Bhutto Assassinated

[MJ-W4]

Osama definiteley would want Bhutto dead.

Agreed, BUT: he would brag about it. If he was behind it, his fellows wouldn't go and claim they didn't do it.

 

Musharaf has no real opposition now and Pakistani communities around the world are truly worried. What makes things even worse is the topographical/strategical aspect. Pakistan is right in the middle of everything and a neighbour of Iran, too. For the last few centuries, East and West alike have always been keen to exert some control over that area and I don't think they're going to stop and sit pretty now.

 

As for the martyr aspect: Let's hope not.

[*Don*]

Agreed, BUT: he would brag about it. If he was behind it, his fellows wouldn't go and claim they didn't do it.

 

True.

 

Anyhow, now that I think about it, I don't think Osama has enough resources left to plan and execute something of this nature.

[PoiuyWired]

I think Bhutto was killed by an insurgent. Not killed by Pakistani military, altough her supporters would contend otherwise. Oh well. Heh.

 

 

Well, at this point it doesn't matter what the truth is.

 

Bhutto's death got her martyrdom... and that usually means some people trying to pull a crusadeof some sort using her name. Yes, its only going to make things more messed up than it is.

[Rev7]

I dunno, but I personally suspect Musharraf, like the many others on this thread.

Agreed.

Osama definiteley would want Bhutto dead.[/Quote]

Agreed.

 

Anyone in their right mind would know that this probably Musharraf's doing or Osama's doing. I don't think that just a random person would just want to kill Bhutto for the heck of it. I am sure that many Pakistanis, including LordRevan999:

Well Pakistani people's hope and mine as well for better future has gone

want peace and a better future than what Musharraf would give them. Why would someone just want to kill her? There is more to this story.

[John Galt]

Of course, if Musharraf were working with bin Laden(which would be somewhat unexpected), what would that mean for US-Pakistani relations?

[Darth InSidious]

Of course, if Musharraf were working with bin Laden(which would be somewhat unexpected), what would that mean for US-Pakistani relations?

If I were a cynic I'd reply that Pakistan would become a Dominion.

[mur'phon]

Anyhow, now that I think about it, I don't think Osama has enough resources left to plan and execute something of this nature.

 

Osama still got a lot of resources, and would certainly be able to kill her, though if he is involved its probably indirectly. Again though, while she would probably be better than Musharraf as president, her previous term was one of the more corrupt in the world.

[Rev7]

Osama probably has a LOT more resources than meets the eye. You should never presume someone doesn't have the resources, especially this man. I think that he is in more of a dormant stage right now, but could strike at any moment. I know that the United States of America is way to 'opened'. ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN. But this is a little off topic...

More on topic...

though if he is involved its probably indirectly.

Of course it would be indirectly. I just have to say that we should wait and see what happens with the investigation. For now of course...

[EnderWiggin]

I actually signed back into the forums - first time in months - just to post my opinion on this topic.

 

This might be long, and it's getting a bit late here; brace yourself.

 

Pakistan is something that we should be extremely worried about here in the US.

 

For starters, they are a country with nuclear weapons, so that gives them a status right away. The US seems to think that these won't be in jeopardy, and that Musharraf will keep them under control (as of Nov 14, a long time ago [Clicky.] ). I'm not so sure anymore. I think that the unrest will exponentially multiply now that all of the followers of Benazir Bhutto are enraged. The latest estimates show that 12.38 billion rupees (that's just over 200 million USD) worth of damage were done to the railways alone due to the burning of cars such. As of Dec 28, the day after, 9 people had already been killed.[Clicky.]

 

Secondly, according to all of the news reports, [Clicky.] 75% of US supply lines that provide aid to our troops in Afghanistan run through or along Pakistan. There is a very good chance that this will affect the war effort there - which, if you remember in this speech is supposedly a very high priority to our President and his cabinet.

 

Thirdly, and finally, Pakistan has been a very big ally to us during the last 6 years and... what, three months almost... and has done many things to aid us in our fight against terror and our crusade for Democracy. Now, Pakistan has hit a pothole on its road to becoming a completely free country. America, however, has just sat by and watched. I wrote this as part of an opinion article for my local paper about a month and a half ago:

 

" I just cannot comprehend why our government has only responded to Pakistan's crisis with an offhand comment about the necessity of their elections in January. When "Washington's number 2 diplomat" John Negroponte met with Musharraf, (US Envoy: Pakistan Must Lift Emergency, Nov 18th [Here's a comparable article to the one I used from my local paper - Clicky. ]) he only "urged" the President to lift the state of emergency. Musharraf answered with the same responses that he has given since the state of emergency began. Still, Negroponte "praised Musharraf" for his help in the war on terror. Our reaction should be nowhere near praise, and much more dynamic than urging. Where is the determination and force we previously exhibited when calling for freedoms and the foundation of democracy? Our President seemed to think both the elimination of injustice and a violent dictator were very high priorities when entering into Iraq, but now they seem to have lost precedence. "

