Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally

[Cl3ver]

Quote by: rmnunez It still seems incomprehensible to me. Suppose you're the trainee, you've learned how to assemble and disassemble an AK-47 blindfolded, can clear the chamber, change the magazine and have qualified on the firing range, then they teach you how to pack your self-detonating explosive vest, hookup all the dynamite fuses to the triggering device, how to put it on and properly conceal it under some local flowing garment with care not to accidentally set it off or interfere with the triggering device, so you're all set. Now the mission requires you attack a specific target with your machine gun, this is simple, you aim at the target and fire your weapon until the target is destroyed. After you're done you're supposed to trigger the explosive vest -for what? Would that be because despite your aiming at the target and hiting it (with a machine gun), you may have missed? Or maybe you've been shooting at the target and aren't sure you got it, change clips, send off another 40 rounds, reload or detonate? How does the trainee decide whether another clip will be better than suicide?

It looked to me like the shooters in the video were shooting pistols and I think you are underestimating the enemy. Just like a trainee is taught to shoot the target and blow up with their automatic rifle, they were just trained to shoot the target with their pistol and blow up after the target was hit.

I don't think the strategy of the suicide bombers has anything to do with personal choice, though I'm not too keen on their training.

The attacker goes bang bang bang then BOOM whether its a pistol or a AK.

[Sonart]

.
Rm, you're completely speculating on things you don't really know. For instance, you have no idea how much arms training a would be suicide bomber receives, do you? My guess would be almost none. After all, why bother? In this case, some minimal pistol training.

Methinks Cl3ver has it right... you shoot the gun at close range to make sure the one, specific, intended target dies, then set off the explosives because, after all, you're in the middle of a giant crowd, where you can either... a) immediately get wrestled to the ground and captured, or... b) take a bunch more with you, albeit less accurately.

.

[rmnunez]

I suppose so, but if you were told the main target was BB and you fired at her, if you weren't certain you'd killed her and could shoot some more, would you continue shooting or go for the detonation?

[thx1138]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Rawalpindi's police chief stopped doctors at the hospital where Benazir Bhutto died from conducting an autopsy, according to a lawyer on the hospital's board. In a video released Sunday, Benazir Bhutto, far right, appears through the sunroof before shots ring out. 1 of 2 more photos » It was a violation of Pakistani criminal law and prevented a medical conclusion about what killed the former prime minister, said Athar Minallah, who serves on the board that manages Rawalpindi General Hospital. However, the police chief involved, Aziz Saud, told CNN that he suggested an autopsy be done, but that Bhutto's husband objected. The revelation came on Monday after new videotape of Bhutto's assassination emerged, showing her slumping just after gunshots rang out. The tape provided the clearest view yet of the attack and appeared to show that Bhutto was shot. That would contradict the Pakistan government's account.

How would Bush handle the situation if it's traced back to his bubby in the War on Terror? Why was the U.S. adminastration so quick to repeat the matra... "al Qaeda did it." without waiting for any investagation to be done?

I suppose so, but if you were told the main target was BB and you fired at her, if you weren't certain you'd killed her and could shoot some more, would you continue shooting or go for the detonation?

It could have been a remote controlled device set by groups knowing her route.

[rmnunez]

Is it suspected that if she died by gunshot or by explosion the perpetrator would be different? Wasn't the guy firing the shots the same fellow who blew himself up, and isn't this the suspected Al Qaeda jihadee?

[thx1138]

Is it suspected that if she died by gunshot or by explosion the perpetrator would be different? Wasn't the guy firing the shots the same fellow who blew himself up, and isn't this the suspected Al Qaeda jihadee?

How do you know that? That's what an easy job the media has today on white washing the information people get..

It's not know if the gun man and the guy (if it was a person and not a planted device) were one and the same. And the "Al Qaeda jihadee" information was a quick story released on CNN before any true investigation had been done (which was pushed by the Whitehouse).

This is the same nonesense that happened after 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination right away with out question they know who did it... because of the magic passport or the magic bullet.

what happened to checking all the clues, facts, and all the people who would gain from these events?

"Al Qaeda jihadee did it!" is the magic answer for any event that happens today, don't look at the ISI, CIA, IRG, MI5, or Musad.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez I suppose so, but if you were told the main target was BB and you fired at her, if you weren't certain you'd killed her and could shoot some more, would you continue shooting or go for the detonation?

Who could possibly know???? Putting myself in the position of a man committed to wading through a cheering crowd of his bitterest enemies, before shooting their well protected and beloved leader dead, then detonating a bomb that would end my own life is simply beyond my capacity to even pretend to imagine.

I think trying to rationally analyze his thinking during all of that is not just futile but silly.

.

[Nono]

Yes. Presumably all this is predicated on an express ticket to paradise, as promised by the clerics. So when those clerics, or their designated representatives, tell you to do X,Y and Z, you do it. Period.

Again, the bomb seems to me a measure to make sure. The gun is concentrated violence to kill your target. But what with armed security personnel around, you will have to go about things in quite a rush before you yourself are stopped, possibly by a bullet. So the bomb is there to fill in any gaps.

