Bhutto's assasination

[rasoirviolon]

On Thursday 27th December, Bhutto suffered bullet wounds to the neck and head and she died after all attempts to revive her failed.

I cannot claim to hold extensive knowledge over the history of the PPP or Pakistani politics in general but I am wondering what the INTJ community's thoughts on this are. Bhutto's supporters are blaming Musharraf for her death; what are your speculations on this? Since her death, how has the Jan. 8 scheduled elections been jeapardised? Since their legitimacy is now in question, Sharif is considering boycotting them. Many think that Sharif's boycott will leave the PPP directionless and Quaid-e-Azam might win; is there credibility here? How does Musharraf's move of giving up his uniform and position of head of the military only last month play a role?

I'm wondering if a democratic Islamic society is even possible. As an all-encompassing religion, Islam is pervasive throughout all aspects of society; how does a country find balance between religion and politics? If there are any Muslims who would like to share their thoughts, it'd be very interesting to hear.

[The Rose]

Isn't her assassination such a terrible tragedy? How sad. I hope something good comes out of it. It would be awful for her to have died in vain.

[tadatanome]

I'm wondering if a democratic Islamic society is even possible. As an all-encompassing religion, Islam is pervasive throughout all aspects of society; how does a country find balance between religion and politics?

Is a democratic society possible at all? How much democracy exists in the United States for instance? In a country where you can vote for only two parties each defined by its own economic interests what choice do you have? I'd like to see a voting card that said

1 - Republican
2 - Democrat
3 - Smash the State

Take a good look at the world you live in and an even closer look at your assumptions before you ask such questions. Your question here so strongly betrays preconceptions. You are saying
a) that religion and democracy are two concepts that can and/or need to be be reconciled.
b) religion and politics somehow operate in one arena in which they in some way compete.
c) the "pervasiveness" of religion in society is something is somehow incompatible with what you call "democracy."
d) democracy arose in non-Islamic conditions and now therefore there is the possibility of it being incompatible with Islam.
e) the death of Benazir Bhutto is somehow related to Pakistan being an "Islamic State"

I live in Iran though I'm not a Muslim (i don't resort to external definitions to define my religious existence) and "Islamic Republic" or even "Islamic society" strike me as oxymoronic. To me "Islam" doesnt even bear the transformation into an adjective to describe anything - let alone describe a body of political power structures operating within an arbitrary border or even a body of people who all call themselves Muslims. Be careful of the meaning of words. Are we really looking at religion here? Are the things we describe as "religious" or "Islamic" really that which we call them? Are there systems operating around us which are not religious in the usual sense of the world but sharply define our world view and determine political possibilities - I'm talking about globalisation, market liberalism - the way these mantras are so often repeated, accepted and digested might one not be tempted to describe THEM as a form of religion?

[BadMojo]

Is a democratic society possible at all? How much democracy exists in the United States for instance? In a country where you can vote for only two parties each defi....
Sounds a lot like Habermas in theory.

[Nomad]

I don't believe her assassination was ordered by Musharraf . Pakistan is not stable, and he's deeply unpopular as a (generally) secular leader. He's enacted martial law in order to maintain stability. The ensuing unrest does not serve his interests generally; however, her death removes a serious political rival. For him , it's at best a mixed bag.

Ont the other hand, continued instability does serve the best interests to religious militants, of which Pakistan has many. I believe she was assassinated for the same reasons they've been trying to kill Musharraf . They do not fit into the fundamentalist idea of a theocracy in Pakistan.

I think the elections will be postponed, and I have a hunch Musharraf's days are numbered. I suspect the military will oust him.He's made a great many enemies.

-Nomad

[tadatanome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadatanome View Post
Is a democratic society possible at all? How much democracy exists in the United States for instance? In a country where you can vote for only two parties each defi....
Sounds a lot like Habermas in theory.

I've never read Habermas but I think I want to. He has spooky vowels in his name. Like Heidegger and Kierkegaard (who I AM reading at the moment.)

[Dreamer]

As long as there is a clear seperation between state and church, religion and democracy are perfectly compatible.


