Pakistan in Peril (incl. assassination of Benazir Bhutto)

[solvs]

Pakistan in Peril (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2806310.ece)

Pakistan Imposes Emergency Measures (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7048705,00.html)

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan's constitution and deployed troops in the capital Saturday, declaring that rising Islamic extremism had forced him to take emergency measures. He also replaced the chief justice and blacked out the independent media that refused to support him.

Authorities began rounding up opposition politicians, cut phone lines in Islamabad and took all but state television off air, defying calls from Washington and other Western allies not to take authoritarian measures.

Meanwhile, Pakistani Police Detain 500 Activists (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_as/pakistan)

Yet, U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05diplo.html?ex=1351918800&en=6c37d04a29653a76&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), but U.S. to Review Aid to Pakistan (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15939525).

[skunk]

It's OK, he's our sonofabitch.

[mactastic]

Funny thing is, it sure doesn't take long to round up a bunch of conservatives who'll wring their hands and wet their pants over Hugo Chavez and what a bad, evil man he is for usurping power and shutting down opposition dissent.

Yet nary a peep from these same people when the "elected" dictator of a nuclear-armed Pakistan does far, far worse.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

[skunk]

Funny thing is, it sure doesn't take long to round up a bunch of conservatives who'll wring their hands and wet their pants over Hugo Chavez and what a bad, evil man he is for usurping power and shutting down opposition dissent.Indeed, Chavez, who Cheney appears to think is the President of Peru, was the first name which came to mind.

[leekohler]

Did anyone not see this coming?

And remember, it's Iran that's going to attack us. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Did anyone not see this coming?

And remember, it's Iran that's going to attack us. :rolleyes:
Yeah, we're safe in downplaying the threat from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but watch out for Iran and Venezuala. They're both coming to get us, and threatening to wipe out civilization as we know it.

[mactastic]

Wonder how George Bush and other DC halfwits (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4055572&postcount=9) that have chummed with Musharref feel after hearing this news about their dictatorial friend.

Another dictatorship gone bad. Who could have predicted that?

[Thanatoast]

Another US-backed dictatorship gone bad. Who could have predicted that?

fixed it...

[xsedrinam]

Indeed, Chavez, who Cheney appears to think is the President of Peru, was the first name which came to mind.
I had not read that one, 'til tonight (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/02/cheney-hugo-chavez-is-the-president-of-peru/). I'll need to cease describing him as sinister since that implies intelligence albeit warped. He's a goose without a gandhi or mahatma. Sadly, so is Pakistani and neighboring leadership. Maybe George and Dick should go on a fast until they resolve the issue.

[MACDRIVE]

This might be a bit premature to ask, but those missiles can't reach the U.S. right?

[solvs]

This might be a bit premature to ask, but those missiles can't reach the U.S. right?

Not directly. But they could reach where our troops are currently stationed. And the reason we want to go after Iran is because they might one day in the far future have knowledge of nuclear related technologies. Like NK, Pakistan already has nukes. So we're perfectly safe from them, as are our allies. :confused: Oh, and Bin Laden being there is ok too for some reason.

Wonder where our conservative brethren are to tell us why this is ok. Or at least has nothing to do with the Bush administration. It's probably all Clinton's fault somehow. Either Clinton.

[it5five]

Paging resident right-wing apologist Swarmlord...

Your absence in this thread is absolutely hilarious and not at all surprising.

[solvs]

Paging resident right-wing apologist Swarmlord...

Your absence in this thread is absolutely hilarious and not at all surprising.

I already said it was somehow Clinton's fault, though I didn't back it up with anything at all, so what more do you need?

[solvs]

The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Fighting For Democracy Over There, In Lieu Of Having It Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/05/the-gift-that-keeps-on-gi_n_71267.html)

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

Dana Perino (WH Spokesperson): In our opinion, no.

That would be great, if not for the fact that she was talking about Pakistan.

[Swarmlord]

Paging resident right-wing apologist Swarmlord...

Your absence in this thread is absolutely hilarious and not at all surprising.

What does my ideology have to do with what's happening in Pakistan? As usual, your attempts to draw me into an argument over some imagined difference in opinion is what is hilarious.

You expect me to say that Mushareff is a saint? That there's anything worth salvaging in that entire cesspool of a country? (And yes, I've been there so I've seen it first hand).

We just have to work with the positives either way it plays out. If Mushareff crushes his opposition, then we can continue to use him as a strongarm in the region against terror. In exchange for not interferring, we can force him to take some active measures against the tribes protecting Bin Laden.

If the country falls apart and/or assassinates Mushareff, we wait and see whether pro democracy forces or Islamic radicals take over and act accordingly.

Either way this goes hand in hand with what I've said all along. This whole thing is going to sweep the entire Middle Eastern region until fanatic Islam either wins or loses.

[Thanatoast]

Either way this goes hand in hand with what I've said all along. This whole thing is going to sweep the entire Middle Eastern region until fanatic Islam either wins or loses.

I just wish we weren't so keen on helping fanatic Islam win.

To wit: unlikable arrogance, torturing prisoners, restricting civil liberties, spying on ourselves, starting wars and oh yeah, propping up military dictators who abuse their populations because they're on "our" side.

[Swarmlord]

I just wish we weren't so keen on helping fanatic Islam win.

To wit: unlikable arrogance, torturing prisoners, restricting civil liberties, spying on ourselves, starting wars and oh yeah, propping up military dictators who abuse their populations because they're on "our" side.

If only making them happy worked in our favor though. We can either be the bad guys or the suckers.

[solvs]

What does my ideology have to do with what's happening in Pakistan? As usual, your attempts to draw me into an argument over some imagined difference in opinion is what is hilarious.
You can't wait to comment on Chavez, even in threads that have nothing to do with him. This is your guy's buddy, we couldn't help but notice your absence and unusual silence. We're still giving them aid too BTW. Figured you'd want to complain about your tax dollars being wasted. Or is that only when we want to pay for sick kids' healthcare?

If Mushareff crushes his opposition, then we can continue to use him as a strongarm in the region against terror. In exchange for not interferring, we can force him to take some active measures against the tribes protecting Bin Laden.
He hasn't done any of that yet, why would he start now?

If only making them happy worked in our favor though. We can either be the bad guys or the suckers.
Or we can stop putting our noses in everything all the time, like supporting people like this.

[Macky-Mac]

Funny thing is, it sure doesn't take long to round up a bunch of conservatives who'll wring their hands and wet their pants over Hugo Chavez and what a bad, evil man he is for usurping power and shutting down opposition dissent.

Yet nary a peep from these same people when the "elected" dictator of a nuclear-armed Pakistan does far, far worse.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

well, you're easily shocked it seems......it's just an example of balance in nature.....you leftists get to defend Chavez and the conservatives get stuck with defending Musharraf

[solvs]

well, you're easily shocked it seems......it's just an example of balance in nature.....you leftists get to defend Chavez and the conservatives get stuck with defending Musharraf

I don't think anyone defended Chavez.

[xsedrinam]

I don't think anyone defended Chavez.
It's heating up to another crisis point there (Venezuela) as not only university students are protesting under threats, but yesterday Chavez called the alcaldes not to allow the students to protest.

And now today the former Minister of Defense, Baduel, the one who brought Chavez back to power after the coup, came out against the Reforma. He called the changes a "golpe de estado" a la constitucion and called his compañeros de armas to read the current constitution's declaration that military are to serve the pueblo and no political position.

