Explosion heard at Bhutto rally (Bhutto Killed)

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

They are still an Arab country very much pro-taliban and that is my point.

They are not arabs? they are asians. Anyway not trying to be anoying lol.
Maybe in america you guys call them arabs, and here in the UK we call them asians. Thats where were getting confused

[edit on 27-12-2007 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by niteboy82


Yeah your right. Its pretty much a generic comment stating the obvious that will never be followed up on. Really there is no one person to catch. Its the work of many people and they have been fighting this sorta thing for ever.

I do not mean to sound uncompassionate... a death is never something to take lightly, but I do not think Musharraf was behind this. I think her own comments towards the "red mosque" situtation are what led to her demise.

On 11 July 2007,

The Associated Press, in an article about the possible aftermath of the Red Mosque incident, wrote:

Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and opposition leader expected by many to return from exile and join Musharraf in a power-sharing deal after year-end general elections, praised him for taking a tough line on the Red Mosque. I'm glad there was no cease-fire with the militants in the mosque because cease-fires simply embolden the militants," she told Britain's Sky TV on Tuesday. "There will be a backlash, but at some time we have to stop appeasing the militants."

I believe that comment is what led to her assassination.

The first attempt occured in October:

18 October 2007

En route to a rally in Karachi, two explosions occurred shortly after Bhutto had landed and left Jinnah International Airport. She was not injured but the explosions, later found to be a suicide-bomb attack, killed 136 people and injured at least 450. The dead included at least 50 of the security guards from her Pakistan Peoples Party who had formed a human chain around her truck to keep potential bombers away, as well as 6 police officers. A number of senior officials were injured. Bhutto was escorted unharmed from the scene.

Shortly after the attempt on her life, Bhutto wrote a letter to Musharraf naming four persons whom she suspected of carrying out the attack. Those named included Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, a rival PML-Q politician and chief minister of Pakistan's Punjab province, Hamid Gul, former director of the Inter-Services Intelligence, and Ijaz Shah, the director general of the Intelligence Bureau, another of the country’s intelligence agencies. All those named are close associates of General Musharraf.

I believe her claims in that letter were paranoia; she hadn't come to terms with her position in the eyes of "red mosque" militants.

The second attempt occured 3 weeks ago:

On December 8, 2007

It was reported that three unidentified gunmen stormed Mrs. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party office in the southern western province of Baluchistan. The shooting occurred in the capital of the city Quetta. It was confirmed by the local police that three men have been killed with one injured.

all external source info from wikipedia.org "banazir bhutto" 12 27 2007

At some point politicians are going to have to realize that they must deal with the root causes of militancy rather than attempting to overpower militancy.


The suicide killer will continue to reincarnate...


Have any of you seen that billboard with the big, muscular, dark skinned male holding a small infant?

Subtitle, "Are you tough enough to be gentle?"

The leaders of our world have for generations forgotten how to be gentle...
and now the children of our world are toting suicide vests.

"I'm glad there was no cease-fire with the militants in the mosque because cease-fires simply embolden the militants," she said...

I believe you were wrong there my dear...

State level militancy is the only thing that emboldens militants.

Perhaps they forgot to mention that at the Convent of Jesus and Mary in Karachi.

Sri Oracle

reply to post by _Phoenix_


I edited the information you are right they are not an Arab nation but they are an Islam nation.

Thank you all for your intelligent responses to this tragedy. I openly stand corrected, it was a mistake to rush tot he conclusion that Musharraf was behind this attack.

reply to post by Sri Oracle


I feel that he does have a hand on this, remember that no matter what Musharraf is the one to gain most from her death.

He has no competition for power now.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You make absolutely no sense at all. Why would the CIA assassinate the agent of an allied country, particularly one that has such close ties to the US?

i thought about this. and it could be...maybe.

i just read an article titled "Understanding Al-Qaeda's Pakistan PSYOP and Insurgency" (8/25/07) on threat watch web site. it seems al qaeda does not want a civil war. however, thier targets are the political establishment. so, its really hard to tell. here is what i found.

Usama bin Laden’s latest recorded message is the third in just two weeks following three years of virtual silence from the al-Qaeda leader. In it, bin Laden calls on Pakistani Muslims to acknowledge that Musharraf’s actions are examples of his loyalty to the United States and representative of his unbelief. For bin Laden and his compatriots, such unbelief marks Musharraf as ‘kufr’ and places the requirement on believers to make “armed rebellion against him.” .........Yet bin Laden crafts a different message for the Pakistani Army, whom he advises to “resign” from their jobs, “disassociate yourself from Pervez.......

so its clear he wants the political establishment gone. but, not so for the army.