Is a democratic society possible at all? How much democracy exists in the United States for instance? In a country where you can vote for only two parties each defined by its own economic interests what choice do you have?


Democracy is not about allowing every little fringe ideology a voice in national politics. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Although far from perfect, BOTH the Republican and Democratic party actually encompass a rather large array of political positions.Simply take a look at Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger,Rudy Guliani, Newt Gringich...

The bi-partisan American system is of course,not perfect, but it is flatly untrue to say that there is no representation of various political positions and that there is no "choice".

If X brand of Libertarian socialism or radical Islam is not represented, it may(just may) be because the American people sees no use of Libertarian Socialism or radical Islam?


Take a good look at the world you live in and an even closer look at your assumptions before you ask such questions. Your question here so strongly betrays preconceptions.Why do you make the assumption that the original poster did not do his/her research before coming to these "preconceptions"?


I live in Iran though I'm not a Muslim (i don't resort to external definitions to define my religious existence) and "Islamic Republic" or even "Islamic society" strike me as oxymoronic. To me "Islam" doesnt even bear the transformation into an adjective to describe anything - let alone describe a body of political power structures operating within an arbitrary border or even a body of people who all call themselves Muslims. Be careful of the meaning of words. Are we really looking at religion here? Are the things we describe as "religious" or "Islamic" really that which we call them? To you it certainly is, but why should we take your personal definition of Islam as the accepted definition? If you tried to change the meaning of the word "rock", should the world follow you because of personal caprice?

I think that a large number of believers in Islam in the Middle east would disagree with you and they de facto decide what "Islam" is all about.

Just like the world "liberal" today have come to differ radically in meaning in regard to its older counterparts through popular consensus.

[BadMojo]

I've never read Habermas but I think I want to. He has spooky vowels in his name. Like Heidegger and Kierkegaard (who I AM reading at the moment.)
Kierkegaard is good, though I've only read snippets of his work. Habermas is a bit too optimistic about the future in my opinion. One of his theories that I've worked with is his system theory, which basicly tells how foreign often commercial "systems" tries to invade our daily lives to become a blend with our culture. (And if you look at Coca Cola and McDonald's, it's not that far off).
However, according to Habermas, we still seek our roots in our native culture to contemplate these external systems that enters our "life world" as he calls it. (Bad translation).
A good counter theory is Niklas Luhmann's system theory who doesn't think that we have any solid culture, but we adapt to our surroundings from birth. he's awesome, but slightly mad. (He has written over sixty large volumes of this theory and none of them is a light read).

But when we take these theories into use, we can see that people react to foreign interference. In a case like Bhutto's assassination, we can see how some people react to these new ideas, properly because they fear them. She was dangerous to those who murdered her. They've looked into their own culture and found the new culture, thoughts and people she brought with her repugnant, because she was very western-like.

For instance if we look at Iran or Iraq. Why should they embrace democracy from a country that only have about 230 years of history, when they themselves have several thousands? What gives us, the western world, the right to interfere with them?

The world have become a small place in a very short time (globalisation), and frictions are bound arise because because of that. Humans fear the unknown, and in a time where we should use our technology to diminish our ignorance, we use it to wage war and create new enemies and allies.

All in all. Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity.

[Umbrex]

This is how i see it:

First off; let's start with Musharraf, who i see as a CIA backed stooge, through whom the US interest seeks to stabilize/control the region. After all, CIA is behind most of the coupes organized in the auspices of the world. Iran, Irak, Colombia, Central America and the list goes on.

Secondly we have a terrorist agenda which is being pushed by almost all the media conglomerates in the world today and it wasnt much but hours after that the BBC claimed that al'quaida (CIA'da) was behind the operation. Notice how almost all the terrorist activity today is announced as being al'quaida. In danish media terrorists were also mentioned as the cause.

Thirdly we have the event, which is becomming more and more bizarre. Some say 5 shots were fired, officials say no shot were fired. The official version is that the explosion knocked her into something and gave her a fatal blow to the head.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan's government announced it had evidence that an al-Qaida operative was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who was laid to rest Friday as the army tried to quell a frenzy of rioting that left 27 people dead less than two weeks before national elections.

