Benazir’s Foolish Death

Share/Save/Bookmark

Darius Kadivar
by Darius Kadivar
28-Dec-2007
 

I learned the news of Benazir Bhutto’s death as something of a Déjà Vue. I was shocked but not as surprised as I read through the various news sources on the assassination of one of Pakistan’s iconic figures whose family like the Kennedy’s in the US or the Gandhi’s in India will be for ever associated to some kind of eternal morbid malediction.  The death of Benazir Bhutto is not an April Fool’s day Joke but truly looks in many ways like that of a bad and predictable movie script :

An extremely beautiful and cultured Woman educated at Oxford and Harvard whose features were fit for modeling or a movie career but who decided instead to enter politics at an early age and ultimately to revenge his father’s memory ( The late President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto hanged in April 1979) by taking on politics and succeeding to high office twice thus entering history as one of the rare if not only true female leaders in the Muslim World. Her controversial and arranged marriage to a rich husband belonging to a powerful clan was also to make headlines suggesting that she was hungry for power rather than love or personal happiness. Accusations of corruption, true or false were also associated to her rise to power, but her rising popularity over the years in her homeland could not be boiled down to incompetence and slandering. In retrospect her highly profiled and dignified personality added to her physical courage and stamina should make many Nobel Peace Prize contenders and or awardees blush today. Killed in the most cowardly manner ( shot in the neck) her death will overshadow that of the 20 other lives that were taken away in the name of the Holy Koran by a suicide bomber.

What we get and will get in the weeks to come will be a series of predictable titles in the lines of:

Benazir Bhutto killed in attack

Bhutto's last rally 

Bhutto funeral held in Pakistan


There you have it: Three Lines to sum up a Life Time ...

As an outsider and impotent observer of Pakistan’s internal politics and the so-called yet very Real War on Terror, I cannot be indifferent to the news of her death. Yet the chilling news of her sudden and savage death leads me more to frustration and anger than any signs of grief. Maybe I would have reacted differently if she were a family member or if I was a Pakistani. What is certain is that I cannot set aside the idea that her death was so predictable and somehow makes me wonder if she did not ride towards her own death as a Bergmanian hero in The Seventh Seal. 

According to news experts It was the second suicide attack against her in recent months and came amid a wave of bombings targeting security and government officials. “Third Time Lucky” so goes the saying but yesterday’s cowardly assassination proved that wrong for Mrs. Bhutto’s political career and bid for Pakistan’s highest office for a third time.


Left with the sad reality of her tragic end, I cannot but feel angry at Mrs. Bhutto herself. Certainly I am extremely unjust towards all those who cherish her memory and particularly her family and loved ones. However one can wonder if death even in the course of one’s political struggle achieves anything over time ? Who except a few dusty history books will record in time and collective consciousness the death of John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert or that of the late President’s son John-John killed in a stupid Plane Crash. What does the death of Martin Luther King represent to the young generation of American’s today who seem more preoccupied by the whereabouts of Paris Hilton or the rehabs of Amy Whinehouse than the massacre of their fellow classmates and teachers on a Virginia Campus ? What did the death of Lady Diana and Dodi El Fayed provoked by French Paparazzi’s achieve except nurturing further tasteless conspiracy theories over time ? What did the assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar and his secretary achieve other than prolonging the life of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its soccer Team’s victories at the World Cup ?
 

Do death’s such as that of Benazir Bhutto achieve any goal at all ? Do or should theyy serve as "Symbols" of what we could have achieved or rather what we have definitively lost for good ?  I have no definitive answer to these questions except the bitter feeling that such tragic events will continue to the end of time as a reminder that humanity never, NEVER LEARNS. 

Adieu Benazir Bhutto, May You rest in Peace with Your Father. 