[takao]

the difference is :
pakistan has as only muslim country nuclear bombs, is also highly unstable, a breeding ground and center for terrorist camps, also the government there has been getting billions military aid for years now

obviously totally the same like venezuela

[mactastic]

well, you're easily shocked it seems......it's just an example of balance in nature.....you leftists get to defend Chavez and the conservatives get stuck with defending Musharraf
I've never defended Chavez. I don't think he's anything to get too worked up about (ie he is not a significant threat to US interests, paticularly if handled properly), but I don't support his methods or ideology.

But considering (did you bother to follow the link I posted?) the harsh rhetoric reserved by some on these boards for those who suppress media outlets and detain political opponents, I would expect to see some outrage here.

And of course there isn't. It's seems like tacit approval to do the same things Chavez does when it's in pursuit of the GWOT.

[mactastic]

Funny that the lawyers are the ones leading the charge for change here...

[Swarmlord]

I don't think anyone defended Chavez.

Skunk just posted that Chavez was working miracles down there in the Chavez thread.

[mactastic]

Skunk just posted that Chavez was working miracles down there in the Chavez thread.
That hardly qualifies as a defense of Chavez.

Nice try.

[skunk]

"All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm"

with apologies to Paul Simon.

[solvs]

Skunk just posted that Chavez was working miracles down there in the Chavez thread.

I don't think that's what he meant.

[Blue Velvet]

Benezir Bhutto killed in suicide attack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7161590.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2232459,00.html

[clevin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?hp

election !=democracy, Rice needs to be realistic

[OllyW]

(additional link)

Confirmed dead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7161590.stm)

[OllyW]

AP quoted a PPP security adviser as saying she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, before the gunman blew himself up.

I doubt this is going to be the last bloodshed before the elections in January, if the elections even happen.

[twistedlegato]

This is exactly why we need this war:mad:

I have family that lives in Iran, and they are prosecuted daily just because they are Bahai's (religion). Muslim government rule has gone on long enough.

You guys might say, what about all the lives. You know what? We are going to lose lives. We will not have peace until this world is SO screwed up, that everyone finally realizes what the hell is wrong with this world.

I have a different point of view mostly because i have loved ones being harmed because of Muslim rule.

This war is needed more than ever now.

(Just nuclear free please:()

[skunk]

This is exactly why we need this war:mad:If, by "this war", you mean George's War On Truth, it really isn't helping any. It has created more instability, fostered more lies, caused more death and destruction, mistrust and misery than any other "foreign policy initiative" since Vietnam. An intelligent, honest and persuasive engagement would have been many times as useful for a fraction of the cost. The US and UK administrations have sought confrontation and achieved it through illegal aggression, propaganda and doing immoral deals with odious regimes. This mess will not be cured by War.

[obeygiant]

Well I guess someone really didn't want her be president of pakistan.

[Swarmlord]

Wow. Didn't take you guys long to convict Musharref for this. I didn't realize that they identified the perpetrators yet.

Guess we're not going to be so quick to pull out our troops from the region now.

[skunk]

Well I guess someone really didn't want her be president of pakistan.Elections are really a much better way to decide.

Wow. Didn't take you guys long to convict Musharref for this.What the hell are you talking about?

[Swarmlord]

What the hell are you talking about?

Posts # 2 and #3 of this very thread.

It's OK, he's our sonofabitch."

Oh, unless you were referring to Musharraf cracking down to restore some order. Wouldn't any leader in his position?


Yet nary a peep from these same people when the "elected" dictator of a nuclear-armed Pakistan does far, far worse.


Doesn't that imply that Musharraf is responsible? THAT'S what in the hell I'm talking about.

[skunk]

Posts # 2 and #3 of this very thread. Which date from well before this happened. Why don't "you guys" learn to read?

[Shacklebolt]

Former Prime Minister of Pakinstan, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated early this morning, EST, after departing from a rally, in the wake of a suicide bombing. She was apparently shot at close range in the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing that killed at least a dozen others, but details are still emerging. If anyone learns more, or has any other reaction, of course, feel free to post.

[Swarmlord]

Which date from well before this happened. Why don't "you guys" learn to read?

I didn't notice the dates. Sorry about that. It is ironic though given today's circumstances. I've been hearing the implication on the radio already though and I didn't notice that this thread was actually an earlier one resurrected.

Don't let it be said I didn't admit a mistake.

[skunk]

However, Musharraf's crackdown doesn't seem to have enhanced security much, does it?

[Swarmlord]

Elections are really a much better way to decide.

True. I don't understand who would really see her such a threat that they thought that assassination was the only answer.

Whatever that means, I'll agree. :)

Fixed. Fingers aren't working properly. :)

<snip>
However, Musharraf's crackdown doesn't seem to have enhanced security much, does it?

No it doesn't. I have a feeling there are more than two factions involved here. I'm anxious to hear who claims responsibility for this and what their motivation was. Musharraf's supporters may very well be behind this, but if I were Musharraf I'd be as worried about my supporters as I was about my enemies.

[obeygiant]

Is anyone here familiar with her politics? I know she was the opposition to Musharraf but other than that i have no idea. Did she even have a chance to win the election in january?

[skunk]

Is anyone here familiar with her politics? I know she was the opposition to Musharraf but other than that i have no idea. Did she even have a chance to win the election in january?Her party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party, was much the largest in Pakistan, so she must have stood a good chance, although Pakistani politics are pretty much clan-based, so the actual political positions are sometimes difficult to see.

[twistedlegato]

If, by "this war", you mean George's War On Truth, it really isn't helping any. It has created more instability, fostered more lies, caused more death and destruction, mistrust and misery than any other "foreign policy initiative" since Vietnam. An intelligent, honest and persuasive engagement would have been many times as useful for a fraction of the cost. The US and UK administrations have sought confrontation and achieved it through illegal aggression, propaganda and doing immoral deals with odious regimes. This mess will not be cured by War.

Then what will it be sured by? The people out there, as much as we wish they would, arent going to care if you speak nicely to them. No. They want us dead. This world is already messed up, lets just mess it up some more.

You know. What is wrong with humans. What's with the obsession of killing other humans? Why cant we be peaceful like animals? Its ignorance. And religion.

One religion think they are right, the other think they are right. But through our ignorance, we fight to show which one is better. Which is not needed. Religion is all about peace, and getting together.

So, we need this war in a way to bring peace.

[clevin]

Then what will it be sured by? The people out there, as much as we wish they would, arent going to care if you speak nicely to them. No. They want us dead. This world is already messed up, lets just mess it up some more.

You know. What is wrong with humans. What's with the obsession of killing other humans? Why cant we be peaceful like animals? Its ignorance. And religion.

One religion think they are right, the other think they are right. But through our ignorance, we fight to show which one is better. Which is not needed. Religion is all about peace, and getting together.

So, we need this war in a way to bring peace.
well, I felt you are very depressed!

everybody convert to Buddhism. :)

if human can be as perfect as we want, we are not human anymore.

[twistedlegato]

well, I felt you are very depressed!

everybody convert to Buddhism. :)

if human can be as perfect as we want, we are not human anymore.

Have you ever read into the Bahai Faith? (http://www.bahai.org/)

That is my religion, and we have some pretty good views (do not think my religion is for the war, that is MY opinion!)

[obeygiant]

Musharraf may have to implement emergency powers again to keep the country from freaking out.

[clevin]

Have you ever read into the Bahai Faith? (http://www.bahai.org/)

That is my religion, and we have some pretty good views (do not think my religion is for the war, that is MY opinion!)

no, but to be honest, do you really think Christians think their religion is for war (which apparently is)? Judaism? Islams? Hinduism?

religion itself blinds people, like you rightfully indicated.