Source:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

5th: Eye witnesses however, claim that she got hit at least in the neck and through the back of her head, following a huge explosion.

"I ran up, got as close as I got, made a few pictures of her waving to the crowd," Getty Images senior staff photographer John Moore told CNN's online streaming news service, CNN.com Live, in a phone interview Thursday from Islamabad, Pakistan.

"And then suddenly, there were a few gunshots that rang out, and she went down, she went down through the sunroof," he said. "And just at that moment I raised my camera up and the blast happened. ... And then, of course, there was chaos." Watch Moore describe Bhutto's final moments

source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


6th: There are now reports of police guards being pulled from the scene only minutes before the event happened

Police abandoned their security posts shortly before Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's assassination Thursday, according to a journalist present at the time, and unanswerable questions remain about the cause of her death, because an autopsy was never performed.

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .html

Notice how no autopsy was performed

Let's try to use our rationality. Who stands to gain from this? Ie: Who had the will, Motive and ressources to pull it of.

Terrorists would gain little more than a momentary appeasement of assassinating a female, pro democratic government, since their organization would be subject to hatred, hunt and massive critizism from the inhabitants of Pakistan. As i see it, terrorists would have little to nothing to gain from the assassination. After all, Bhutto's position is perhaps not subject to as much hatred from that faction as Musharraf, backed by the US and interfering with their work.
As much as the will would be present i can hardly see the motive being good for their general cause.

Now let's try to examine Musharraf:
Musharraf is under extreme internal pressure from his own peers. His declaration of martial law and following arrestment of many of the law makers and doers who were to make some fancy decision regarding his precidency seems highly suspicious. This example illustrates the corruption and miss use of power this man is willing to put to use.
Bhutto was perhaps musharraf's biggest threat to the power he holds. Would it be in his best interest if Bhutto suddenly got assassinated ? Definetly!
Let's look at the facts stated above. So guards were pulled moments before the event. This alone should give some indication on who was behind. Why remove guards minutes before a politician who had an attempted try on her life only months prior ? Who had the ability to control this ? Someone wanted to make damn sure she got wacked by first shooting her, then blowing the bomb. But why the discrepancy in the news ? I mean, it should be pretty damn obvious to decide the cause of death, unless you wanted to make it seem like a typical terrorist attack, which would then fit in with the agenda of your backers. No worries, it will be decided by the autopsy performed. Why the f... hasn't that been performed and who has the power to control this aspect ? Musharraf. See, the story kinda falls apart if it turns out she was shot before she got bombed. It would be out of bounce with the conditioning story about the usual suspects who will roam across the US border with nukes and whatnot.

Unfortunatly, as i see this, it is yet another display of power by the powers that be, protecting their interest and using the event instrumentally to carry out the conditioning through the box, enhancing the evil picture we have of the bad terrorists killing democracy wherever they go.

My 5 cents :)

[tadatanome]

Dreamer, you said:

Democracy is not about allowing every little fringe ideology a voice in national politics. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

But when political institutions manufacture the majority you have a tyranny of a very dangerous kind. Manipulated by those who understand and benefit from it in order to perpetuate it.

another point I would like to take up with you is...

Although far from perfect, BOTH the Republican and Democratic party actually encompass a rather large array of political positions.Simply take a look at Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger,Rudy Guliani, Newt Gringich...

So what is it about politicians that makes them speak so uniformly as soon as they near the possibility of power. Barack Obama is now a case in point. He's become distinctly less vocal on the Palestinian movement now that he's having to bow to the Jewish lobby to get the Dem nomination. But I think U-S politics is a side issue. With your permission on to my main argument...

To you it certainly is, but why should we take your personal definition of Islam as the accepted definition? If you tried to change the meaning of the word "rock", should the world follow you because of personal caprice?

My point is not to redefine Islam. But do please take into consideration that the meanings of words are fluid and words pick up unhelpful connotations like a contagious diseases. The point about debate (and here's the "T" in me speaking) is to get past the misconceptions and point towards the truth.

When we attach words together we are doing something very powerful which we are not always aware of. The poster asked "is a democratic Islamic society even possible?" and my argument is that asking the question in this strongly anticipates the answer in a way which may in fact disguise the (far more complicated) truth.