Usama bin Laden’s latest message implored the Pakistani public to take up arms against Musharraf and warned the army’s soldiers to break ranks and fight Musharraf with al-Qaeda rather than serve him. ......There could be a maelstrom of events to follow in Pakistan.

it seems he wants the military to come to his side. article talks about his needing the military intact when his forces take over the government. this is just an insurgancy for al qaeda.

Ideally, they do not want to ultimately find Musharraf killed or oustered only to have the military splintered internally between pro-government and pro-al-Qaeda commanders. Al-Qaeda is executing an insurgency to gain control, not to touch off a civil war.

if civil war is coming now, it might not be what al qaeda wanted.

In the end, defeating al-Qaeda in Pakistan will require direct American military action on the ground. The alternative is to accept the consequences of a strengthening al-Qaeda insurgency that is gaining momentum.

and that is the statement that troubles me. where i begin to wonder who is behind this.

-------------edit----------
add source.
analysis.threatswatch.org...



[edit on 27-12-2007 by JSR]

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Sri Oracle

 

I feel that he does have a hand on this, remember that no matter what Musharraf is the one to gain most from her death.

He has no competition for power now.

All I know is whoever did this is evil! I mean killing all those people in past attempts too, whats the point? it just confuses me how people could do such things, Im glad there is still beauty in the world to keep us all from going insane from the madness.

We have more suspects. From the Times UK...

Earlier that month, two militant warlords based in Pakistan's lawless northwestern areas, near the border with Afghanistan, had threatened to kill her on her return.

One was Baitullah Mehsud, a top commander fighting the Pakistani army in the tribal region of South Waziristan. He has close ties to al Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban.

The other was Haji Omar, the “amir” or leader of the Pakistani Taleban, who is also from South Waziristan and fought against the Soviets with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by marg6043
I feel that he does have a hand on this, remember that no matter what Musharraf is the one to gain most from her death.

He has no competition for power now.

Why create a martyr? Why risk distablizing the tenuous hold he has on power as it is. Pakistan is erupting, and most everyone blames him; how has he gained anything?

Most likely was the ISI, they seem to be quite a powerful independent force in Pakistan who take orders from no one but themselves. And i have heard a few people joking about the CIA, but it's not like they have no history in such affairs. If Bhutto was looking to distance herselves from America mabye they thought she needed to be removed......

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
If Bhutto was looking to distance herselves from America mabye they thought she needed to be removed...

She wasn't. She wanted to be tougher against Islamists in Pakistan, and had criticized Musharraf for not being tough enough.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
how has he gained anything?

He's gained emergency powers in the event of riots, which could very well result from this assassination.

Emergency powers and military rule is a dream world for any dictator.

AQ is taking credit for the murder.

AQ claims responsibility

Karachi, 27 Dec. (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
He's gained emergency powers in the event of riots, which could very well result from this assassination. Emergency powers and military rule is a dream world for any dictator.

Yes, but that will only weaken his position among the Pakistani people, and bring more people into the opposition's fold. Emergency powers and military rule can only exists as long as it as the tacit approval of the people. If the people are enraged it cannot last, and civil war erupts, again weakening Musharraf's position. Emergency powers and military rule are not the dream of dictators if it does nothing but further loosens their grasp on power.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by SaviorComplex]

Dictators rule by fear! Musharraf even is he's not involved will seize this opportunity to his advantage,, if other groups were involved he will bring them to "justice" and then with no opposition he can stay in power indefinately.

Originally posted by makeitso
AQ is taking credit for the murder.

so much for my theroy.

Originally posted by JSR
so much for my theroy.

Maybe not. The psychology of terrorists leads them to take responsibility for acts they are not associated with, in order to stay relevant. He could just be blowing smoke.

reply to post by TheoOne


You joke, but I wouldn't put it past the CIA. They've done more messed up things before.

Originally posted by Bunch
Dictators rule by fear! Musharraf even is he's not involved will seize this opportunity to his advantage,, if other groups were involved he will bring them to "justice" and then with no opposition he can stay in power indefinately.

Remember the first bombing when she returned? The Pakistan government hasn't even investigated the attack, refused international support towards the investigation and ignored the names Bhutto gave regarding individuals in the intelligence agency who wanted her dead.

We need to cut off all ties/support towards Musharraf