Benazir Bhutto assassinated

[Schmeltz]

Holy shit! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_as/pakistan) Pakistan's prospects are beginning to look dim.

[abcdefz]

This is one of those times when I feel really ignorant.

I guess there's some rioting now. Police fired upon a crowd.

[Helvete]

Why, because you are an American and don't know what's going on?

[abcdefz]

Because I don't know what's going on. Has nothing to do with what country I'm from.

[Schmeltz]

^^Hey now, mang. No need for hatin'. I've been following Pakistani politics in the news for a few months now and I'm still not sure about everything myself.

Seems to me, though, that Pervez Musharraf is going to have an even tougher time keeping a lid on his country than he did before. The prospect of a free and fair election that would at least mitigate his grip on power was keenly anticipated by many Pakistanis, especially after his assault on the judiciary this fall, and any chance of that seems to have now disappeared. Musharraf is probably now more vulnerable than ever, either to a massive popular uprising (which Nawaz Sharif would be sure to exploit) or an internal coup (perhaps from the powerful and influential military that he no longer commands) and he could be in real trouble if he doesn't display some kind of leadership now.

[Bob]

i'm sure this is the CFR's fault somehow

[abcdefz]

You mean NPR.

[Jasonik]

I guess we'll have to invade Pakistan now, you know -- for humanitarian reasons.

[trailerprincess]

I have a real sense of dread about how this all might turn out....

[yeahwho]

Now the real problem of the middle east has come home to roost. Not Iraq, not Iran, but the puppet government of Pakistan. The extremist haven where Al Quaeda has prospered and has a base with more strength than they had in 2001. The strong arm policies of Saddam would never allow for Al Quaeda bases on Iraqi soil.

Not to plug my current presidential candidate Obama (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/27/535827.aspx), but he was criticized earlier this year for making remarks about Pakistan (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html) and also for pointing out which battlefield our administration led us to.

I am with most on here as far as having nothing off the top of my head to spout about on Pakistan, but I've been putting off work and reading like a MoFo on US Pakistan Policy and if I could share any link that has helped me the most it would be this one from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/a-moment-of-clarity-on-pa_b_78496.html)

[Documad]

I'm sorry that she was murdered, but she wasn't a saint. Her governments were a bit of a disgrace. I feel so bad for the people who have to live in those countries. I'm not sure if they ever had a chance.

[Schmeltz]

It certainly makes you grateful for what you have.

That's an interesting article, yeahwho, but I think it goes too far in imagining a real kind of alliance or treaty between the Pakistani military and the Taliban/al-Qaeda in areas like the FATA or NWFP. The Pakistani government made those deals because they were unable to make any military headway in those areas, as their casualty rates would seem to reveal (although these have apparently never been officially published, I've read estimates from 1000 to 3000 soldiers killed and many more wounded). The army had never entered North or South Waziristan before 2002, and one can only imagine how that lack of experience and intelligence affected their efforts to conduct operations along one of the world's highest mountain ranges. In fact that entire area had remained independent even of the British Empire - it's something of a romantic image I guess but that place and the people who live there, the Pashtun tribes, have noteworthy cultural traditions of fighting ability and independence. And they seem to have soundly deterred all Pakistani attempts to force them to yield up terrorists like Osama bin Laden, or stop their narco-smuggling activities.

The context doesn't add up to a secret deal between the Pakistani army and the Taliban, but to the inability of the Pakistani security apparatus to successfully combat a grave threat to the country's stability. What's therefore more important is the essentially mercenary character of the war, with the Pakistani army being purchased with these huge amounts of American military and financial aid and committed to a war it has so far prosecuted without much success, with little prospect for a quick finish.

See, this is the war that needed to be fought, not Iraq. This is what Iraq could still turn into, only this time directly on top of huge amounts of the crucial resource that drives the Western economy virtually in its entirety. The stakes are huge - in fact I daresay there's never been more at stake at any time in human history.

Wild. Times.

[yeahwho]

See, this is the war that needed to be fought, not Iraq. This is what Iraq could still turn into, only this time directly on top of huge amounts of the crucial resource that drives the Western economy virtually in its entirety. The stakes are huge - in fact I daresay there's never been more at stake at any time in human history.

Wild. Times.

We found the WMD (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html) after all, they we're just a four years, half a million dead, millions of wounded and refugees away, down the road at our buddies country, Pakistan. damn. How big of a fuck up's are these people who le(i)d us into this Iraq war? When does joe 6 pack finally get pissed enough to ask WTF are we doing?

[Whatitis]

Nuclear weapons are probably a big reason a "diplomatic" approach was taken with Pakistan.

[kaiser soze]

I guess we'll have to invade Pakistan now, you know -- for humanitarian reasons.

The U.S. already announced they were sending troops to Pakistan...Before the assassination and ensuing chaos, what amazing foresight (!)