[miloblithe]

No it doesn't. I have a feeling there are more than two factions involved here. I'm anxious to hear who claims responsibility for this and what their motivation was. Musharraf's supporters may very well be behind this, but if I were Musharraf I'd be as worried about my supporters as I was about my enemies.

I think you're right that there's more than two factions. Indeed it will be interesting to see what details emerge. But it seems Bhutto's supporters were quick to blame Musharraf. To some degree, they have a point. There should have been more government provided security. On the other hand, clearly the government has only so much capacity to provide security there. What's the population to police/military ratio in Pakistan?

[leekohler]

Any way you slice this- it comes up bad. It's gonna get scarier over there.

[Swarmlord]

I think you're right that there's more than two factions. Indeed it will be interesting to see what details emerge. But it seems Bhutto's supporters were quick to blame Musharraf. To some degree, they have a point. There should have been more government provided security. On the other hand, clearly the government has only so much capacity to provide security there. What's the population to police/military ratio in Pakistan?

It's really starting to stink now that some of the facts are coming out. Supposedly, everyone was run through a metal scanner and despite the security someone got both a gun and a bomb close enough to kill her.

Although there's a lot of military and police in cities like Islamabad, there's a lot of population that were supporters of Bhutto where police concentration is not very high.

I frankly don't see any upside to this from Musharraf's perspective and can't help but think that a third party is trying to set something in motion that will pit pro and anti Musharraf's supporters against each other. Merely speculation on my part mind you, but that's what my gut is telling me.

[Peace]

Don't jump to conclusions on this too fast. Afterall she did leave the country amid corruption charges.I'm not trying to put value judgements on anyone but I'd say the whole country is corrupt no matter who is running it.


CNN has a very good article written by Bhutto :

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto/index.html?iref=topnews

[skunk]

The people out there, as much as we wish they would, arent going to care if you speak nicely to them. No. They want us dead.No, "they" do not want "us" dead. I'm sure "they" would be a lot happier if our leaders were not enabling their leaders to stay in power, if our troops were not occupying their lands, and if there was less talk of "crusades". Most Muslims have as little interest in an ongoing war as "we" do. Unfortunately, our leaders and our corporations believe that they can secure their positions by securing the raw materials of the world, and if this means doing deals with - or even establishing in power - the most odious and repressive regimes, so be it.

Religion is all about peace, and getting together.Religion is not about peace, it's about identity.

[IJ Reilly]

Any way you slice this- it comes up bad. It's gonna get scarier over there.

That about says it. No matter who is responsible, this event will give Musharraf yet another excuse to suspend rule of law and remain in power. A very sad day for Pakistan.

[mrkramer]

I frankly don't see any upside to this from Musharraf's perspective and can't help but think that a third party is trying to set something in motion that will pit pro and anti Musharraf's supporters against each other. Merely speculation on my part mind you, but that's what my gut is telling me.

I could see an upside to this from his position, it just makes it much easier for him to have an excuse to declare another state of emergency and suspend their constitution again.

[skunk]

I could see an upside to this from his position, it just makes it much easier for him to have an excuse to declare another state of emergency and suspend their constitution again.Then he'll have to suffer another lecture on political morality from John "Death Squad" Negroponte. Is that really an upside?

[mrkramer]

Then he'll have to suffer another lecture on political morality from John "Death Squad" Negroponte. Is that really an upside?

He also could ignore it this time, since I would assume he knows that are millitary is to far stretched to carry out any threats we make to him. And it would keep him in power which would be an upside to him.

[Peace]

He also could ignore it this time, since I would assume he knows that are millitary is to far stretched to carry out any threats we make to him. And it would keep him in power which would be an upside to him.

It also helps GW's standing on his "war against terror".

[JW8725]

Just waiting for the Americans to pin this one on Osama and then on Sadam Hussain somehow? :rolleyes:

[Swarmlord]

I could see an upside to this from his position, it just makes it much easier for him to have an excuse to declare another state of emergency and suspend their constitution again.

Snuffing a rival in this way and subjecting the entire country to the upheaval that is inevitable afterwards certainly doesn't seem like much of an upside to me. He's had a bullseye on his back for some time too and the unrest isn't going to help that.

[Swarmlord]

Just waiting for the Americans to pin this one on Osama and then on Sadam Hussain somehow? :rolleyes:

There's far more terrorist organizations than just those run by those two.

[JW8725]

There's far more terrorist organizations than just those run by those two.

Theres 3 there not 2.:p

[IJ Reilly]

I could see an upside to this from his position, it just makes it much easier for him to have an excuse to declare another state of emergency and suspend their constitution again.

I don't believe the previous state of emergency was ever lifted, so it doesn't need to be re-imposed, and the constitution was never restored, so I suppose it can't be suspended again. No, unless the country breaks out into open revolution, Musharraf's hand is very much strengthened by this event.

[Swarmlord]

I don't believe the previous state of emergency was ever lifted, so it doesn't need to be re-imposed, and the constitution was never restored, so I suppose it can't be suspended again. No, unless the country breaks out into open revolution, Musharraf's hand is very much strengthened by this event.

And the risk of that is very high. Whoever did this couldn't have pushed a hotter button to get a civil war started.

[Eraserhead]

There's far more terrorist organizations than just those run by those two.

Saddam never ran any terrorist organisations, those came later.

[Swarmlord]

Saddam never ran any terrorist organisations, those came later.

He terrorized the Kurds and others within his country. He had his death squads and other organizations that fit the definition as far as I'm concerned.

[Eraserhead]

He terrorized the Kurds and others within his country.

Not after we stopped supporting his regime.

[IJ Reilly]

No, "they" do not want "us" dead. I'm sure "they" would be a lot happier if our leaders were not enabling their leaders to stay in power, if our troops were not occupying their lands, and if there was less talk of "crusades". Most Muslims have as little interest in an ongoing war as "we" do.

Most Muslims aren't radical, so your statement is essentially a tautology. I think I understand a bit about the political situation in Pakistan. Unlike many Muslim countries, Pakistan has a significant, essentially secular, center which to an extent was represented by Bhutto. Ironically the radical Muslim elements in Pakistan and Musharraf have an interest in common, which is preventing real democracy from taking hold. I don't believe as you do that all of this is somehow the making of foreign powers -- it's got a whole lot more to do with Pakistan's internal issues, which are tectonic.

[JW8725]

unseen footage here:

http://www.jang.com.pk/

Aparently she was shot at before the bomb blast. WTF? :eek:

[Swarmlord]

Not after we stopped supporting his regime.

He sat on this thumbs between Gulf War I and II? Udah and Kusay were just getting into their groove about then. There are mass graves from that period too.

[skunk]

He terrorized the Kurds and others within his country. He had his death squads and other organizations that fit the definition as far as I'm concerned.Oh come on, if that's all it takes, then the US, Russia, Serbia, Egypt, Turkey and several other states in Asia, Africa and Central/South America would qualify - mostly supported by the US.

[skunk]

Most Muslims aren't radical, so your statement is essentially a tautology.Which statement? The one in which I used quotation marks to signify the feebleness of the characterisation, or another one?I don't believe as you do that all of this is somehow the making of foreign powers -- it's got a whole lot more to do with Pakistan's internal issues, which are tectonic.All of what? You seem to be conflating posts here. I have not claimed that Pakistan's situation is the making of foreign powers, although Western support for Musharraf is certainly not helping the cause of democracy. Anyway, if democracy does "take hold" again in Pakistan, I doubt it wold be in a form recognisable as such over here.