 

Musharraf is an overzealous man who, because of his aid, has been allowed to overstep his boundaries a bit. We watched him declare a state of emergency, place his country into a blackout, control the media, place Ms. Bhutto under house arrest because of her organization of a peace march, completely pick a new supreme court, eliminating about 7 justices he thought were not fully in support of him, and take over the country. Now we just watched his biggest rival be eliminated by radicals.

 

Bhutto was the best thing that could have happened to Pakistan. She was already a very prominent woman. She was very friendly to America (a Harvard graduate cum laude and a Phi Beta Kappa... Clicky. ). She was very anti-taliban. She was the person who was spearheading the change back to freedom in her country, which she promised her father that she would always fight for before he was executed. Nawaz Sharif, the other opposition leader, is not anti-taliban. He is a leader that is against the infuriating things that Musharraf has done, but if he gets into power, what will that do to US-Pakistan relations, and what's to say they won't revert to a country that has taliban-influence?

 

Like some others here, I can no longer see a positive outcome to this crisis.

 

And as for Musharraf's involvement in this conflict? Well, the way I see it, he is guilty - any way you slice it. Let's say, hypothetically, that he did order the killing of Ms. Bhutto, or at least had a subordinate order it. Then he is most obviously at fault. On the other hand, if it was some radical that was acting on his own behalf, then Musharraf is guilty because of the things he did not do instead of what he did do. The email that I'm sure we're all aware of (If not - Clicky. ) that stated that Bhutto asked for increased security and tinted windows and an escort and such and was denied all of these things proves that Musharraf was clearly not concerned with keeping this woman alive. She even references an event where she spoke with Musharraf, and said she believes that some of the danger is coming from high-ranking Pakistani officials. Unfortunately for her, and all who are concerned with the future of Pakistan, nothing was done about this.

 

"Dog, Musharraf, Dog" is what they were chanting after her death. I think that no matter what happens, Pakistan is in trouble - George W. Bush better sit up in his chair.

 

Thanks for reading.... please, feel free to attack any of my arguments.

 

_EW_

[Sabretooth]

That was a spectacular dapper post, Wiggins. Probably the only long post on the Corner I've read word to word. *Applause*

 

While I like your analysis of the situation, I am of the opinion that the United States should not intervene. To be frank, The United States created a mess out of Iraq and they might not fare better in Pakistan either. Let Pakistan struggle to its own feet.

[John Galt]

That was a spectacular dapper post, Wiggins. Probably the only long post on the Corner I've read word to word. *Applause*

 

While I like your analysis of the situation, I am of the opinion that the United States should not intervene. To be frank, The United States created a mess out of Iraq and they might not fare better in Pakistan either. Let Pakistan struggle to its own feet.

 

QFE.

 

What I fear is that the US will be viewed as being indirectly responsible for Bhutto's assasination(which could be true, depending on your point of view), which would entail blowback. I think it's time that we, for once, let someone else deal with their own problems.

 

Of course, the intervention's already started, according to some sources.

 

edit: I also ran across this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg ) a few minutes ago. Interesting stuff.

[EnderWiggin]

That was a spectacular dapper post, Wiggins. Probably the only long post on the Corner I've read word to word. *Applause*

 

While I like your analysis of the situation, I am of the opinion that the United States should not intervene. To be frank, The United States created a mess out of Iraq and they might not fare better in Pakistan either. Let Pakistan struggle to its own feet.

 

Thank you very much... and that's a very good point. Who knows what the ''expertise'' of the United States would do to the already emotionally charged atmosphere?

 

But unfortunately, I don't think that Pakistan will be able to struggle to its own feet anytime soon. That's the problem.

 

_EW_

[SilentScope001]

I myself love pemmisim, but I do think that eventually, elections will go well. Who will win eventually will decide the fate of Pakistan: Musharrf, Bhutto's Son, or Sharrif? My bets are on Sharrif, due to the fact that Bhutto may have lost some credibility with her deal with Musharraf in the past, but it doesn't really matter...all of the candinates has been accused of being corrupt fools by the Pakistani media at one point or another (Bhutto herself had a husband known as Mr. Ten Percent...who got his name from taking, you guessed it, 10%!), so Pakistan is going to pot no matter how you look at it.

