Former Pakistani PM Bhutto assassinated

edanto

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85627&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment216455
Indymedia's take on this.

It's misleading to blame indymedia, it's only a product of the contributors, but I might have felt the same as you if I'd read what you did (but it's been removed).

One of the commentators said "I think it will be several months before the full immensity of this assassination is realised. The US put all it's eggs in one basket and Osama just smashed their basket."

What could they have meant? There can't really have been any connections between the US and Bhutto, can there?

Spacedout - your Iranian motive is more credible than moe & nachos's suggestion of it being because of an intolerance for "women assuming a senior role/a position of authority in muslim society."

But still if someone didn't want Dr whatever talking, then they just kill him surely. Why would Iran start a sh1tstorm by assassinating Bhutto?

What were her major policy stances? What would have changed in Pakistan if she had been elected? Is she pro-business, privatisation, etc? Or the complete opposite?

InFront

DaveMcG wrote: »

Pakistanis really need to learn a better way to channel their anger...

Yeah, because that's who's rioting. All 160 million Pakistanis. :rolleyes:

Anyway, this constant elaborate martyring of Bhutto by Sky News & Co. is making the whole thing pretty hard to stomach and is pretty distortionate of who Bhutto really was, who the kind of people who didn't like her are, and Pakistani politics and its people in general.

Unfortunately, some of the more respectable television and news media have also followed this lead.

mike65

Pity the comments were deleted - they usually only do that if the left or indymedia itself is being attacked.

The conspiracy theories are kicking in nice and early, even the manner of her death is being questioned.

Mike.

moe_sizlak

edanto wrote: »

Who would benefit from her assasination?

Al-Queda/Taliban - how would it benefit them?

Same question about Musharraf?

Any other players? Any european or american interests in pakistan?

i can only assume this is a tripple rhetorical question , its the only sensible explanation for such a question

al qaeeda would benefit because it would further destabalise the country , in order to overthrow a state , you need to destabalise it 1st

musharaff would benefit because destabalisation gives him an excuse to reinstate millitary powers and marshall law , also bhuto was a threat to his political leadership and those close to him, hes not a demcrat afterall

as for any other players , unlikely it was a lone gun man like in the case of the pope or ronald regan

SpAcEd OuT

edanto wrote: »

Spacedout - your Iranian motive is more credible than moe & nachos's suggestion of it being because of an intolerance for "women assuming a senior role/a position of authority in muslim society."

But still if someone didn't want Dr whatever talking, then they just kill him surely. Why would Iran start a sh1tstorm by assassinating Bhutto?

AQ Kahn is a hero amongst all Pakistanis if they killed him there would be an even bigger **** storm than what we are seeing now.

Placebo

moe_sizlak wrote: »

its one thing al qaeeda tollerating a secular male millitary dictator

they were never going to allow a female secular progressive democraticically elected leader

Not their country to be deciding anything, plus she was president for a while before. Her father was an absolute legend and needless to say Zia ul haq who himself got assisinated was 'supposidly' encouraged by america to frame him, upon which he bhutto got life sentence, libya saudi amongst others pleaded pak to let him go but anyway i dont blame the daughters motives quoted above.

anyway herself wasnt a saint for sure and obviously exiled for corruption, good thing the opposition Nawaz sharif has stepped down for the time being, i doubt taliban/al qaidas hand in this and its really strange that they would have hard evidence and tapped phone lines, faily sure theyd have jailed said leaders rather than tap their freekin phones.

P.s: al qaeeda would benefit more under bhuttos regim, rather than musharrafs as hes the one now claiming to hunt down each and every taliban/al qaeeda leader, not to mention being an ally for US under , fighting terrorism.
Musharraf is the only one who will benefit from this. -New emergency rule, claiming he was right to put it on in the first place, no opposition.

Manic Moran

One of the commentators said "I think it will be several months before the full immensity of this assassination is realised. The US put all it's eggs in one basket and Osama just smashed their basket."

That's OK. Probably two posts above that was one saying "The Americans have protected their ally Musharref by killing the woman liable to beat her, and may now continue their imperialist assault upon Afghanistan and Pakistan untroubled"

I'm going to put a vote in for "The Illuminati Space Lizards" did it.