[IJ Reilly]

Which statement? The one in which I used quotation marks to signify the feebleness of the characterisation, or another one?All of what? You seem to be conflating posts here. I have not claimed that Pakistan's situation is the making of foreign powers, although Western support for Musharraf is certainly not helping the cause of democracy. Anyway, if democracy does "take hold" again in Pakistan, I doubt it wold be in a form recognisable as such over here.

Maybe, but it seemed you were blaming the situation at least in some way on outside forces. You did say that we were enabling foreign leaders to stay in power. Not sure what you're driving at, in the case of Musharraf in any event. I don't see where the West has a great deal of influence on political events within Pakistan. I agree that democracy in Pakistan would not necessarily follow a Western model, but then, I never said it would. I think we can agree that a military dictatorship and martial law certainly doesn't qualify under any definition.

[Macky-Mac]

Just waiting for the Americans to pin this one on Osama and then on Sadam Hussain somehow? :rolleyes:

well, YOUR BBC is saying "Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it." so you're blaming it on them first :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

well, YOUR BBC is saying "Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it." so you're blaming it on them first :rolleyes:

Saddam doesn't have any militants (he's dead after all), and Bin Ladin isn't the only muslim militant in the world.

[mrkramer]

I don't believe the previous state of emergency was ever lifted, so it doesn't need to be re-imposed, and the constitution was never restored, so I suppose it can't be suspended again. No, unless the country breaks out into open revolution, Musharraf's hand is very much strengthened by this event.

I thought it had or at least he said he was planning to lift it soon.:o

[Naimfan]

All I can say is this: God help the Pakistanis. And Benazir Bhutto: May you rest in peace.

[Macky-Mac]

Saddam doesn't have any militants (he's dead after all), and Bin Ladin isn't the only muslim militant in the world.

nevertheless, you guys are the first to blame it on muslim militants :rolleyes:

[Peace]

nevertheless, you guys are the first to blame it on muslim militants :rolleyes:

Whoever did this is more than likely Muslim and by the action I'd say militant also.So your statement is moot. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Saddam doesn't have any militants (he's dead after all), and Bin Ladin isn't the only muslim militant in the world.

I am certainly losing the drift of this thread.

The main point to be made here is that Musharraf and the Muslim radicals in Pakistan have one important goal in common, which is subverting democracy and rule of law. Bhutto was subjected to assassination attempts by Islamic radicals from the day she returned to Pakistan. Musharraf had no incentive to protect her from these threats to her life.

[bartelby]

nevertheless, you guys are the first to blame it on muslim militants :rolleyes:

No, the BBC are reporting that analysts believe it to be Muslim Militants.
They're saying someone else is blaming the Militants...

[OllyW]

I could see an upside to this from his position, it just makes it much easier for him to have an excuse to declare another state of emergency and suspend their constitution again.

I don't believe the previous state of emergency was ever lifted, so it doesn't need to be re-imposed, and the constitution was never restored, so I suppose it can't be suspended again. No, unless the country breaks out into open revolution, Musharraf's hand is very much strengthened by this event.

I thought it had or at least he said he was planning to lift it soon.:o

The state of emergency was lifted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7145629.stm) earlier this month.

[Macky-Mac]

No, the BBC are reporting that analysts believe it to be Muslim Militants.
They're saying someone else is blaming the Militants...

yes, that's exactly as I said in post #76 above

[bartelby]

yes, that's exactly as I said in post #76 above

That's not what you said at all.

You said:
so you're blaming it on them first :rolleyes:

Which isn't what I said.

[Peace]

Since we're all being arm-chair politicos here..


George Bush and Pervez Musharraf had her assassinated.

[Macky-Mac]

That's not what you said at all.....

oh yes I did;

well, YOUR BBC is saying "Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it." so you're blaming it on them first :rolleyes:

[obeygiant]

No, the BBC are reporting that analysts believe it to be Muslim Militants.
They're saying someone else is blaming the Militants...

Well from what I'm gathering here is that Bhutto was the face of secular rule in pakistan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So those who would assassinate her certainly would be those who opposed secular rule. Aren't religious extremists the ones who oppose secular government?

[Swarmlord]

Well from what I'm gathering here is that Bhutto was the face of secular rule in pakistan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So those who would assassinate her certainly would be those who opposed secular rule. Aren't religious extremists the ones who oppose secular government?

I think that whoever did this sees Musharraf and Bhutto as two sides of the same coin when it comes to government. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall to watch Musharraf as he deals with this crisis? I don't think he's going to be in a hurry to make any speeches out in public real soon.

[Macky-Mac]

Well from what I'm gathering here is that Bhutto was the face of secular rule in pakistan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So those who would assassinate her certainly would be those who opposed secular rule. Aren't religious extremists the ones who oppose secular government?

The situation is more complex than that. On the secular side, in addition to Musharraf and Bhutto, there's Sharif and also the followers of General Zia (who overthrew Bhutto's father back in the late 1970s). Bhutto and Sharif contended with each other for power through much of the 1990s and both were thrown out of office for corruption several times and then went into exile. Bhutto was appointed prime minister after General Zia died in plane crash that is suspected to have been more than an accident and his followers have always suspected that Bhutto was involved in some plot to avenge her father's death. Both Bhutto and Sharif went into exile after Musharraf's coup but both had recently returned in anticipation the upcoming elections.

So, there's quite a cast of potential suspects in addition to the Islamic militants.

[Peace]

Sharif just said he would boycott the election and Musharraf just said he was considering putting them on hold.

[JW8725]

well, YOUR BBC is saying "Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it." so you're blaming it on them first :rolleyes:

Well she shunted a power sharing deal with Musharraf, which was backed by the USA. So it wouldn't surprise me if the AMERICANS had her popped off.

Certainly Bush almost ran away from the microphone after he gave his comments on her death. Guilty conscience?

[obeygiant]

Well she shunted a power sharing deal with Musharraf, which was backed by the USA. So it wouldn't surprise me if the AMERICANS had her popped off.

Certainly Bush almost ran away from the microphone after he gave his comments on her death. Guilty conscience?

Thats a little weird, man. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? :)

[Swarmlord]

Thats a little weird, man. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? :)

Of course not. The tin foil hat crowd never do. Watching a little too much 24 or X Files evidently.

There's only one group of people that benefits from the chaos this was designed to create and it isn't the Western world.

[skunk]

The main point to be made here is that Musharraf and the Muslim radicals in Pakistan have one important goal in common, which is subverting democracy and rule of law. Bhutto was subjected to assassination attempts by Islamic radicals from the day she returned to Pakistan. Musharraf had no incentive to protect her from these threats to her life.I think you have it here. There are plenty of other players, too, but essentially a Bhutto victory would have been one in the eye for both Musharraf and the Islamists.

[Peace]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

wolf blitzer just said he got an email from Bhutto 2 months ago telling him to disclose to the world who she thinks is responsible in case she was assasinated.

She said Mursharaf was responsible.

[skunk]

wolf blitzer just said he got an email from Bhutto 2 months ago telling him to disclose to the world who she thinks is responsible in case she was assasinated.

She said Mursharaf was responsible.I really doubt that he is.

[Peterkro]

Whoever killed her it was almost certainly with the connivance of the particularly slimy Pakistani intelligence services, Islamabad being a garrison town and all.

[skunk]

Whoever killed her it was almost certainly with the connivance of the particularly slimy Pakistani intelligence services, Islamabad being a garrison town and all.Actually, it was in Rawalpindi, which is a garrison town, unlike Islamabad... :)
Indeed, the ISI are a particularly unpleasant outfit.

[Peterkro]

Actually, it was in Rawalpindi, which is a garrison town, unlike Islamabad... :)
Indeed, the ISI are a particularly unpleasant outfit.

