“Kill Moulder and you turn one man’s quest into a crusade.”

Not that I, uh, believe that she was a selfless hunter for Truth.

Personally, Benazir, for me, is a bit like Yulia Tymoshenko (and not because they’re both women). I’m horrified that Benazir was killed, just as I’d be horrified if Yulia were killed – it doesn’t make me like their shady lifestyles any more. Unfortunately, corruption and all manner of suspect alliances seems to be an almost innate element of politics in most countries.

I am disgusted, however, with all manner of “she asked for it” going on out there. A victim is a victim.

I’m sorry you’re grieving. I’m Pakistani and I can’t even get my head around how it is that I’m feeling this bad. I understand at a visceral level what it is you’re talking about here.

I feel however that I need to make this point: there was nothing hopeful about Benazir Bhutto, herself. It was the fact that she was a) being allowed to b) run in the elections by c) Musharraf who had just been openly and suddenly repressive in d) an election that would be *some* semblance of, but basically a sham of, democracy – it was these things, and her father’s legacy, and her party’s promises that brought any hope. She herself, God rest her, was remarkable only for her bald-faced lies and corruption.

Her times in office were not liberal. She was a sorry excuse for a democratic leader. As is Nawaz Sharif. It was kow-tow to the military, forward the training of jihadists and keep your head down. That’s what it’s been for at least 30 years.

I feel your pain. But I feel it for the country and the supporters. I feel it for my parents’ generation, who were PPP supporters when ZA Bhutto won elections and had so much hope, finally, in democracy. Until he also became power-hungry and failed to trust the public with anything.

Please don’t grieve uncritically. We don’t need her to be a martyr. We don’t need martyrs at all.

Fanonite, I am more than happy to enter into a discussion with you but provided you tell me exactly what you are thinking. All I am getting is an aggressive tone and, frankly, such an aggressive tone is usually a sure sign of a weak argument. In any case, since you are an expert on the region and assume that I am not (and there you are simply wrong), please go ahead and tell us how you see it. For example you make a big issue of this having been a “tragedy foretold”. But I don’t quite understand how this affects any of my conclusions. Does this in any way take away from the heinous nature of the crime? Does this in any justify the act?

Also, for me, the act of blowing up Benazir is senseless. The act of blowing a Palestinian wedding in Amman is senseless. Now, if you want to get into the mind of the lunatics, and yes they are lunatics, who committ these terrible acts, you can of course try to analyze their motives. And what I am saying above is that these lunatics are fighting liberal muslims and progressive islam more than anything else. Nothing else could justify the murder of Egyptian workers, wedding attendees… etc. Now, if you Fanonite want to give these lunatics a more rational justification, or if you fall for their lies about fighting for Palestine or Iraq, then you are far more feeble in your analytical skills than you claim me to be.

In any case, thanks again for your comments and I am happy to enter into a debate with you provided you explain your view in clear terms. I will not respond to more senselessly aggressive email.

You bring up a good point as to whether or not terrorists are “loons.” I think the answer is actually yes AND no. Terrorists (of all stripes) are no more crazy than anyone else is – if they were, they wouldn’t be able to pull off half of what they do. But it also seems that there is the case of “mad genius” at work here, if you believe in that sort of thing. Anyway, that’s one potential theory.

Second of all, it is my belief that “political violence” is just packaging. The decorated war-hero I’m referencing was someone who went through war to achieve the sort of rank that would allow him to make decisions for others. His point, and my point, since I’ve adopted it is the following: the very act of calculation is an illusion of a human being’s comparatively sophisticated, yet paradoxical nature.

Now, I doubt very much that this is what Nasser was arguing above. His wasn’t a metaphysical treatise on the Nature of Man. His use of the word “senseless” here implied not that there wasn’t calculation behind Bhutto’s killing – but that this sort of violence is foolish and stupid (the adjective, after all, has several meanings). Perhaps I am not reading him correctly, but that’s my interpretation.

My reply to you was not an extention of Nasser’s point – but my own viewpoint on this issue, and, indeed, most issues surrounding violence.

Yeah, more cliches. ‘Senseless’ is either a distanciation device applied to obfuscate the political motivations of an act, or merely a plea of ignorance. Given the general lack of sophistication of the commentary above, I am inclined to assume the later. Bush’s ‘why do they hate us’, for instance is an example of the former. It has to be based in the premise of senselessness, in order for it to be relieved of the cold tyranny of causation. Political violence could be ill-conceived, but is never senseless. There is always political calculation behind it.

A ‘decorated war-hero’s advice doesn’t count for much, since it appears even on reflection, he failed to distinguish the ’senseless’ individual violence of the combatant from the calculated political logic of those who sent him in.

Interesting thought, except I don’t follow. — how does violence predate sense?

Interesting article as well. I can’t agree, though, that the assassination in particular and violence that comes from the Al-Qaedas of the world in general is senseless. I think many of us make the mistake of dismissing them as just a bunch of loons who strap bombs to themselves and blow stuff and people up for no good reason. On the contrary, most acts are carefully planned and executed, with a clear agenda in mind. And, these extremists don’t hide the core principles of that agenda from the rest of the world. Just listen to any of them talk — their message is surprisingly consistent. Some would argue that it is exactly this consistency and simplicity (coupled to other external factors) of their “philosophy” that draws so many willing young men and women to them.

A decorated war-hero taught me as much. So it’s him I’ve been remembering these last few days.