I'm so happy to know the U.S. has been sending billions of dollars to Pakistan to fight terrorism....let us not forget the nuclear weapons they have

[yeahwho]

Who is the one person who had the most to gain from Bhutto's assassination? Musharraf.

The US had begun withdrawing support from him, and was in the process of throwing it behind Bhutto. By killing her, Musharraf clears the field and once again becomes the only person the US can deal with. And he can blame Al Qaeda to boot.

Things have unraveled beyond the imagination in Pakistan and I agree with this parting shot from the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)ed/op piece today,

Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people. The days of Washington mortgaging its interests there to one or two individuals must finally come to an end.

[roosta]

I'm sorry that she was murdered, but she wasn't a saint. Her governments were a bit of a disgrace. I feel so bad for the people who have to live in those countries. I'm not sure if they ever had a chance.

It doesn't matter if she was a saint or not, it's what she represented, a popular democratic figure. Its a real shame.

Because I don't know what's going on. Has nothing to do with what country I'm from.

Well, it kind of does. Your country actively involves itself in the politics of Pakistan and the region, what happens there can very easily (and tragically) have an effect elsewhere in the world.

From the (very good article yeahwho posted):

The United States cannot afford to have Pakistan unravel any further. The lesson of the last six years is that authoritarian leaders — even ones backed with billions in American aid — don’t make reliable allies, and they can’t guarantee security.

It's a real shame.

[drizl]

interesting is gary bernstiens book. i think thats how you spell his name. he was commander of the cia operation in tora bora, and speaks about how the us forces bombed all exits from the underground complex but for one- used by thousands of senior al qaeda leaders to exit into pakistan where they remain.

also interesting to note the wire transfers which came from pakistan to atta which was used to pay off hijackers used in 9-11. and the fact that those wire transfers ultimately came from the pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, and the man in charge of that money was visiting with the president (bush and his cabinet) the day after 9-11.

the money came from pakistan to fund 9-11, via the ISI (created by the CIA in bhuttos days), pakistan continues to hide and protect senior taliban and al qaeda figures, and it continues to unravel.


the pakistani prez, in my opinion, must remain in power because of ISI (and his own) involvement in 9-11 and the war on terror. if he is taken out of the picture and someone who is more "democratically elected/not a dictator" there is a risk that the story will unravel further, become more public and the truth will be heard. i would not be suprised if he was involved in bhuttos death.

see: 9-11 press for truth
gary bernstens book, jawbreaker

[ericg]

http://www.alternet.org/story/71810/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/bena-d29.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807S.shtml
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/122707.html

here's a few articles from the man common's blog - who has kept it on 'the line'. tragically, it's obvious that bhutto was set up for failure/ played in a 'monopoly game' that has outgrown the world all too much...

lamen's view of shit:
bush's 'beta agent/ asset', musharraf of pakistan - a place that's been set up to be 'posed' as the 'pivot point' on the 'war on/ for terror' (which is of course 'nuclear').. where 'democratic' bhutto is assassinated right at the end of 2007's, 'long past futile and ever disasterous political sham/ military theater.. scene/ production' (during the ever wanting complacent holidays no less) when the administration and world affairs are all but dead in the water after shit's past stale and all too called/ dried out - how fucking convenient this little continuation/ 'spur' is to the bullshit/ par for course and the presidential scam to the whitehouse where 'dummy puppet traitors' are all but candid. the whole thing stinks of the same promulgated/ obfuscated/ fabricated intel/ scenarios lead by the same fucking cabal of monopoly men. even after all is said and done - the situation is really only confounded/ ridiculous for the intents and purposes/ profit and power of the extreme few.

[Whatitis]

Bravo! Kudos to you for finding a tie between Bhutto's death and 9-11. So essentially, from your opinion, the US killed Bhutto. All part of the whole 9-11 conspiracy. Wow! Fucking Brilliant!

[yeahwho]

i'm sure this is the CFR's fault somehow

They have a hell of a promotional team, even if they weren't involved, somehow or another they'll be credited with the influence to pull it off.

NPR is just embedded with CFR. FYI. BTW. :-|

Homegrown militants are easily influenced by old rich white guys that hang out in organizations like the CFR, ask Castro, he'll tell ya.

[yeahwho]

Bravo! Kudos to you for finding a tie between Bhutto's death and 9-11. So essentially, from your opinion, the US killed Bhutto. All part of the whole 9-11 conspiracy. Wow! Fucking Brilliant!

I am using the ignore function on a couple of people here that would jump to that conclusion before the word assassinated would even be finished. It would be a shadow government conspiracy just as soon as they saw assass.

[ericg]

I am using the ignore function on a couple of people here that would jump to that conclusion before the word assassinated would even be finished. It would be a shadow government conspiracy just as soon as they saw assass.