I think I'm getting some sort of early onset dementia as I looked that up and still got the wrong place but what concerns me more is I appear to have developed some sort of UScentric way of expressing myself.:D

[skunk]

Welcome back, anyway. :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

nevertheless, you guys are the first to blame it on muslim militants :rolleyes:True, we do have a muslim dictator running that country dont we? It is a sad day for Pakistan.

[solvs]

That about says it. No matter who is responsible, this event will give Musharraf yet another excuse to suspend rule of law and remain in power. A very sad day for Pakistan.
That was my first thought as well.

George Bush and Pervez Musharraf had her assassinated.
I know you're partially kidding, but still, I doubt it. This is going to be a point of contention no matter what Musharraf does, and it's a big black eye for Bush at a time he really doesn't need another one. It's pretty much a lose-lose for everyone involved, which I kinda think was the point.

[themadchemist]

I haven't posted on this forum in a long time--years. But I thought I'd chime in because the political discussion here has always interesting and this issue is quite worthy of remark.

I know that the standard liberal line right now is to blame Musharraf (I'm liberal, too, I get the memos :-p). But I really don't think he was behind this, despite Bhutto's prognostications.

In essence, I think that while Musharraf was not displeased with these attacks, he was not behind them, either.

First, it's not his MO. He doesn't really have a track record of high profile assassinations. While ul-Haq had Benazir Bhutto's father executed post-coup, Musharraf did nothing of the sort to Nawaz Sharif. This does not mean that Musharraf is not oppressive, but on the scale of Pakistani politics, he weighs in as a relatively moderate military dictator. Until this summer, he allowed considerable public opposition. There have always been inklings of liberal structures in Pakistan (thanks to a shared heritage with India, I think, and a freedom movement born of sustained democratic ideals by secular liberals) and Musharraf has done, until late, remarkably little to suppress them.

Did Musharraf fail to protect Bhutto adequately? I think that is probably the case. Bhutto lists in her letter a number of things, including tinted windowed vehicles, police jammers, and increased police escorts, which she had been denied. (On the last point--I somehow doubt she would have trusted police escorts when she felt Musharraf was out to off her.) But the Pakistani ambassador to the US rightly pointed out today that none of the measures described in her letter would have protected her from the circumstances of her assassination.

On the point of Musharraf failing to deliver on responsibilities adequately...This has been a topic of some conversation here in the United States as well. I think Congress misjudges the political landscape of South Asia when it makes these contentions. While Mushie certainly hasn't done enough, expecting him to clean up the Northwest region of Pakistan is a little silly. When in recent memory has that piece of land ever been controlled by a national government? Pakistan, for sure, has never been able to exert real authority over it, or wrest power from the local extra-governmental officials actually in charge. Where Musharraf has been at least moderately successful, I think, has been in getting the Inter-Service Intelligence agency (the Pakistani version of the CIA) to clean up its act a bit. I think, though correct if I'm wrong, that those folks have been sponsoring less terrorism than in the past. That's an accomplishment, if you ask me.

American Cold War blinders, which make us interpret a history of loyal alliance from Pakistan, are getting us confused. Pakistan was a heavy state sponsor of terrorism. They held up the Taliban and they sponsored countless cross-border terrorist actions in Indian-controlled Kashmir. That Musharraf has decreased Pakistan's behavior as a terrorist state is a testament to progress.

To all those who want us to alienate him *now*, I have this question: Who else? Bhutto is gone, and despite her family's notorious reputation of corruption, she would probably have been the strongest counter-balance to Musharraf in an adversarial co-government united against extremism. Who is left? Nawaz Sharif, a right winger who lost power to Musharraf by getting a bit freaked out and alienating the extremists without consolidating a secular base of support? Imran Khan, a hunky cricket star? There is no one there with the ability to govern and the commitment to a quasi-moderate government besides Musharraf.

Musharraf has a direct interest to keep extremism at bey. Is he ideal? By no means. Is he good for the Pakistani people? No, but likely better than the alternatives. He did squander a wonderful opportunity to move the country towards democracy by derailing the Supreme Court this Fall (after a remarkable show of grace this summer). He will likely tighten the bolts against his opposition even more than he has done in the past, as he lines his pockets with power and money like all those before him. But he will fight the fundamentalists because they want his head.

I would have liked to see Bhutto as Prime Minister. In government, two crooks are better than one, because they will keep each other in check. She was a brilliant, charismatic woman who was committed to liberalization, only not at the expense of her own power and wealth. We all have our weaknesses, and she had hers. Musharraf has his, as well. To expect perfection in Pakistani leadership at this point is fanciful, and to cast away what we have in the faint hope of something better is foolish.

With Musharraf, we will see extensions of emergency rule, strong limits on opposition, and militarism. But we will also see opposition protests, flashes of free press, and a check on Islamic fundamentalism. Without Musharraf, the right wing will take over this country and not only destabilize Pakistan, but all of South Asia.

[hulugu]

It's really starting to stink now that some of the facts are coming out. Supposedly, everyone was run through a metal scanner and despite the security someone got both a gun and a bomb close enough to kill her.

Although there's a lot of military and police in cities like Islamabad, there's a lot of population that were supporters of Bhutto where police concentration is not very high.

I frankly don't see any upside to this from Musharraf's perspective and can't help but think that a third party is trying to set something in motion that will pit pro and anti Musharraf's supporters against each other. Merely speculation on my part mind you, but that's what my gut is telling me.

I have to agree, the Al Qaeda groups operating in Waziristan have everything to gain by assassinating Bhutto. Creating instability gives them a power vacuum to fill, and implicating Musharraf just makes the downfall of the Pakistani government that much easier.

[ezekielrage_99]

This whole thing is going to sweep the entire Middle Eastern region until fanatic Islam either wins or loses.

The sad thing is that you're right, you can't reason with crazy....

[IJ Reilly]

I have to agree, the Al Qaeda groups operating in Waziristan have everything to gain by assassinating Bhutto. Creating instability gives them a power vacuum to fill, and implicating Musharraf just makes the downfall of the Pakistani government that much easier.

This theory can't explain why Musharraf had been unresponsive to many of Bhutto's requests for better security, or why previous attempts on her life have gone virtually without investigation. The sad reality is that radical Islamic elements are burrowed deep with the Musharraf regime, and that he's maintained a sort of informal compact with Islamic militants. He pretty much leaves them alone. Bhutto had pledged to take a harder line against the militants in the tribal areas. They've wanted her dead all along for this and other reasons. For his part, Musharraf either lacked the will, the ability or the interest in protecting her.

[Cleverboy]

Definitely a sad time. I just read this though.
It's very strange to watch the news morph over time.

Bhutto died after hitting sun roof
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/index.html?eref=rss_world
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Benazir Bhutto died as a result of a fractured skull after hitting her head on part of her car's sun roof, not as a result of a bullet or bomb shrapnel, a spokesman for Pakistan's Interior Ministry said Friday.

Nothing entered the opposition leader's head, the spokesman said.

Earlier, the ministry said in a report carried by the state-run news agency Associated Press of Pakistan that she was killed by shrapnel from the suicide bomb that was detonated as she stood up through the sun roof while being driven away from a political rally.

The blast killed at least 28 more people and at least 100 were wounded.

And it was initially reported on Thursday that the two-time former prime minister had died due to prior gun shots fired by the bomber.

The Interior Ministry also revealed Friday that it had proof showing that al Qaeda was behind Bhutto's assassination.

[skunk]

In other words, it wasn't an assassination at all. How weird!