And If This Word Means Anything Today : Inch Allah ! … 

Darius KADIVAR
Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
default

Sorry for you Jamshid. I

by annonymoustj (not verified) on

Sorry for you Jamshid.
I think you lost three times here.
Ask others in the forum to judge your actions and words here.


jamshid

Re: Anonymoustj

by jamshid on

You have obviously ran out of intellectual material for debate. Thank you for your contribution and happy new year.


default

Rob, Sorry, that was for

by Anonymoustj (not verified) on

Rob, Sorry, that was for jamshid


default

Sir, My previous response

by Anonymoustj (not verified) on

Sir, My previous response was deleted by moderator.
But I suggest to you to look at your posts. You made claims and then asked questiones regarding those claims or answers on the premise that those were valid answers and questions. Then you are asking for answers from others to prove a meaningless point which is only your thoughts and not based on the truth.
This kind of reasoning is form of fallacy.
Please look it up on the internet. and read the questions and answers you provided and think. I hope you will learn a great lesson.


default

Rob: Iran's advantage?....Facts.

by KavehV (not verified) on

The only US made weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war were those in the hands of the Iranians (Army, Air Force and Navy). Iraq never had any need for US made weapons since their forces were based on Soviet built systems and could not easily integrate US systems. What US did provide Iraq was access to systems and technologies that Saddam was not able to receive from the Soviets. This meant removing Iraq from sanctions list that would enable Iraq to purchase systems they needed from anyone (mostly French technology). From 1981-82 till the end of the war in 1988, Saddam received massive amounts of armor and other Soviet systems, while restructuring his airforce by acquiring French built fighters, helicopters and other weapon systems. By 1988 Iraqi army was easily 5-6 times bigger in size and quality than the beginning if the war in 1980.

The rows of 747's lined up in southern Mehrabad are the remnants of the old Imperial Air Force and NOT Iraqi's. By 1979 Iran had 10, 747-100s and F's plus another 4, 747-2J9Fs.


jamshid

Anonymoustj: And what would

by jamshid on

Anonymoustj: And what would YOU conclude based on the answers or based on the questions being asked or not?

Also show the fallacy in my "line" of questioning. Please be clear and don't dodge this request.

It seems that you have a lot of sensitivity towards this issue, but NONE towards the death of 1 million Iranians.

Rob: Did you talk with the soldiers? There were never any "talks" by the Iranian soldiers about American soldiers fighting in that war. American made weapons? You bet. American soldiers? No.

 


default

Iran's advantage?

by Rob (not verified) on

For those of you who think Iran had the advantage and should have used that advantage and invaded Iraq fully or partially, you should know that you need to research more. Talking with soldiers who fougth in Iran-Iraq war will give you some insight. I heard from some of those soldiers that when Iran had invaded Fav, they saw with their own eyes that American soldiers and helicopters attacked them and pushed them out of Fav. To think that US would sit and allow Iran to invade Iraq even with the advantage that you claim Iran had is not only illogical but funny. The truce was imposed on Iran and Iran had no choice.
US had her eyes on Iraq from long time ago. Search the web for the US department of energy and you see how the world is mapped in terms of energy and the need to protect those energy sources, will become evident to you. Energy is what keeps a large army going. US forces use more than 96 million gallons of oil every year, let alone the American drivers. There are more than 140 million vehicles in US.

On another note, it is intersting when one looks outside the window on take off from Mehrabad airport and looks down to see rows of Iraqi 747s parked on the tarmac, flown in during the gulf war to be protected and Iran never returned them.


default

What would you conclude

by Anonymoustj (not verified) on

What would you conclude based on his answers? Suppose they are all yes, or even no. I like to know your conclusion.
What would they prove? They prove:
That you are right? You were right? You cared for Bhutto?
You like democracy?
You like what?
It now makes me wonder how Iranians use self created logic to make conclusions.
Perhaps Kamran cannot see it but there is indeed fallacy in your logic and line of questioning.


jamshid

Re:Anonymoustj

by jamshid on

No one is hijacking anything, or being a redneck, or being guilty of anything. I simply asked a few questions. There is no need to insult anyone.


