Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally

[tinybear]

Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally - Yahoo! News

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, aides said. The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and created fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

What a blow for Pakistan & the USA!!!

[Chancellor]

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

It was probably Musharaf or whatever his name is that was behind it.

[Matt W]

*shrugs* Could have been one of a hundred groups. Pakistan is the new Lebanon, it would appear...

[thx1138]

I think you should look at ISI.

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

If you are unaware of the ISI read this link..
Inter-Services Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main media will jump and say "Suspicion swirled around Islamic extremists" like CNN has done already, but who is supporting these groups. ISI through third party middle men support these "extremists" so there is no trace back to itself, but ask the question "Who benefits from the death of Benazir Bhutto?" the people that are in power now that is who... the ISI and Musharaf.


The follow is pure propaganda by the people who wanted her out of the way, I hope no one buys into this and the people of Pakistan really find who is to blam....

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said the killers were the same extremists his country has been battling. He vowed he would not rest until they are tracked down. President Bush blamed "murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy" and said authorities must bring them to justice. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also pointed to "extremist groups."

[GHook93]

Quote by: Matt W *shrugs* Could have been one of a hundred groups. Pakistan is the new Lebanon, it would appear...

Except that it had 169 million people (2nd largest Muslim population), a large country and oh yea stocked with nukes! Whose the threat, Syria, Iran or Pakistan?

[Prometheus]

Instability in that region is certainly dangerous to America, but not as dangerous as those who benefit politically from our fear would have us think.

Firstly - They DO have nukes, but the system of security which regulates their use was designed by the US, and is very good. The nukes are not stored in assembled condition - the pieces are stored in seperate locations known to only a few. The only group that could assemble a full nuke would be the legitimate government. An insurgency, takeover or rebellion couldn't pull it off. The danger of a full out nuke is low, though the danger of a dirty bomb can't be ruled out. The source on that is the pakistani guy interviewed on the Sean Hannity show and by Bill O'rielly today.

Secondly - Though Musharrov's method of governing is abhorrant to our western sensabilities and concept of justice, human rights etc, Musharrov may very well provide the greatest stability for Pakistan. Pakistan is not held together by law and legal authority like America. It is held together by the military. And Musharov holds together the military. He is 10 years senior anyone else in the army. There is a substantial radical muslim segment in the military, and only a skillful balance of segregation and appeasement keeps the military from a radical muslim takeover. This is a stability that an outside woman may or may not be able to acheive. Musharov is at lest marginally acceptable to the population at large. Bhuto is anathama (as a US educated woman) to a significant segment of the population. This assination may not be as destabilizing as it appears.

[Charon]

Bhutto sounded sincere, but she was afterall a politician, and educated both at Harvard and Oxford.

The destabilization of the nation would almost dictate that Musharraf declare Marshal Law according to Fox News, but I thought that upon Bhutto's return from self-exile he did that. But, our gov't urged him to lift that declaration, which led to her assasination? Is something askew here, or is this correct?

[thx1138]

Secondly - Though Musharrov's method of governing is abhorrant to our western sensabilities and concept of justice, human rights etc, Musharrov may very well provide the greatest stability for Pakistan. Pakistan is not held together by law and legal authority like America. It is held together by the military. And Musharov holds together the military. He is 10 years senior anyone else in the army. There is a substantial radical muslim segment in the military, and only a skillful balance of segregation and appeasement keeps the military from a radical muslim takeover. This is a stability that an outside woman may or may not be able to acheive. Musharov is at lest marginally acceptable to the population at large. Bhuto is anathama (as a US educated woman) to a significant segment of the population. This assination may not be as destabilizing as it appears.

This sounds a lot like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he also was "abhorrant to our western sensabilities" but Iraq was more stable with him than with out. I think al Qaeda is used by government powers like the ISI to keep Musharov in power, if not for the threat of al Qaeda the people of Pakistan who have voted the military back to it's proper place to support the elected leaders.

"if you don't support the military powers, then al qaeda will attack you..."
there is no way for the people to win.

ISI support for Al Qaeda...
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials. The intelligence service even used Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India, the Americans say. The intelligence service, known as Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I., also maintained direct links to guerrillas fighting in the disputed territory of Kashmir on Pakistan's border with India, the officials said.

or you can buy into the Fox and CNN spin rooms..
Officials: Al Qaeda claims responsibility for Bhutto killing - CNN.com

[Prometheus]

Quote by: thx1138 This sounds a lot like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he also was "abhorrant to our western sensabilities" but Iraq was more stable with him than with out.

Now here is a machiavellian idea for the bleeding hearts chew on. Maybe that type of barbarism is nescessary for keeping primitive countries in check. Is it possible that we as a more advanced society should let other nations not as far along alone so that they can develop to self government over time like european (american) government did?

[Chaossaber314]

I don't think there's enough evidence to point to anyone at this point. Given the region it really could be anyone as Matt brought up.

Women aren't exactly viewed well by fundamentalist Islam.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Prometheus Now here is a machiavellian idea for the bleeding hearts chew on. Maybe that type of barbarism is nescessary for keeping primitive countries in check. Is it possible that we as a more advanced society should let other nations not as far along alone so that they can develop to self government over time like european (american) government did?

Sounds nice if you're in one of the advanced societies, keep the "barbarian hordes" at bay behind the gates of the roman empire.

But what if it's the advanced societies that cause the other nations not to be able to develop true self governments?

Do you think if the Iraqi, Afghān, or Pakistani people were really allow to develop a truly democratic governments based on their wants, that those governments would be pro-west? Puppet barbarian leaders are in power of these countries because it is good for business.