:p are you? why don't you just rip your fucking eyes out?

a 'connection' would be preposterous wouldn't it? :confused:
certainly beyond the scope of all [your] reason. :eek:

seattle's sly, 'all-too liberal' construct, on the cutting edge of what, again? has you thinking bush, cheney, rice, rove etc are autonomous in 'running the show'? wow. no wonder we're in deep shit, and that's like a 5(0)+ year old statement considering.

you're not that quick, huh? it was concluded before you were born.
when do you ever get a fucking clue?

"jump to a conclusion"? from the moon maybe.
it's more like 'walking the extremely arduous walk and talking the extremely intrinsic, proven talk' for many years with a gps system leading right up to the big shiny wall that says in blinking fluorescent lights "shadow government conspiracy".

someone born yesterday would know this shit.
which hole were you conceived out of?

connect with 'we are change seattle' and figure a little something out before you go anywhere else, especially here.

[drizl]

yahoo, breaking my heart. i am feeling ignored over here.

there is plenty of information out there tying the "pakistan regime" to the white house. its amazing that they are still considered an ally in the war on terror!

there is a definite connection to 9-11. much of the world knows that pakistan is hiding bin laden. wasnt it al qaeda that supposedly assasinated bhutto? or are they just blaming al qaeda because we are all so familiar with them?

musharraf had bhutto under house arrest. he put his country under martial law. this could quite well have been an attempt by himself to disrupt the election process in the wake of his own demise. and as washington is quite heavily invested in pakistan, has been for many years, dubya and his gang might also benefit from bhuttos disappearance in pakistani politics.

you have to see the broader picture, understand things in context. politics are rarely pretty, it typically involves struggle, corruption, secrets and lies. sooner you can see that yeahzoo, better off you'll be.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, I can only guess what ericg and drizl are going on about but some mysterious connection between Benazir Bhutto and 9/11 - long on wild speculation and short on any kind of specifics - wouldn't be out of order for those two. The Illuminati and the Jews probably aren't far behind.

I thought that NY Times article was quite on point, especially in its criticism of the Bush administration's shortsighted and ineffectual policy towards Pakistan over the last seven years. The Bush State Department's attitude toward Pakistan mirrors its relationship with Saudi Arabia and echoes past American friendliness with dictators like Saddam Hussein: so long as these tin-pot tyrants are usefully acquiescent, their human rights violations and personal autocracy are forgiven - even rewarded, with multibillion dollar aid packages. But once they start becoming liabilities, they get dropped like a sack of bricks and the Americans start looking for replacements who will hopefully be more pliable.

Completely absent from the whole process is any sort of real, intensive promotion of political transparency or civic liberalism - the very things that make for strong societies that would be much more capable of fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban than the present regimes. It's probably too late for the Bushies to make any sort of progress in that direction; it will be up to the next State Department to put together a Pakistani policy that rewards and encourages the growth of democratic institutions. Then and only then will we see any success in Pakistan's dangerously unstable security situation.

[yeahwho]

Clearly it was done by Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick.

[ericg]

Yeah, I can only guess what ericg and drizl are going on about but some mysterious connection between Benazir Bhutto and 9/11 - long on wild speculation and short on any kind of specifics - wouldn't be out of order for those two. The Illuminati and the Jews probably aren't far behind.

.. 'google'

I thought that NY Times article was quite on point, especially in its criticism of the Bush administration's shortsighted and ineffectual policy towards Pakistan over the last seven years. The Bush State Department's attitude toward Pakistan mirrors its relationship with Saudi Arabia and echoes past American friendliness with dictators like Saddam Hussein: so long as these tin-pot tyrants are usefully acquiescent, their human rights violations and personal autocracy are forgiven - even rewarded, with multibillion dollar aid packages. But once they start becoming liabilities, they get dropped like a sack of bricks and the Americans start looking for replacements who will hopefully be more pliable.

"Bravo! Kudos to you for finding a tie between Bhutto's death and 9-11. So essentially, from your opinion, the US killed Bhutto. All part of the whole 9-11 conspiracy. Wow! Fucking Brilliant!"

Completely absent from the whole process is any sort of real, intensive promotion of political transparency or civic liberalism - the very things that make for strong societies that would be much more capable of fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban than the present regimes. It's probably too late for the Bushies to make any sort of progress in that direction; it will be up to the next State Department to put together a Pakistani policy that rewards and encourages the growth of democratic institutions. Then and only then will we see any success in Pakistan's dangerously unstable security situation.

"just shut the *&^% up"

[ericg]

Clearly it was done by Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick.

consider yourself knocked the *&%# out.

[ericg]

...
http://www.alternet.org/story/72055/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080101_musharraf_still_stands/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010208_bhutto_killing.htm

[drizl]

gunshots, explosions, she was killed by bullets, no wait she was killed when her head hit the sunroof latch, no bullets hit her....what the fuck. its all bullshit. elections are already pushed back till february. what could possibly be next for pakistan?

whatever it is, we need to stay the fuck out of it, and let the pakistani people take care of their own affairs. withdraw our billions of dollars of support- honestly support democracy.