NTM

nacho libre

moe_sizlak wrote: »

i can only assume this is a tripple rhetorical question , its the only sensible explanation for such a question

al qaeeda would benefit because it would further destabalise the country , in order to overthrow a state , you need to destabalise it 1st

musharaff would benefit because destabalisation gives him an excuse to reinstate millitary powers and marshall law , also bhuto was a threat to his political leadership and those close to him, hes not a demcrat afterall

as for any other players , unlikely it was a lone gun man like in the case of the pope or ronald regan

Nawar Sharif might stand to benefit too in the long run if the elections were to go ahead.
Iran is the least likely culprit in all of this. America is looking for any reason to rachet up the pressure on Iran so i don't see Iran being foolish enough to carry this out, even if they had a motive - which would be what exactly??

oh wait they killed her because to kill AQ Khan would create an even bigger ****storm. yeah, that's certainly more plausible....

how many female head's of state are there in predominantly muslim countries?
Bhutto secular views were the likely factor in her being killed but it should not be over looked that there are elements within the ISI, which are linked to militant muslim groups, both inside pakistan and in southern afghanistan, who do not want a female leader returned to power because it's an anathema to their beliefs

MrJoeSoap

Essey wrote: »

Doesnt sound like you believe in legacies either.

Not particularly, no.

djpbarry

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

AQ Kahn is a hero amongst all Pakistanis...

Please... :rolleyes:

wes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

America wanted her in power as she was going to allow them to interrogate Dr AQ Kahn..... maybe she was killed by a certain rogue state that didn't want America knowing...what they had or knew... I'm not pointing fingers [IRAN]

Jesus, thats the most out there conspiracy I have heard so far.

SpAcEd OuT

wes wrote: »

Jesus, thats the most out there conspiracy I have heard so far.

I think its perfectly plausible that Iran is behind this over the whole AQ Kahn issue. Iran has armed and trained suicide bombers in Iraq to protect it's interests why would this case be any different. Iran has already shown it doesn't care for borders.

Running Bing

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I thought she was lambasted a couple of years ago for defrauding the Pakistani people out of Billions?

Noticed everyone has neatly ignored your post:rolleyes:



Seriously it is a tragedy, and it will cause chaos in Pakistan.

Whatever you say about Bhutto she did have a stabilising influence on the country and kept people in line. Certainly not the chivalrous character some are making out (imo) but the country was in a hell of a lot better shape when she was alive.

Mr.Micro

I was reading in the Guardian (29 December 2007) that Bush has to re think US policy with regards to Pakistan. The previous policy has failed miserably with the death of Mrs.Bhutto, and the US had backed her to deal with the extremists, where Musharraf has failed. Another worrying aspect is the apparent resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the region and the continued influence they have in Pakistan and further afield in Afghanistan. In the short term it appears that the US will have to go along with Musharraf. In turn Mr.Musharraf still has the power to make a choice, to bring back the state of emergency or open dialogue with all parties in the hope of reconciliation so that moderation and democracy will ensue. My bet is on the former.

wes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I think its perfectly plausible that Iran is behind this over the whole AQ Kahn issue. Iran has armed and trained suicide bombers in Iraq to protect it's interests why would this case be any different. Iran has already shown it doesn't care for borders.

No, its not plausible at all. Its an out there theory. Also, the the stuff about Iraq is just as far out, but lets say they did do that in Iraq, they hardly benefit from sparking a war with Pakistan, which if they were behind this would cause. Remember Pakistan is a nuclear armed state, Iran is not stupid.

Kevster

In my opinion, the USA have a lot to answer for in this. They were the ones who funded the Pakistani government and the Taliban when Russia invaded Afghanistan back in the 70's. They then ceased funding once the Russians were defeated and left the Afghanistan in a right mess, controlled by the Taliban.

Since 9/11, the USA is now funding Pakistan again to - this time - defeat the Taliban and prevent them from taking-over Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons). The Taliban with nuclear weapons is not a sobering thought.

This assassination is one in a long line of events caused by the USA's stupidity and short-sightedness in worldly issues.

mcgarnicle

Wasn't Bhutto a supporter of the Taliban during her time in power? Pakistan under Bhutto was one of only three countries to offer recognition to the Taliban after their seizure of Afghanistan. She admitted that her government provided "moral support" to the Taliban and considering she was proven to be less than honest in her political dealings (various charges of corruption and, I believe, one conviction) I would not be surprised in the least if the support was a little more than just "moral".

