousands more people being killed - but the result is a significant ongoing outside military presence to keep the lid on violence and an ongoing administrative presence to run the country. Realistically, it isn't feasible to replicate that approach across the world. It's what the more idealistic supporters of the war wanted to happen in Iraq.

I find myself simultaneously agreeing with both of you. This can only mean it's time for a drink, so cheers, as they say...