[thx1138]

Sources: Bhutto was to give U.S. lawmakers vote-rigging report - CNN.com

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- On the day she died, Benazir Bhutto planned to hand over to visiting U.S. lawmakers a report accusing Pakistan's intelligence services of a plot to rig parliamentary elections, sources close to the slain former Pakistani prime minister told CNN Tuesday.


Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Rep. Arlen Specter were scheduled to meet with Bhutto on the day she died.

1 of 3 more photos » Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, hours before a scheduled meeting with Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania.

A top Bhutto aide who helped write the report showed a copy to CNN.

"Where an opposing candidate is strong in an area, they [supporters of President Pervez Musharraf ] have planned to create a conflict at the polling station, even killing people if necessary, to stop polls at least three to four hours," the document says.

The report also accused the government of planning to tamper with ballots and voter lists, intimidate opposition candidates and misuse U.S.-made equipment to monitor communications of opponents.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: thx1138 ISI has been behind many large event (911 being one of them) Bhutto was a threat to their power.

ISI participated in 09/11 events.
Am I correct ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally - Yahoo! News What a blow for Pakistan & the USA!!!

Can you explain how that "blow" may affect U.S. ?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Rainbow ISI participated in 09/11 events. Am I correct ?

They supported the Taliban both morally and financially right up until the 9/11 attack on the WTS, but jumped ship immediately after in fear of US retaliation. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the ISI was either supportive of, or participated in, the terrorism on September 11th.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Rainbow Can you explain how that "blow" may affect U.S. ?

To my knowledge, she was much more moderate than her more religious opposition, and she was interested in a number of economic opportunities (business deals) with the US. All around, she appeared to have been interested in Americanizing Pakistan. Furthermore, Pakistan is notorious for harboring extremist groups that are extraordinarily interested in doing the US in, but Bhutto felt that such people marred the face of Pakistan and that they weren't deserving of the government's support.

[rmnunez]

Definitely Bhutto's assasination was a 'blow' to the US, though the critical left would presume the US would prefer Bush's favourite, 'Perv'.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Definitely Bhutto's assasination was a 'blow' to the US, though the critical left would presume the US would prefer Bush's favourite, 'Perv'.

Being of "the critical left" (a term you through around with reckless abandon) I suspect the "Perv" could apply more pressure regarding whatever the US wants to do.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: rmnunez Definitely Bhutto's assasination was a 'blow' to the US, though the critical left would presume the US would prefer Bush's favourite, 'Perv'.

U.S. had limited and/or no influence on that event. Therefore, it is hard to call it a "blow".

[rmnunez]

There are people (usually under the "critical lefty" banner) who tend to perceive the US is behind absolutely everything that ever happens anywhere. These are the lunatic left fringe folks who tell us 911 was a CIA operation and intervention in Yugoslavia has something to do with oil pipelines there.

For such people the assasination would be something the US would have had done in order to help Bush's pal 'Perv'.

Musharaff, who has many negative traits and a lousy human rights record, enjoys great support from the US because Pakistan is on the 'front' in the war on terror. Critical lefties who oppose Bush and his war on terror would 'naturally' oppose Musharaff and just as easily read into Bhutto's assasination some Bushian effort.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez There are people (usually under the "critical lefty" banner) who tend to perceive the US is behind absolutely everything that ever happens anywhere. These are the lunatic left fringe folks who tell us 911 was a CIA operation and intervention in Yugoslavia has something to do with oil pipelines there.

I don't know about America being responsible for "everything everywhere," but us "critical lefties" often perceive things as they are.
For example, can you in any way disprove the following words of David North?:

"The historical role of the
United States in the Middle East is a bloody record of crimes against the
people of that part of the world. Every major ally of the United States in
the Middle East and northern Africa—Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Jordan and Turkey—has been cited by the State Department for gross abuses of
human rights. Israel, that exemplar of American-supported democracy, rules
over the Palestinian people on the basis of naked terror."

One needn't have "gone mad" to believe such a thing. The evidence is there. It's also true that Britain, upon conquering the Middle East, sought control over oil resources and divided it up with its allies. In fact, Iraq was essentially a European creation.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Its hard to contradict such an ambiguous statement. What is meant by a "historical" role? Which are the bounds of the "Middle East"? When describing some "bloody record of crimes" is that "bloody" in the British colloquial sense? Is this characterization refering to the record of all things done in the region, or is it meant to refer to some outstanding level or number of incidents recorded? Does its purported bloodiness reflect a number of incidents and is their alleged criminal nature determined under western or local standards?

Israel is a poor 'exemplar' of democracy by western standards, but an excellent one when compared to anything else in the Middle East. Their perceived use of "naked terror" ought to be contextualized somewhat as well, after all the country is the victim of daily naked terror as well.

US foreign policy in the Middle East is criticable, but lets keep at least 2 basic facts in mind; first, that the US has spent more time, money and effort on development assistance, humanitarian relief, educational investment and other forms of assistance, across the Middle East and North Africa -than any other country (and not just in Israel); and second that the Middle Easterners and North Africans are accustomed to and tolerate more human rights abuses than westerners like the posters here.

I don't think Pakistan (where Bhutto died) fits in the Middle East and its certainly not within North Africa.

[Matt W]

Good points, rmnunez...but the USA can't step away from the fact that they've supported a military dictator who overthrew a democracy.

It could well be argued that by doing so, they have provided a fertile breeding ground for that which they wished to prevent - extremism.