[pseudobrit]

My ******** detector goes off for that one. Do you know how ****ing hard you have to slam your head into something to fracture your skull, let alone fatally? Maybe maybe with a fall it could have happened, but to "duck" yourself to death? I don't think so.

[miloblithe]

I, for one, am willing to take the Interior Ministry of Pakistan entirely at it's word. After all, what possible motivation could they have for lying about it? If only we'd realized that Bhutto was some kind of cowardly, head-bonking buffoon earlier, we wouldn't have wasted any time with her.

[themadchemist]

My ******** detector goes off for that one. Do you know how ****ing hard you have to slam your head into something to fracture your skull, let alone fatally? Maybe maybe with a fall it could have happened, but to "duck" yourself to death? I don't think so.

Haha, yeah, it seems highly unlikely to me, too. CNN is reporting that the Pakistani government has a tendency to change the details of assassinations, and one has to wonder why.

To propose a theory in complete contradiction of my post above...

Yesterday they said she was shot with a pistol, right? Hitting someone in the head and neck with a pistol in a crowd seems pretty tough...Seems like you'd have to have some training...Seems like you'd maybe have to be in the military.

So that manner of death seems to cast doubt on the military, and whether that is true or not, it is probably a suspicion that the government would like to avoid. That could be one reason to make up this story, if it is in fact false. This news has been released in conjunction with a declaration that the Interior Ministry has evidence of al-Qaeda involvement, an interesting juxtaposition, indeed.

I still don't think Musharraf was behind this. BUT if it turns out that it was a low-level military person (I've been reading that these sorts of assassinations in Pakistan seem to be the province of low-level military folks), Musharraf might *still* have a reason to lie about it. He's taken off his uniform, which puts him in a little less secure position with the military and remember, it is loyalty from the military that keeps him in power. If he were to do an investigation that turned up a military person, ESPECIALLY if it was not an isolated incident but one with general support amongst higher ranking officials, then he could risk having the military turn on him. That would destabilize the country further and might lead to his ouster.

But then, this is all pure speculation. I still think it is more likely that fundamentalist terrorist groups were behind this, but I wouldn't rule anything out.

[hulugu]

This theory can't explain why Musharraf had been unresponsive to many of Bhutto's requests for better security, or why previous attempts on her life have gone virtually without investigation. The sad reality is that radical Islamic elements are burrowed deep with the Musharraf regime, and that he's maintained a sort of informal compact with Islamic militants. He pretty much leaves them alone. Bhutto had pledged to take a harder line against the militants in the tribal areas. They've wanted her dead all along for this and other reasons. For his part, Musharraf either lacked the will, the ability or the interest in protecting her.

While Musharraf may have been ambivalent about protecting Bhutto, he had little to gain from her death. While she may have forced him into some kind of power-sharing agreement, Musharraf still would have had some control of his destiny with Bhutto. However, the fundamentalist elements with the ISI and outside gain power with chaos.
This doesn't mean that Musharraf wasn't culpable in some way for trying to straddle the gulf between protecting her or letting the fundamentalists kill her, but in the examination of who has the strongest motive, I'd lay this particular act at the feet of fundamentalists inside the ISI.

[Swarmlord]

My ******** detector goes off for that one. Do you know how ****ing hard you have to slam your head into something to fracture your skull, let alone fatally? Maybe maybe with a fall it could have happened, but to "duck" yourself to death? I don't think so.

I thought exactly the same thing when I heard the "revised" report. If our heads were that fragile, most of us would have been dead a long time ago.

I think that someone doesn't want to produce the bullet or shrapnel involved for whatever reason and this sounded like a plausible substitute story that the locals might buy into.

[Much Ado]

I think that someone doesn't want to produce the bullet or shrapnel involved for whatever reason and this sounded like a plausible substitute story that the locals might buy into.

It doesn't even need to be plausible, people will still buy it.

[hulugu]

I, for one, am willing to take the Interior Ministry of Pakistan entirely at it's word. After all, what possible motivation could they have for lying about it? If only we'd realized that Bhutto was some kind of cowardly, head-bonking buffoon earlier, we wouldn't have wasted any time with her.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Or the skull on the car door.

They're trying to make her death less tragic, hoping to mitigate the martyrdom that is going to form around Bhutto.

[Peace]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

I, for one, am willing to take the Interior Ministry of Pakistan entirely at it's word. After all, what possible motivation could they have for lying about it? If only we'd realized that Bhutto was some kind of cowardly, head-bonking buffoon earlier, we wouldn't have wasted any time with her.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Or the skull on the car door.

They're trying to make her death less tragic, hoping to mitigate the martyrdom that is going to form around Bhutto.

They're actually trying to make it out not to be an assasination

[IJ Reilly]

They're actually trying to make it out not to be an assasination

I don't get that. All the report says is that the cause of death was not a bullet or shrapnel wound. I haven't seen any claims that she was not shot at or no bomb exploded.

[Eric Piercey]

I thought exactly the same thing when I heard the "revised" report. If our heads were that fragile, most of us would have been dead a long time ago.

I think that someone doesn't want to produce the bullet or shrapnel involved for whatever reason and this sounded like a plausible substitute story that the locals might buy into.

Agreed on sketchiness of the fatal head injury, but who would the story benefit? Even if true, she is dead because of the assassination attempt. It makes the action itself no less condemning. I can't imagine people just saying, "oh okay, 99% of accidents do happen at home- lets move on."

It would be interesting to hear the stories of any loyal immediate staff present that were with her throughout the entire event, including the medical attention and subsequent autopsy. It sounds like someone (either in on the plot or not, but who still wanted her gone) gave her an extra whack during all the confusion to be sure -if indeed that was the DCoD.

[Swarmlord]

Agreed on sketchiness of the fatal head injury, but who would the story benefit? Even if true, she is dead because of the assassination attempt. It makes the action itself no less condemning. I can't imagine people just saying, "oh okay, 99% of accidents do happen at home- lets move on."

It would be interesting to hear the stories of any loyal immediate staff present that were with her throughout the entire event, including the medical attention and subsequent autopsy. It sounds like someone (either in on the plot or not, but who still wanted her gone) gave her an extra whack during all the confusion to be sure -if indeed that was the DCoD.

I can only imagine that such a story would deflect blame from either Al Qaida or the folks responsible for security at the event.

I know it's muslim tradition/law to bury someone quickly, but I think they sure were a little hasty boxing her up if there's this much of a discrepancy on the cause of death. It don't take a forensic pathologist to figure out whether a wound was from a bump on the head or a shrapnel/bullet wound.:mad:

[themadchemist]

I can only imagine that such a story would deflect blame from either Al Qaida or the folks responsible for security at the event.

I know it's muslim tradition/law to bury someone quickly, but I think they sure were a little hasty boxing her up if there's this much of a discrepancy on the cause of death. It don't take a forensic pathologist to figure out whether a wound was from a bump on the head or a shrapnel/bullet wound.:mad:

I'm sure they know what's what. In those 35 minutes they were trying to revive her, I'm guessing the doctors managed to figure out what exactly was stuck in her. As the old saying goes, you can't awaken someone who is pretending to sleep.

[obeygiant]

a short blurb on youtube about the assassination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr4ACKgcOYw

at 1:05 is the last picture before the attack. I doubt if extra security would have made any difference.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/bhutto.photographer/index.html) is the account from the photographer who took the pictures via cnn.


There will always be conspiracy theories about assassinations. Here is the sunroof theory.
benazir got killed by the sunroof handle of her car. the bullets missed. they showed the wounds and there are no bullet shots. the effect of the bomb blast sent her flying backwards and then she hit her head against the cars sunroof handle. her head was then smashed in and her skull was smashed.