She was against going into an alliance with Shariff because he favoured re-instating the judges dismissed by Musharaff, the judges that wanted to prosectute her for corruption. Her and her father (a man who once claimed the people of Pakistan would rather eat grass than give up the drive towards a nuclear weapon) strike me as champagne socialists at best and the disguisting extravagance of her family's mausoleum along with the various charges of corruption levelled at her make me think she was a wannabe kleptocrat.

With all that said it's obviously terrible that she has been killed, she did not deserve that. On the other hand she was a rather dodgy and dishonest character who almost certainly would not have been the saviour the western media seems to want us to believe she would be.

Mr.Micro

Kevster wrote: »

In my opinion, the USA have a lot to answer for in this. They were the ones who funded the Pakistani government and the Taliban when Russia invaded Afghanistan back in the 70's. They then ceased funding once the Russians were defeated and left the Afghanistan in a right mess, controlled by the Taliban.

Since 9/11, the USA is now funding Pakistan again to - this time - defeat the Taliban and prevent them from taking-over Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons). The Taliban with nuclear weapons is not a sobering thought.

This assassination is one in a long line of events caused by the USA's stupidity and short-sightedness in worldly issues.

I would agree with what you posted. The common denominator is arms and weapons, as the US appears to be obsessed with WMD in one form or another. It supplied Iraq against Iran, then in turn attacked Iraq, and countless other countries where it has interfered over the years. I suspect that without the arms and weapons business the US economy would falter as it appears to be an intrinsic part of the US psyche.

moe_sizlak

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would agree with what you posted. The common denominator is arms and weapons, as the US appears to be obsessed with WMD in one form or another. It supplied Iraq against Iran, then in turn attacked Iraq, and countless other countries where it has interfered over the years. I suspect that without the arms and weapons business the US economy would falter as it appears to be an intrinsic part of the US psyche.

if in doubt , blame the u.s

SpAcEd OuT

moe_sizlak wrote: »

if in doubt , blame the u.s

Yes the US is responsible for everything....:rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Yes the US is responsible for everything....:rolleyes:

Well lets face it the US has rarely been a benign entity. I would be the first to admit that the US does an awful lot of good in the world. The US must learn that it cannot always be right and also to leave well alone at times.

edanto

At least one reason for the US to care who is in power in Pakistan relates to all the pipelines and oil that they need to run through the region - but I don't know much about that; relatively it may not be that important.

Here's a youtube of Benazir & Frost, from two months ago, just found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

EDIT:
She received notification from Musharraf (passed on from a friendly country) that several bearded groups may try to kill her. She wrote a letter back to him saying...

"While these groups may be used, I thought it was more important to go after the people who supported them who organised them, or could possibly be the financiers or the organisers of the finance for those groups. And I named three individuals, who I thought were their sympathisers. Now I understand that I could be wrong and my suspicions could be misplaced but these are the people that I suspect want to stop the restoration of democracy, they want to stop my return."

So, who could those people be?

arctictree

Just saw that Bhuttos son is to take over as party leader :

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1230/pakistan.html

Strange that of all the members of the PPP, her son is the most capable leader!

Mr.Micro

arctictree wrote: »

Just saw that Bhuttos son is to take over as party leader :

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1230/pakistan.html

Strange that of all the members of the PPP, her son is the most capable leader!

I think it is more of a case of using him as figurehead, his name, and of course being Mrs. Bhutto's son.

stevoman

ok everybody attack me now for what im going to say.

Ms bhutto knew what was coming. The "radical" powers that be openly stated that if she returned to Pakistan she would be killed. Usually when radicals say there are going to get you they mean business, and they will take anything and everything around that person just to get to them.
As soon as she returned the first wave of suicide attacks struck and it cost the lives of 130 people. She should have left then but she didnt! Now she is dead along with another 14 people! I personally think she has the blood of those people on her hands as much as the bombers. You dont arrive somewhere if you are going to take that much instability with you!

