By now you've likely heard the news that former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, has been assassinated in a bombing and possible shooting (at this time, it "appears" that she died from gun shot wounds during the blast, but that may turn out to have been shrapnel from the blast). Pakistan is, of course, our highly unstable little buddy in the War on Terror, and Bhutto, of course, had recently returned from exile to try to bring the country back towards a democratic track.
All of the 2008 Presidential candidates have started to react, mostly calling for calm and democracy, but Rudy 911 Giuliani has jumped in front of the parade calling for more blood, saying that the killers "must be brought to justice." (Note to Rudy: it was a suicide bombing, the killers are already dead). Of course, Rudy knows that the killers are already dead; he'd just like to tie this event to 911 and use it to help support his tough on terror presidential ambitions.
Which brings us to this question: Is Bhutto's assassination a re-enactment of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, 1914? Blogger Robert Paterson seems to think so, and he makes some good points. As we all [should] remember from high school history, it wasn't the importance of the Archduke that set off the first world war, it was simply the final straw on tensions that had been building for decades.
Paterson builds on his thesis in a second posting on what may be in store for us if the Sarajevo comparison is correct. Writes Paterson, "Like in 1914, the powder charges have been laid over 40 years. Now the fuse is lit - the bang is inevitable."
I'm not so sure yet. Amazing that I may have a glimmer of hope here. Or is it simply that I'm so cynical and jaded by this point that I refuse to believe anything I read, even predictions of our coming demise.