 

The problem is: Is it going to Democratic Pot (like most democracies, including the USA) or "Islamism" Pot? Here I think America has nothing to worry about. The Democractic elements in Pakistan are going to prevail in Pakistan, for now at least, and most of the insurgency will likely enough control at least 1/3rds of the Country, but it will take much longer for such an insurgency to be more powerful. The best thing to do is breathe a sigh of relief and move on.

 

Anyway. I don't worry too much about that. What I fear is the impending next war in the Balkans between Serbia and Albania over Kosovo when Kosovo declares indepedence. Russia backing Serbia. USA backing Albania. Ethnic cleansings all abound.

[MJ-W4]

Here's news on the murder inquiry:

 

The UK is on

 

key questions

[lukeiamyourdad]

Interesting developments here.

 

Election date pushed back to February 18

 

This is an interesting development. Perhaps Musharraf wants to calm everyone down and restore order before the elections can take place. Perhaps he sees that a sympathy vote for the PPP will overwhelm him.

 

Even if the PPP succeeds in taking over parliament, it is going to be far from an easy ride. Bhutto's son has succeeded his mother at the head of the party. 19 years old and unable to speak the language of the people. A severe handicap in any country. Even if the democratic forces in Pakistan win the next round, they can easily lose the next one, unable to rally properly under one banner.

[Ztalker]

lukeiamyourdad wrote:

Interesting developments here.

 

Election date pushed back to February 18

Makes perfect sense. Now our friend Musharraf has time to kill the next candidate as well. And he get's to fund his little terrorist buddies a little while longer as well.

Pakistan doesn't deserve this. No country does.

[SilentScope001]

Makes perfect sense. Now our friend Musharraf has time to kill the next candidate as well.

 

Actually it was Bhutto's party's idea. They say not pushing the date back would be unfair to Bhutto's party since they have to reconsodilate themselves into functioning units. If Musharraf held the election as scheluded, the PPP may have lost, so that why the extension is done.

 

And Musharraf DIDN'T KILL ANYONE! GAH! No evidence whatsoever of that occuring (maybe some evidence has been tampered with, but you still have no conclusive proof). About the only thing you can allege is that he did not provide proper security (still a deadly accusation, but not actual murder).

 

It's just like 9/11 theories, except now it can be discussed freely instead of being flamed. Gah. Why are some conspriacy theories tolerated and others are not? Why does "innocence before proven guilty" be forgotten when it applies to a person you hate?

[Ztalker]

If that's the case...we don't know if Bin Laden's guilty of the attacks on New York either. He claimed responability, so? The actual terrorists commited the gruesome attacks and are fully guilty.

 

Same goes for this. Of course there's a murderer out there. But who knows who payed/made him/her do this?

 

She was the 'hope' for alot of the people there, believing she could lead the to a better future. Then who would want to kill her? Doesn't seem like there are alot of options.

 

But okay...I'll keep it at 'failure to protect her' from the current President.

[EnderWiggin]

And Musharraf DIDN'T KILL ANYONE! GAH! No evidence whatsoever of that occuring (maybe some evidence has been tampered with, but you still have no conclusive proof). About the only thing you can allege is that he did not provide proper security (still a deadly accusation, but not actual murder).

 

It's just like 9/11 theories, except now it can be discussed freely instead of being flamed. Gah. Why are some conspriacy theories tolerated and others are not? Why does "innocence before proven guilty" be forgotten when it applies to a person you hate?

 

Whether or not you think he "killed anyone," and whether or not you choose to see the evidence, there is sufficient evidence to place blame on Musharraf for this event. He, first of all, was obviously aware of the threats to Bhutto, and when she requested heightened security, he not only denied her request, but told her she was not allowed to use even the tinted vehicles she had. He saw this coming, and did nothing to stop it - or worse, acted as a catalyst.

 

Either way, I wouldn't come to his aid now that people think he's at fault here. He might not have pulled the metaphoric trigger, but he definitely could have prevented it.

 

_EW_

[EnderWiggin]

OMFG. Sorry for the double post and all, but I feel that it is the only way to bring this new development to light.

 

Did anyone see the interview last night of Musharraf?

 

Here's an article that details a little of what he said...

and you guessed it, it's despicable. I don't know how he can slash her even now.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/07/pakistan.bhutto.musharraf/

 

_EW_

[Sabretooth]

Musharraf is crazy, with every word, he re-affirms the suspicion that he was behind the attack. It's like when a kid breaks a china vase he keeps saying "I didn't do nothing" even when nobody is asking him.

 

I'm starting to agree with you that international intervention may end up necessary, albeit I wouldn't use Iraq as a role model.

[MJ-W4]

latest updates: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=Bhutto&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go