default

Kamran and Jamshid, You guys

by Anonymoustj (not verified) on

Kamran and Jamshid,
You guys hijacked the thread.
Obviously you both are guilty for changing the subject. If kamran was wrong Darius would have responded, but it seems that you Jamshid do not stop it, so I have to say that you act as a redneck.


jamshid

Re: Kamran

by jamshid on

Again,

You did not answer questions 3, 4 and 5. You keep dodging similar questions in my other posts.


default

Obviously you do not need

by Kamran (not verified) on

Obviously you do not need answers.
You already think you know. You believe Saddam and Fanatic Arabs would leave Iran alone. You believe perhaps in Santa.
You cannot prove that 6 years of war could have been avoided and lives would have been saved? Could you? Then how can one answer your questions logically. If you cannot stop this blog as I requested then how could Saddam have dropped hatred towrds the persians? He did not even to the minute he died. So, let's stop now. Neither you nor I could have predicted the future but the fact is that Saddam and others who supported him would never give up hurting others. Have you ever seen a Saudi version of the PERSIAN Gulf?
No need to answer. Please drop it.


jamshid

Re: Kamran

by jamshid on

You did not answer questions 3, 4 and 5. You keep dodging similar questions in my other posts.


default

Ok, You answered. good.

by kamran (not verified) on

Ok,
You answered. good. Maybe would have been nice to stop there.
To believe that Saddam would have accepted peace in 1982 forever is naive. You seem not know well about him or ignore what you know and you have not heard what his last words were.
1982 versus 1988 surely would make many people come back to life. But Saddam still had not learned a lesson that Persians were a lot braver. He always referred to Ghadesieh or Nahavand war. By 1988 he was too weak and he had learned that Persians were never going to give up so he gave up.
He was a sick man and we need to condemn a war that was started by him and not use the context to make a political point for self interest whether it is MKO view or Shahi view. If you have no sympathy for those two groups and honestly feel sad for the loss of life of the soldiers, then that can be understood, but to jump at the historical correction I made and change the discussion towards condemnation of what you do not like is not logically correct.
One last note: What holaku khan did indirectly to free Persia From Abbasi khelafat was similar to what happened in removing Saddam. In both cases the Iranians became free from threat of Arab Imperialism.
Now for the sake of Benazir's loss let this go to rest. will you?


jamshid

Re: Kamran

by jamshid on

"Gentle"? Tell that to the IRI that is being so "gentle" to its citizens.

"Did Saddam start the war or not?" Yes, he did.

"Would he have stopped and agreed to peace?" No, not in 1981. Yes after 1982.

"We are not talking about IRI. We are talking about historical facts..." This is a self contradictory and meaningless sentence. The IRI cannot be separated from the historical facts when discussing history.

Now you answer my questions.

1. Why didn't Saddam "regroup" and re-attack Iran after 1988 when khomeini accepted peace?

2. Why would he "regroup" and re-attack Iran after 1982, if khomeini had acceptd peace then?

3. Was the additional 6 years of war worth the damage it caused in terms of human life, dismembered bodies, orphaned children, grieving mothers, homelesses, by the millions? Yes or no?

4. Do you wish those who died were alive today? Do you wish those who are walking with one leg, could walk with two? The orphaned children could be raised by their loving parents instead of orphanages? Grieving mothers could be with their sons? Yes or no?

5. Would this wish be realized if the war had ended in 1982 instead of 1988? Yes or no?


default

To make it easy for you: Did

by Kamran (not verified) on

To make it easy for you:
Did Saddam start the war or not? Just say yes or no.
Would he have stopped and agreed to peace?
yes or no?
Those are the ones I pointed to Mr. Kadivar that he was wrong and he was gentle. Now you come and argue about IRI. We are not talking about IRI. We are talking about historical facts and people who intentionally or unintentionally distort them.
Please answer those questions with simple answers and with no explanations without sidetracking.
I rest my case and let the world see what we are talking about.


jamshid

Re: Kamran

by jamshid on

Both Iran and Iraq were supplied with weapons by the US, Israel, Brazil, France, Soviets and the rest of the interested world. Remember the Contra Reagan scandal?