[Cleverboy]

The story is very touchy. I'm watching that CNN story (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4665272&postcount=109) get renamed a few times.

First title I saw:
"Bhutto died after hitting sun roof"

The RSS feed now reads:
"Sunroof blamed for Bhutto's death"

Now the story title reads:
"Pakistan: Fractured skull killed Bhutto"

I feel sorry for anyone suffering the direct affects/aftermath of these events firsthand, whether its her family, friends, or the people of Pakistan. It seems clear she didn't bounce her own head against the sun roof. There were mitigating factors at play. She was clearly killed by external forces.

~ CB

[Naimfan]

The story is very touchy.

I feel sorry for anyone suffering the direct affects/aftermath of these events firsthand, whether its her family, friends, or the people of Pakistan. It seems clear she didn't bounce her own head against the sun roof. There were mitigating factors at play. She was clearly killed by external forces.

~ CB

I'd agree with you on the above. I just watched the video available, and it appears to show a handgun of some sort that appears to fire three shots (three "pops" are audible, whether they are gunshots I couldn't begin to say from the video).

I talked to a friend of mine who is a thoracic surgeon and she said there's no way simply falling into a car from the distance Ms. Bhutto did could have fractured her skull as badly as the latest releases claim unless it was broken beforehand. We will probably never know.

[Cleverboy]

I'd agree with you on the above. I just watched the video available, and it appears to show a handgun of some sort that appears to fire three shots (three "pops" are audible, whether they are gunshots I couldn't begin to say from the video).

I talked to a friend of mine who is a thoracic surgeon and she said there's no way simply falling into a car from the distance Ms. Bhutto did could have fractured her skull as badly as the latest releases claim unless it was broken beforehand. We will probably never know.Sorry, I reread what I wrote, and I didn't put in correct emphasis... she didn't bounce her OWN head against the sun roof (she was propelled against the back of the door). I actually think she did fracture her skull against the metal handle of the sun roof due to the force of the explosion. It's still an assasination, just as easily as if an exploding bomb pushed you over the side of a roof. The fall may have killed you, but you were still murdered. The difference does not mean very much in the end.

The news has been trying to isolate the cause of death, as WELL as the person behind the attack. These are two separate and important issues.

Was she shot to death in the neck?
Was she mortally wounded by shrapnel?
Was did she receive indirect, yet mortal injuries from the attack?

If anyone else has fallen upon a raised metal object before, you can probably agree that its not a pleasant experience. It's amazing the slight differences that can separate recoverable from paralysis from death. Not to be underestimated.

~ CB

[skunk]

I actually think she did fracture her skull against the metal handle of the sun roof due to the force of the explosion. It's still an assasination, just as easily as if an exploding bomb pushed you over the side of a roof. The fall may have killed you, but you were still murdered. The difference does not mean very much in the end.I agree, this is an entirely credible scenario.

[Iscariot]

I agree, this is an entirely credible scenario.

I agree that this is the most plausible situation that would result in a skull fracture. However, even if she died because she tripped and hit her head in the resulting commotion, she still died as a result of the assassination attempt.

I'm interested to see Musharraf's response to any investigation efforts, especially if they start to prove unfavourable. Depending on the outcome, feel free to substitute "interested" with "horrified", "mortified", or "outraged" [by], as appropriate.

[solvs]

I agree, this is an entirely credible scenario.
That seems to be the predominant theory.

The papers I read this morning were both still blamed it on Al Qaeda, though Bin Laden didn't mention it in his recently released tape.

[solvs]

Apparently her son wants to take over for her:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2233633,00.html

My mother said democracy is best revenge

[MikeTheC]

Pity it had to be her and not Adm. Helena Cain.

*checks*

Oh, wait. She was killed too. Never mind.

Seriously, this is not a good thing. Not a good thing at all. I just hope they can get someone as President who can help to bring about a long-term change in their socio-political and legal dynamics, and turn Pakistan into a true democracy.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if the country was brought fully into the 21st century.

[obeygiant]

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if the country was brought fully into the 21st century.


I was watching the "demonstrations" on the news which consisted of running around breaking things and setting things on fire. With the kids following the adults around breaking car windows and such. Why would a place have zero social contract such as that. So, to me, it looks like it'll be a while before they're in the "21st century".

[IJ Reilly]

Apparently her son wants to take over for her:

Her son (19 years old) and her husband. The political dynasty continues. You'd think they'd have have figured out by now the problems and limitations of keeping it all in the family.

[solvs]

I was watching the "demonstrations" on the news which consisted of running around breaking things and setting things on fire. With the kids following the adults around breaking car windows and such. Why would a place have zero social contract such as that. So, to me, it looks like it'll be a while before they're in the "21st century".
They do that here when we don't like a verdict or a sports team wins.

Her son (19 years old) and her husband. The political dynasty continues. You'd think they'd have have figured out by now the problems and limitations of keeping it all in the family.
He son seems nice enough, pretty smart too, but a little young and inexperienced. I had heard her husband wanted to be in more of a diplomatic role. Can't say I'd blame him if he did want to take over for her, but I also couldn't blame him if he didn't.

[skinnylegs]

If, by "this war", you mean George's War On Truth, it really isn't helping any. It has created more instability, fostered more lies, caused more death and destruction, mistrust and misery than any other "foreign policy initiative" since Vietnam. An intelligent, honest and persuasive engagement would have been many times as useful for a fraction of the cost. The US and UK administrations have sought confrontation and achieved it through illegal aggression, propaganda and doing immoral deals with odious regimes. This mess will not be cured by War.Before I throw in my two cents, would you mind defining "engagment" for me?

[obeygiant]

They do that here when we don't like a verdict or a sports team wins.


Okay, solvs, Let me know when there is country wide riots and fires when the pats win the superbowl. :rolleyes:


He son seems nice enough, pretty smart too, but a little young and inexperienced. I had heard her husband wanted to be in more of a diplomatic role. Can't say I'd blame him if he did want to take over for her, but I also couldn't blame him if he didn't.

Do you have some secret relationship with the Bhutto family that we don't know about?

[Cleverboy]

They do that here when we don't like a verdict or a sports team wins. Nonsense...! You're comparing a sports game with a contest where people's livelihood and national identity are at stake? Oh, wait... I think I see your point. :)

Okay, solvs, Let me know when there is country wide riots and fires when the pats win the superbowl. :rolleyes:
It's a little funny that some folks think such rioting is absent from the democratic process in other countries. It's not absent... its always percolating beneath the surface... its just "highly managed". Grand theft America. The 2000 election could have easily ended in massive riots, but our elected officials worked hard to do the right thing to move things forward (for good or bad). Here... read this (http://books.google.com/books?id=O_0LRkUMiOMC&dq=america+riots&pg=PP1&ots=D1A5aOFc5F&sig=Goz3kcZ1DMh7eUVB4vTck8gkB9M&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=america+riots&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail).

I remember Sony was fined by the city of Boston the other year, because they unintentionally allowed a riot situation to build at their SonyStyle store over the release of the PS3. I think they were just so grateful for the attention, they couldn't quite see the potential downside in all the crazed expressions.

Pervez Musharraf is on SUCH a low swoop in his polling, and tensions are at an all time high after he declared marshal law. Poor leadership has a tendency to bring out the worst in people.

~ CB

[obeygiant]

Oh, wait... I think I see your point. :)

You do? Good. Perhaps you could spell out the point of comparing the two. I think I see the point too, but why?