Whatever the political realities, "Democracy" is a word loaded with positive connotations. The "Islamic"-ness of Pakistan's society is then brought in as a possible barrier to its becoming "democratic". This centralises the debate around Islam as a negative influence holding back Pakistan's progress towards the Holy Grail of democracy. Can you see how this potentially defines the debate in an unhelpful way? There are a thousand and one factors preventing Pakistan from achieving stability - Islam may be one of them but not in the way the poster puts his question.

To take a more low-key example, when visitors come to the Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque in Isfahan they wow and gape at the "Islamic Architecture" - Is the fact that the artist which created the mosque was a Muslim the most important defining feature of his art and his creativity?

Christopher Wren was a Christian and was responsible for designing numerous churches but do we ever refer to his work as "Christian Architecture"? Quick Google search reveals TEN times more mentions of "Islamic Architecture" in comparison with the term "Christian Architecture".

The work of Edward Said tells us a lot about how "Islam", "The East", "The Orient" are all terms used as a quick shorthand to define the otherness of a world outside the sphere of Western cultural influence. The trouble is, this shorthand glosses over an awful lot of very complex political and historical interactions and evolution of meanings. The word "Islamic" has gained so much momentum of its own that the critical consumer of news media has to do a lot of digging to unravel the matter and lay bare the truth - and not get caught up in the all too superficial usage of words dictated by mass media.





tadatanome added to this post, 35 minutes and 54 seconds later...

Good point Badmojo:

For instance if we look at Iran or Iraq. Why should they embrace democracy from a country that only have about 230 years of history, when they themselves have several thousands? What gives us, the western world, the right to interfere with them?

The world have become a small place in a very short time (globalisation), and frictions are bound arise because because of that.

But let's put aside talk of rights. International politics is Hobbes' state of nature with the guy with the biggest gun talking loudest and making the calls. Why would any rational government act otherwise? If you've got the power - flaunt it.

Before globalisation there was colonisation which consists of a series of conscious attempts to prevent the organic development of stable representative systems of government. A number of European countries were the first to combine technological advances with greed and they divided up the world between them and are now, still proving reluctant to give up their head start - and why would they? (cf. IMF, World Bank, nuclear weapons, wars for resources, manipulation of political development)

The fight for democracy in Pakistan is a sham. Just look now at the way the government and the opposition are fighting each other over the date of the election so that they can take advantage of/minimise damage from Bhutto's assassination and get themselves elected.

[iamnotspock]

I'm giving Umbrex my nickel for that analysis. Musharraf had his people hosing down the streets. They won't autopsy. They won't allow outside investigations. He either offed her to maintain his power-base or let it happen to appease the dark elements that he's got to work with.

[gzeus]

Umbrex - some good points there. I have no references to back my claims up, but I would have to disagree with you.

Yes, Musharaf's days are numbered, however I do not think he directly had much to do with it. He let it happen, which might come to bite him in the butt (or neck) when all this is over. Bhutto would probably not have sentenced him to death after her win, but shadowy figures in his own ranks will do exactly this. This will appease the crowds and get rid of him. Nice.

Look at this video:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Listen to her say "the man that killed Osama bin Laden".

Might be a slip of words and she meant Daniel Pearl. But why would she not correct herself then when she heard her own words? And why did David Frost not pounce on that statement and ask, "Wait a minute, did i hear you correctly that..."?

Bhutto might have been another attempt to install a currently non-hated figure in the place of Musharaf as his strenght is waining. It would probably have been business as usual from then on.

There are Three powers that I can see strugling for domination over Pakistan - The west through Musharaf and Bhutto's camp, Islamist radical organisations through political and terrorist preassures and the SIS (Pakistan's secret service) and their boss through assasinations and sponsoring terrorism for the sake of an excuse to clamp down and take over.

I might be wrong on these accounts, it's just what I can gather from all these events...

[Umbrex]

Umbrex - some good points there. I have no references to back my claims up, but I would have to disagree with you.

Yes, Musharaf's days are numbered


not anymore

however I do not think he directly had much to do with it. He let it happen, which might come to bite him in the butt (or neck) when all this is over. Bhutto would probably not have sentenced him to death after her win, but shadowy figures in his own ranks will do exactly this. This will appease the crowds and get rid of him. Nice.