So Iran did have many different sources, as did Iraq. You are playing into the IRI's "we the victims" and "we alone against the world" mentality game. It is the Hossein vs Yazid mentality.

Your being Zoroastrian has nothing to do with this issue, so keep your personal religion out of this.

And it seems that it is YOU who are categorically blaming everyone except Khomeini for the continuation of the war.

You fail to understand that there are one million Iranians who could be alive today and living the good life. There are more who could be walking on both feet or using both hands. Don't forget the orphans and the mothers who are still mourning. All from the last seven years of the war that could be avoided.

What part of this has to do with my political "afiiliations"?

Spare me with your "goftareh nik" and start thinking about all the dead and those who are still suffering today as a result of the war being prolonged, while some in the west are still counting the cash they made from weapons sold to both Iran and Iraq, because people with similar mentality than you were in charge in 1982 and couldn't make the right decision.


default

To Jamshid, You are wrong

by Kamran (not verified) on

To Jamshid,
You are wrong sir,
Iran could not have done same as Saddam could have done. Saddam was receiving help from all superpowers and Iran only had few sources of help.
Your hatred for IRI because of your political affiliation with shah's regime does not allow you to see the fact and you like to blame categorically everyone so you can reach your goal.
You need to be more honest with yourself. What you say here if wrong will damage minds of the young who have little knowledge.
I think Mr. Kadivar admitted his error, but did not say it clearly so you seem to drag the fact I stated.
I may have to send you the book I have read. It clearly describes the events of history.
By the way I am Zoroastrian just in case you start getting angry.
I have to stick to Goftare Nik so I have no other words to add.
best wishes


jamshid

Re: Kamran

by jamshid on

I disagree with your assessment. Khomeini should have accepted the peace offer. Your argument about Saddam just wanting to regroup and attack Iran again is easily countered by the fact that Iran too could have and would have regrouped and do so at a faster rate than Iraq could.

Additionally, in 1982, both Saddam and some of the khomeini's advisors realized that the West will NEVER allow either party to win the war.

Khomeini should have accepted the peace to save many millions of lives destroyed by death, dismemberment and homelessness.


Darius Kadivar

To Kamran

by Darius Kadivar on

Thank you Kamran, I couldn't agree more with you one this. It is not the subject of my article but since I had to answer Mr Abadi I was trying to set some things in their context.

I don't want to get into an endless debate leading nowhere.

It is obvious that Saddam had no intention to make peace with Iran and that the entire War was indeed prolonged thanks to Arms sails ( notably by Socialist President Mitterand & even the US as confirmed by the Irangate Scandal during the Reagan Years).  

However the famous " Poison Speech" by Ayatollah Khomeiny towards the end of the conflict when Iranian troops I believe were in Iraqi soil and had an advantage over Saddam's troops was both strategically and morally condemnable for it led to further deaths on both sides.

The point of the matter is that nothing constructive can be achieved in the Middle East in terms of progress, peace and constructing a humane and humanistic future for everyone as long as we keep going through the recurrent and endless cycle of violence and intolerance be it religious or political.

In regard to the casualties of the Iran Iraq War I suggest you to read ( unfortunately only in French but maybe available in Persian)

Fereydoun Sahebjam's true story of a kid underage sent to the Iran Iraq War. It was one of the first books to denounce the use of kids under 9 years of age by the Iranian Regime to fight in the War and clear the  LandMines. Its called "I have No tears to Cry anymore" published in the 80's:   

http://www.amazon.fr/nai-plus-larmes-pour-pleurer/dp/2246356318

Best,

DK

 


default

hold it Mr. Kadivar You

by Kamran (not verified) on

hold it Mr. Kadivar
You said: the war provoked by neighbor and prolonged by Iran.
Although this is not the main topic here but I like to correct you.
The war was started by Saddam and prolonged by those who helped him. Those included many westerners and many Arabs who were Arab first and religious second.
Please read Life as it happens: short stories, by: Dr. Davood Khalili
If you refer to the fact that when Saddam was losing he offered cease fire and saudis offered compensation, then that would not have been peace. Saddam wanted to buy time. He attacked Kwwait later and that is the proof that he had no intention for peace.
I stated this because some people are misled by others about the history that is not too old.
I have read the book and I will be glad to send it to you.


default

Jense modarat kharab ast

by Gilani (not verified) on

Jense modarat kharab ast islamie kaseef.