[tanmoy408]

USA's foreign policy is solely responsible for the instabilities in countries like Pakistan, Afganistan and Irak. Musharraf, Saddam Hussain or Al Quaeda, who are now held responsible, all of them were, have been or are being backed by USA governments.

[thx1138]

Quote by: tanmoy408 USA's foreign policy is solely responsible for the instabilities in countries like Pakistan, Afganistan and Irak. Musharraf, Saddam Hussain or Al Quaeda, who are now held responsible, all of them were, have been or are being backed by USA governments.

I agree with your point, but what I would ask next is, "who is responsible for the U.S. foreign policy?". If you answer the people of the United States you get no points.

[tanmoy408]

definitely the citizens of USA are not responsible. its the government and officials who are responsible.

[GHook93]

Quote by: thx1138 This sounds a lot like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he also was "abhorrant to our western sensabilities" but Iraq was more stable with him than with out.

You know the funny think about Sadam was that he was an American butt-buddy up until the minute he invade Kuwait. If he never made that move we would still be in bed with him!

[GHook93]

Quote by: tanmoy408 USA's foreign policy is solely responsible for the instabilities in countries like Pakistan, Afganistan and Irak. Musharraf, Saddam Hussain or Al Quaeda, who are now held responsible, all of them were, have been or are being backed by USA governments.

Don't just blame it on us! Russia definitely had its hand in Afghanistan. Britian in Pakistan. India in Pakistan. Turkey (Ottoman Empire) in the Middle East - really the main culprit! And they also have to take a lot of the blame themselves!

[The Decider]

Quote by: tanmoy408 USA's foreign policy is solely responsible for the instabilities in countries like Pakistan, Afganistan and Irak. Musharraf, Saddam Hussain or Al Quaeda, who are now held responsible, all of them were, have been or are being backed by USA governments.

I'm certainly no apologist for George Bush, but to blame his government as the lone cause of instability in Pakistan is a gross over-simplification of reality. Other Western nations back Musharaf, as do key Middle Eastern governments. The Pakistani government is riddled with factions that fight each other on local and clan issues. The Pakistani-Indian feud keeps the military very busy in Kashmir region.

If anything, the Bhutto assasination exposes America's inability to control events. We urged Bhutto to make peace with Musharaf but that didn't happen. Instead she openly challenged him in the election. Musharaf probably killed her with the help of some faction.

[GHook93]

Main suspects are warlords and security forces - Times Online

(1) ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) - see above for explanations of motive.
(2) Baitullanl Mehsud - Al-Qaeda tied Warlord is the lawless region. Repeatedly threatened her, despising her for being secular, a reformer, as to westernized and for being a women.
(3) Haji Omar - The leader of the Pakistani Taliban. Ditto for Mehsid.
(4) Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden - Ditto for Mehsud and Omar.
(5) Musharraf - Saw her as a political rival and someone who could remove him from power. Although the article states he is an unlikely culprit.
(6) Pakistani Army independent from Musharraf - They would lose money and power, which is more than enough motive.
(7) Saudi Arabia - Saw her as way to secular and too westernized in a very important Arab/Muslim Country!

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Charon The destabilization of the nation would almost dictate that Musharraf declare Marshal Law according to Fox News, but I thought that upon Bhutto's return from self-exile he did that. But, our gov't urged him to lift that declaration, which led to her assasination? Is something askew here, or is this correct?

Yes, but don't go conspiracy on this, Charon. Musharaf and the U.S. had everything to lose by Bhutto's death, and the Taliban Waziris have been threatening -- and following through -- violent disruption of the upcoming elections if the Musharaf government didn't stop their campaign against the Taliban, which, because of pressure from the U.S., Musharaf can't possibly do.

An interesting list of suspects, GHook.

Quote by: GHook I'm certainly no apologist for George Bush, but to blame his government as the lone cause of instability in Pakistan is a gross over-simplification of reality. Other Western nations back Musharaf, as do key Middle Eastern governments.

Depends on how you look at it. Bush put Musharaf in very difficult position from the gitgo by pitting his regime against the Taliban, who a significant part of his people support.

One could argue that by failing to consilidate and stabilize Afghanistan, and totally defeat the Taliban, before running off to invade Iraq, Bush left Musharaf holding a potato that got hotter and hotter the longer the Taliban were allowed to fester and regroup in Afghanistan and Waziri Pakistan.

.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Yes, but don't go conspiracy on this, Charon. Musharaf and the U.S. had everything to lose by Bhutto's death, and the Taliban Waziris have been threatening -- and following through -- violent disruption of the upcoming elections if the Musharaf government didn't stop their campaign against the Taliban, which, because of pressure from the U.S., Musharaf can't possibly do.

It may be against the tenets of Islam to commit suicide, but people can and will pick and choose what they listen to.

But I wouldn't necessarily say the US government totally "loses." Maybe they don't want political assassinations running rampant, but in pure military-industrial terms the government benefits (expands) "by putting a stop" to such acts. That's one reason I generally am not in favor of assassinations (that and simple moral decency).

Obviously, the US is trying to portray Pakistan -- an ally -- as an "Anti Terrorist Unit" of sorts, and this assassination can be used to show why those billions must be spent. Also, Musharraf escaped an assassination attempt before, and he'll probably face one again. Presumably, this other attempt would be cited to explain further spending and intervention. As CNN says, there seems to be considerable focus on Pakistan now. Meanwhile, they're forgetting how Pakistan and India are bitter rivals, and how one conflict could possibly merge with another. Even more, Pakistan is another crazy country with nuclear wepaons, as CNN seems rather eager to point out (though American, Israeli or even Russian nukes are apparently not as big a deal).

Grandpa h.