It turns out that Bhutto was to meet with us representatives just hours after the meeting to discuss Musharraf's role in the previous attempt attempt on her life. Alarm bells ringing now ? Well they should.
My apologies for the lack of sources, but the news was in danish, and it is now removed. (WTF?!)


Look at this video:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Listen to her say "the man that killed Osama bin Laden".

Might be a slip of words and she meant Daniel Pearl. But why would she not correct herself then when she heard her own words?


Exposing US/CIA secrets on national TV ..another cornerstone in her assassination. I had seen it before.

And why did David Frost not pounce on that statement and ask, "Wait a minute, did i hear you correctly that..."?


Good point, sadly the answer is obvious. Because he would get sacked faster than he could blink his eyes. The media conglomerates of the world are pushing the terrorist agenda, and venturing out into who killed Osama would be like Frost giving Bhutto the cue for shattering the illusion that Osama is alive and well, planning the next terrorist attack from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, sending out ominous videos which serves to scare the west and the us especially. Frost did what was best for Frost, after all, that was the climax of the interview and it just kinda slipped away. Bhutto had very good sources in some parts of the intelligence agencies. Besides, most insiders know that the US perpetrated 9/11 and hence the casualty of the remark.


Bhutto might have been another attempt to install a currently non-hated figure in the place of Musharaf as his strenght is waining. It would probably have been business as usual from then on.

There are Three powers that I can see strugling for domination over Pakistan - The west through Musharaf and Bhutto's camp, Islamist radical organisations through political and terrorist preassures and the SIS (Pakistan's secret service) and their boss through assasinations and sponsoring terrorism for the sake of an excuse to clamp down and take over.

I might be wrong on these accounts, it's just what I can gather from all these events...

This is not the best link, but the link for the recent story has slipped my mind:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bush vetoes the UN investigation into Bhutto's killing. He see's no reason for it. Right, everything is ok. There is no problem in obstructing justice when the dictator who perpetrated is is on your side.

Why not ?

Why ?

It's basic stuff, come on ..when you have the best intelligence service in the world you're in the know and the only reason for blocking, even vetoing such an investigation would be that you were involved in some way or another, at least it would destroy the US' go-to-guy in that very important region which basically tells us one of two things: Either the US was directly envolved through CIA (SIS) or that they know Musharraf did it and removing him would be like cutting out your liver if the body was the middle east.

Hope it clears things up for ya :)

[Rick]

Tadatanome, asalaam o'lacum.

Good points, bali?

Surprised to see you speaking so freely from Tehran, but my knowledge of the contemporary world situation is lacking.

*Sigh*

Concerning Bhutto's assassination...let me be frank. Within Pakistan, she has been walking toward this for years. Pakistan is a very unique country. They are a mixture of extremely conservative values and worldly needs. They have a very large enemy to their east and are very much at unease over it, along with the war to their west.

Benazir's father, Zulficar Ali Bhutto, was hung for...corruption, I think, after a military coup by General Zia Huk. She has been progressive and the conservative factions in Pakistan despised her for it. Having said that, I was extremely sad to learn of her assassination. Pakistan, in my opinion, is ripe for civil war now, if the right spark should happen.

I was in Pakistan in the mid-80's, when the Russians were next door in Afghanistan. I spoke Urdu (the national language of Pakistan) very well, along with a smattering of Farsi, so I was able to talk with a lot of the Afghanis that had crossed over the border into Pakistan for supplies. Quite accidentally, I know a lot of things from back then that relate to national security that I will not talk about now. That was then.

Pakistan has had a rough history. They became their own country in the late 40's and since then, have had political turmoil, a couple of wars with India, a war next door in Afghanistan, and more turmoil at home.

Don't know where they are headed, but they are now a nuclear power, and that is scary without clear political stability. My feeling is that, if civil war should be eminent, we (the US) would move to sieze their nuclear arsonal before unease in India forces a pre-emptive war.