Darius Kadivar

Answer to dariush abadi ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Dear Sir,

I simply think you do not know how to read or are inflicted by some unfounded prejudice against my writing. I have answered your questions in the article itself.

Her controversial and arranged marriage to a rich husband belonging to a powerful clan was also to make headlines suggesting that she was hungry for power rather than love or personal happiness. Accusations of corruption, true or false were also associated to her rise to power, but her rising popularity over the years in her homeland could not be boiled down to incompetence and slandering.

Personally unlike you I do not take any credit or joy in learning about someone's death. If you were a true muslim I very much doubt you would take pride in any one's death and would at best wish them to rest in Peace. But I am afraid Islam or the way it is interpreted by a majority of muslims today is at odd's with the values of pardon and charity. You guys prefer to solve the issue with a bullit in the neck. You Strike Boldly in one's back but never face your opponent Face to Face.

Since you seem so preoccupied by Corruption, I would like to know what is your definition of social progress, human rights, democracy, free speach, economic growth all of which are interconnected ?

What have the Islamic Republic Leaders done in the past 28 years to solve these issues in Iran. You accuse me of being a monarchist because you refuse to admit your own failures in answering these issues. If one puts facts and figures under your nose you deny them in the name of free speach not logic.

The Revolution in Iran ate its own children through massive executions, a bloody war ( provoked and started by its neighbour but prolonged by the Islamic Regime) that lasted 8 years, destroyed and squandered its economy, restricted to oblivion the social and civil rights that Iranians had aquired over a century and not just under the Pahlavi's particularly for Women. It also isolated Iran on the international arena turning its citizens to Pariah's and terrorits in the eyes of other nations including friendly ones ( be them Right Wing or Left Wing). 

Our Partners used to be democratic countries like France, England, Germany, Sweden all with different political systems but democratic. It was not just the US. Even the Soviet Union Respected Iran's independance and traded with Iran.

Which are the countries which today rely on Iran as potential partners ? Putin's Russia which massacres the Muslim Populations in Cheychenia. What happened to Islamic Brotherhood ? Nah Sharghy Na Gharby Faghat Jomhouryeh Islami. Or  Chavez' Venezuala the other Holocaust Denier who sips milk with Fidel Castro in his pyjama's and offers the same economic models that never worked in the past century based on communist ideologies. What new solutions does he have in the 21st century ?

Now even when you could take pride in having the first  Women Prime Minister in the Muslim World which could even comfort your pro-Islamic views you believe that she deserved to die.

Shirine Ebadi Where Art Though ? Even she is begining to understand unlike stubborns like you.

Violence in inherent to modern Islam and in many ways to Islam throughout its history which invented the idea of "Jihad".  

You answer to anyone who does not share your views with Fatwa's like for Rushdie or bullits for Bakhtiar, Bhutto or any other person who contradicts you guys.

You have no more credibility so you hang on the same accusations of Oh You monarchist, oh you Capitalist, Oh you Corrupt, Oh You Godless Man.

Boro Bacheh Naneh !

Iran Hargez Nakhahad Mord ! But the Islamic Republic will one day ... ;0)

 


default

Ohoy G(u)il(i)ani, Pheder

by YYY (not verified) on

Ohoy G(u)il(i)ani,
Pheder sookheh in jegenghiat chi chi yest migui? Jensit kheili kherab est;


default

Islamist in Denial

by Gilani (not verified) on

Khafe sho ashghal,

Who can stop a M.F. Islamist who wants to meet with Allah? I bet the murderer is wagging his tail in heaven now. With the same logic, you can argue why people worked in twin towers when they knew it would be a target for the soldiers of Allah.


default

Commiting suicide

by Irooni (not verified) on

It is so obvious. Why didn't she take some precautions despite previous attempt on her life? Huh?


jamshid

Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Again I ask you: Where is your evidence that Binazir or her father stole money and were corrupt? Please provide references and documents, and not rumors and accusations.