It's a little funny that some folks think such rioting is absent from the democratic process in other countries. It's not absent... its always percolating beneath the surface... its just "highly managed".

I never said that rioting never happens in America. And if what you mean by "percolating beneath the surface" that people get angry, sure they do, they just don't go outside a light the neighborhood on fire.

Grand theft America. The 2000 election could have easily ended in massive riots, but our elected officials worked hard to do the right thing to move things forward (for good or bad).

Well it DIDN'T. I was in San Francisco during the 2000 elections and I never even saw even one hint of a riot.


Here... read this (http://books.google.com/books?id=O_0LRkUMiOMC&dq=america+riots&pg=PP1&ots=D1A5aOFc5F&sig=Goz3kcZ1DMh7eUVB4vTck8gkB9M&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=america+riots&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail).

Hold on a sec. Did you actually read that book? Or did you just google "riots in america" and post that? Be honest.


Pervez Musharraf is on SUCH a low swoop in his polling, and tensions are at an all time high after he declared marshal law. Poor leadership has a tendency to bring out the worst in people.


Musharraf is low in the polls? I guess. I'd rather him in control of those nukes than some religious faction. Besides I don't think you'd consider Bhutto a poor leader and look what happened to her.

[Cleverboy]

You do? Good. Perhaps you could spell out the point of comparing the two. I think I see the point too, but why? Just joking with solvs. If you don't "get" the nature of the comparison, its like a joke... simply explaining it loses the point and diminishes the light-heartedness of the meaning.
I never said that rioting never happens in America. And if what you mean by "percolating beneath the surface" that people get angry, sure they do, they just don't go outside a light the neighborhood on fire.If people in Pakistan were simply "angry", there wouldn't be rioting. We're talking marshal law, deterioration of the democratic process, and wholesale disenfranchisement. I won't argue if you can't see that. It's not my responsibility to even have to remind you of the difference in the political climate and the precarious nature of their government right now.
Well it DIDN'T. I was in San Francisco during the 2000 elections and I never even saw even one hint of a riot. If you understood my comments you'd only be sharing your personal experience if you lived in Florida and at least one or two other areas. There was a huge issue in one state due to weather and transportation issues. But again, we're only talking "hints", because for the most part, we do a LOT to manage rioting in this country and social pressure helps to defuse a lot of tension by means of existing inertia.
Hold on a sec. Did you actually read that book? Or did you just google "riots in america" and post that? Be honest.Of course I did. Apologies for not removing the Google highlighting though from the link. Very distracting when you're reading through the TOC and chapter texts, I agree.

Musharraf is low in the polls? I guess. I'd rather him in control of those nukes than some religious faction. Besides I don't think you'd consider Bhutto a poor leader and look what happened to her. Straw man alert. Looking at a situation and judging the political climate shouldn't be limited to thinking its "yes" or "no". The information about his polling suggests that regardless of what YOU or I prefer, it may not be up to US. A friend of mine was going on recently about how Bhutto was crazy to go back to Pakistan, while I argued that it was the only way to stabilize the hostile climate that was building. I eventually had to dismiss his opinion, because he only saw it as an issue of whether she was entering a dangerous climate. Meanwhile, I saw it as an issue of her not taking enough security precautions, given the volatile nature of her enemies. Where a "religious faction" comes into MY perspective I have NO idea.

~ CB

[takao]

sports events and riots not fitting together ? perhaps if you like sports like baseball and golf

i recommend a local derby in football if you want to see sports related riots

[Thomas Veil]

Hmm. Looks like there may not be a recall for dangerous/defective sunroof latches after all:

Ministry backtracks on Bhutto sunroof claims (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/pakistan.autopsy/index.html)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's Interior Ministry backtracked Tuesday on its statement that Benazir Bhutto died because she hit her head on a sunroof latch during a shooting and bomb attack.

The government also published a reward offer in several national newspapers to anyone who could identify two suspects from the killing.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told CNN the ministry will wait for the findings from forensic investigators before making a conclusion about her cause of death.

Cheema said he based his statement Friday about the sunroof latch "on the initial investigations and the reports by the medical doctors" who treated her at Rawalpindi General Hospital.

"I was just narrating the facts, you know, and nothing less nothing more," Cheema said.

"There's no intention to conceal anything from the people of Pakistan," an Interior Ministry news release said....

The U-turn on the sunroof claims will only heighten speculation as to the exact cause of Bhutto's death....Heh. That last paragraph is a masterwork of understatement.

[IJ Reilly]

Last night the NewsHour ran some video which pretty clearly showed that she was shot and that she fell into the car before the bomb blast. The official government explanation is either gross incompetence or one of the most pointless coverup efforts in history. Hard to know which. Either way, the political affect is more public fury directed towards Musharraf.

[Swarmlord]

Last night the NewsHour ran some video which pretty clearly showed that she was shot and that she fell into the car before the bomb blast. The official government explanation is either gross incompetence or one of the most pointless coverup efforts in history. Hard to know which. Either way, the political affect is more public fury directed towards Musharraf.

Incredible that there would be any attempt in this day and age to try to distort something that can be so easily verified forensically or even by video which was bound to exist.

I didn't buy the bumped head thing for one minute.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Last night the NewsHour ran some video which pretty clearly showed that she was shot and that she fell into the car before the bomb blast. The official government explanation is either gross incompetence or one of the most pointless coverup efforts in history. Hard to know which. Either way, the political affect is more public fury directed towards Musharraf.
Musharraf and his gang didnt want her to have a martyrs death so they grabbed at anything just to be able to say she wasnt a martyr. Where Islam goes so does its extremists. Seems anywhere you have Islam running the show you will have the otherside politicians getting murdered everytime. This is more of the same.
One day the world is going to wake up to this nonsense of extreme Islam and really do something about it.

[Swarmlord]

Musharraf and his gang didnt want her to have a martyrs death so they grabbed at anything just to be able to say she wasnt a martyr. Where Islam goes so does its extremists. Seems anywhere you have Islam running the show you will have the otherside politicians getting murdered everytime. This is more of the same.
One day the world is going to wake up to this nonsense of extreme Islam and really do something about it.

Musharraf and his government are far from being Islamic extremists though. I could see it if witnesses claimed something that conflicted with the facts, but I don't see the angle for the government to represent her assassination as anything other than what happened.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thats why no mentions of her being killed by blasts or bullets. For Pete sakes this guy stoled his Power in Pakistan. Same old stupid U.S. story, we get into bed with the dictator then wonder why? Meanwhile a guy named Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan and has been for years. All these guys have one thing in common and thats a perverted religion guiding them in their holier then thou crusades. Bush,Musharaff, Bin Laden all want to rule the world.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see a dime's worth of difference in terms of martyrdom if she was killed by the gun or the bomb. It's not like anyone is trying to call it an accident. If I was to be conspiratorially-minded, I'd suggest that the bomb was designed not to kill Bhutto, but to incinerate the gunman.

[CHAOS STEP]

I saw this on a couple of sites and I find that it is quite 'strange' why exactly the BBC edited the content of one of the last interviews that Bhutto had.

Links;

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/bbc-censored-benazir-bhuttos-reports.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DGAOH_E3aQQ

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29616

[solvs]

Okay, solvs, Let me know when there is country wide riots and fires when the pats win the superbowl. :rolleyes:
Ok, maybe I was being oblique, I just wanted to point out that we riot over things too. Even stupider things sometimes. I won't say Pakistan doesn't have it's issues though, far from it, just the whole "there but for the grace" thing.

Do you have some secret relationship with the Bhutto family that we don't know about?
Uh, I read about him (and them).