[gzeus]

Good point, sadly the answer is obvious. Because he would get sacked faster than he could blink his eyes. The media conglomerates of the world are pushing the terrorist agenda, and venturing out into who killed Osama would be like Frost giving Bhutto the cue for shattering the illusion that Osama is alive and well, planning the next terrorist attack from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, sending out ominous videos which serves to scare the west and the us especially. Frost did what was best for Frost, after all, that was the climax of the interview and it just kinda slipped away. Bhutto had very good sources in some parts of the intelligence agencies. Besides, most insiders know that the US perpetrated 9/11 and hence the casualty of the remark.



Sure Umbrex, trust me I understand all these points better than you might imagine and your points are all possible scenarios in my thoughts.

If Frost's program was on Al Jazeera (prodeuced by them) then I find it strange he did not follow up on that statement. If this was a BBC programme licenced by Al Jazeera then of course he has his orders on where he can take the "debate" and where he cannot. Do you have any information on who's programme this was?

As far as I can understand from his CV here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), the particular programme we are discussing is produced under Al Jazeera.

I think the US is protecting SIS (CIA trained) more than Musharaf in this instance. They don't want the probable fact that SIS murdered her to ever get out. I do think there is a very convoluted power play going on here that is not as simple as it seems from the first instance.

Here's how I see it (It's speculation based on observation):

Musharaf's days are numbered, the US needed Bhutto in power to replace him and have business as usual regarding the US's influence in Pakistan,

SIS was not interested in Bhutto coming to power, they had her removed in a way that it looked like a radical islamist group did it (They probably do have some useful idiots on-the-ready for any such situation),

Musharaf is therefore even more weakened now and on the ropes as he is naturally one of the suspects,

Musharaf will be hanging on until the time comes when he is removed and executed in a staged scandal. In my mind CIA has lost control over SIS and someone else has taken over it for the moment.

There is a power play for the presidency as well as inside the SIS.

[Dreamer]

But when political institutions manufacture the majority you have a tyranny of a very dangerous kind. Manipulated by those who understand and benefit from it in order to perpetuate it.
Yes,we all know that the United Nations and the Rockeweller foundation are conspiring to bring a New World Order.


So what is it about politicians that makes them speak so uniformly as soon as they near the possibility of power.
Public opinion.

The Republicans and Democrats are nowhere near "uniform".


Barack Obama is now a case in point. He's become distinctly less vocal on the Palestinian movement now that he's having to bow to the Jewish lobby to get the Dem nomination. The reason why there are no markedly pro-palestinian candidates in the US race is that there is overwhelming support for Isreal in the United States.

Why should a political candidate take a position that will put him at odd with the US populace? Political cultures take years if not decades to change.

He doesn't have to bow to the Jewish lobby,but to the American people.

I think you overestimate the power of lobbies in the United States. If the lobbies were even half as powerful as you describe,gun control would already be a thing of the past as the gun lobby spend more dollars in protecting the right to bear and keep arms in Congress then Jews spend protecting Isreal through lobbying.

But I think U-S politics is a side issue. With your permission on to my main argument... Your choice, you brought it up in the first place...


Whatever the political realities, "Democracy" is a word loaded with positive connotations. The "Islamic"-ness of Pakistan's society is then brought in as a possible barrier to its becoming "democratic". This centralises the debate around Islam as a negative influence holding back Pakistan's progress towards the Holy Grail of democracy. Can you see how this potentially defines the debate in an unhelpful way? There are a thousand and one factors preventing Pakistan from achieving stability - Islam may be one of them but not in the way the poster puts his question.
I think there is little point in arguing about wording of this question. Doing so doesn't lead anybody closer to the "truth". It proves that it is a misleading question but it doesn't prove your premise(that Islam is not an obstacle to democracy) right.

So where do we find ourselves? The original premise is not proven and yours is not proven or supported either.

If you disagree with the premise that Islam is not an obstacle to Democracy,just argue accordingly.

[PortInStorm]

Just a quick note that a former Afghan reporter from Kabul did a little editorial on CBC tonight saying that while Al-Quada (sp) may/may not have done this, they are using it as psychological warfare in Afghanistan (particularly Kabul whose relative peace is being threatened more and more) ie. look at what we can do.