I hope you will not say that you relying on Zia-ol Hagh's mock accusation and prosecution of Binazir's father. Do you even know who Zia-ol Hagh was and how many innocents he hanged?

P.S. Also read the post from "anonymour for a reason".


default

Typical Example of the Great Arrogance and Cowardice of Iranians

by Anonymous for a reason (not verified) on

Only Iranians can take a simple report and observation on a great tragedy such as Bhutto, and weave and twist it to be about them! The real tragedy here is the sad loss of rule of law, and the victory of shameless assassination and the fear it creates, over fairness, accountability, and the self corrective nature of the democratic process Pakestan was on the verge of implementing. And you bandy about childish irrelevant accusations of "monarchist" and "IRI Apologist"! Exactly who do you think you are? This moment in history is NOT about YOU! I am so sick of reading self promoting comments by you cowards at the slightest excuse! As demonstrated over the past 2 Regimes, Iranians abroad appear to be nothing more than kettles calling every other teapot except their own, black. Just because you don't have the guts to focus on your own oppression, and for once in 2500 years fix things in your own (literally) god forsaken country, please don't try to impress us with your "astute observations" that you so easily hand out on every single international issue except your own larger problems. Clean your own blood soaked laundry first! Then you can claim the right to take a peek at everyone else's underwear and comment on it. As it stands now you're all merely USELESS. But please spare us your arrogant commentaries! It's more unattractive than even a naked mullah!

NOTE: Thesaurus listing for USELESS = futile, to no avail, (in) vain, pointless, to no purpose, unavailing, hopeless, ineffectual, ineffective, to no effect, fruitless, unproductive. Antonym useful, beneficial, competent.


default

Benazir mother was from a distinguished Kurdish Iranian family.

by Iconoclasist (not verified) on

"Benazir Bhutto (1953–2007.) Benazir inherited her bearing and physical presence from her mother Nusrat Ispahan, from a distinguished Kurdish family from Iran. Educated at Radcliffe and Harvard, she would also study law at Oxford."

Whatever her failings, real or alleged, Benazir Bhutto was a symbol of intelligence, courage, dedication, strength, determination, beauty and feminine grace. She will be remembered as a shining example of a nationalist who could not be stopped fighting for her adopted country Pakistan of her Pakstani father, except by cowardly assisnation.

The following from a London interview:

Aso newspaper in London asked the ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto if it was true she was part Kurdish:

"Yes, my mother's great Grand mothers were Kurds who used to live in Esfahan/Iran and then Najaf/Iraq, then they moved to Pakistan. I am proud of my origin."

When asked whether she would visit Kurdistan if she was invited by Krudish leadership, she replied:

"Yes, I would love to see Kurdistan. It will be a great honour for me to visit Kurdistan formally."

Tragically, another Kurd (or half Kurd) dies for her beliefs and for the noble cause of democracy.

Corruption charges or not, imperfect human like most icons, Benazir Bhutto's half-Kurdish Iranian origin should be the pride of every patriotic Kurd and Iranian. May the Gods - if they exist! - bless her soul.

TIME: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698....


dariushabadi

Re: Saeed

by dariushabadi on

1) "Zulfaqar Ali Bhutto (father of Benazir Bhutto) was executed in 1979 following a controversial trial for authorizing the murder of a political opponent" He was also accused of massive corruption as well. It was the law that executed him, not a random assasin.

 

2) Sorry about my poor english. I meant to say: Recently I've found that a lot of writers on Iranian.com are supporting anything that America supports, even though it might be (or is) more corrupt than what is already there. (For example, supporting Bhutto over Musharaff, even though Bhutto's term was filled with more corruption and dictatorship than what Pakistan is experiencing under Musharaf's military dictatorship.