Of course the americans now will lap this up. I can imagine it on the news "we will not, nor should Ms Bhutto's party bow down to this threat of terrorism" or something along them lines. I lived in New York for a few years and to be honest i had to leave and come home and one of the biggest factors for me to do that was because of their foreign policies and innsesint propaganda and constant bombardment of media propaganda, which beleive me is completly outragious!! One of the things i could cherish when i was living in America was the fact that i grew up in Ireland and had the common sense to see things from a different point of view and not from the tunnell minded American Physcy.

Anyways thats my 2 cents on it. Sorry if i got a little sidetracked, but bottom line, if that woman had left well enough alone she'd still be alive and so would at least 200 other people!

moe_sizlak

stevoman wrote: »

ok everybody attack me now for what im going to say.

Ms bhutto knew what was coming. The "radical" powers that be openly stated that if she returned to Pakistan she would be killed. Usually when radicals say there are going to get you they mean business, and they will take anything and everything around that person just to get to them.
As soon as she returned the first wave of suicide attacks struck and it cost the lives of 130 people. She should have left then but she didnt! Now she is dead along with another 14 people! I personally think she has the blood of those people on her hands as much as the bombers. You dont arrive somewhere if you are going to take that much instability with you!

Of course the americans now will lap this up. I can imagine it on the news "we will not, nor should Ms Bhutto's party bow down to this threat of terrorism" or something along them lines. I lived in New York for a few years and to be honest i had to leave and come home and one of the biggest factors for me to do that was because of their foreign policies and innsesint propaganda and constant bombardment of media propaganda, which beleive me is completly outragious!! One of the things i could cherish when i was living in America was the fact that i grew up in Ireland and had the common sense to see things from a different point of view and not from the tunnell minded American Physcy.

Anyways thats my 2 cents on it. Sorry if i got a little sidetracked, but bottom line, if that woman had left well enough alone she'd still be alive and so would at least 200 other people!

a grotesque piece if ever i read one

Essey

moe_sizlak wrote: »

a grotesque piece if ever i read one

I'd like to second that.

Mr.Micro

Stevoman, I agree with some of what you say, but not about Mrs. Bhutto having blood on her hands with regards to the people that died following her death. The perpetrators of the assassination made a cold blooded decision. Why should people bow to extremist threats even though they frequently prove correct? I am sure that she was aware of the the threats but she carried on for whatever motives, and she has to be admired for her courage and the price she paid. We here in Ireland are not beyond tunnel vision either at times.:)

wes

stevoman wrote: »

Anyways thats my 2 cents on it. Sorry if i got a little sidetracked, but bottom line, if that woman had left well enough alone she'd still be alive and so would at least 200 other people!

The people at the PPP rallies knew of the dangers as well. They weren't cowed by the extremists. They all bravely stood up to them, and they sadly paid for there lives for that.

I also, say this as someone who has family members who support the PPP in Pakistan. Bhutto and her supported stood up to the extremists and people should not be cowed by these people ever. They (the extremists) are cowards of the highest order to murder innocent people who only wants what best for there country.

However, I do agree that needless risks were taken and there should have been a lot more effort made to ensure everyones safety.

Sesshoumaru

stevoman wrote: »

ok everybody attack me now for what im going to say.

Ms bhutto knew what was coming. The "radical" powers that be openly stated that if she returned to Pakistan she would be killed. Usually when radicals say there are going to get you they mean business, and they will take anything and everything around that person just to get to them.
As soon as she returned the first wave of suicide attacks struck and it cost the lives of 130 people. She should have left then but she didnt! Now she is dead along with another 14 people! I personally think she has the blood of those people on her hands as much as the bombers. You dont arrive somewhere if you are going to take that much instability with you!

Of course the americans now will lap this up. I can imagine it on the news "we will not, nor should Ms Bhutto's party bow down to this threat of terrorism" or something along them lines. I lived in New York for a few years and to be honest i had to leave and come home and one of the biggest factors for me to do that was because of their foreign policies and innsesint propaganda and constant bombardment of media propaganda, which beleive me is completly outragious!! One of the things i could cherish when i was living in America was the fact that i grew up in Ireland and had the common sense to see things from a different point of view and not from the tunnell minded American Physcy.

Anyways thats my 2 cents on it. Sorry if i got a little sidetracked, but bottom line, if that woman had left well enough alone she'd still be alive and so would at least 200 other people!

When religous freaks make demands we should just bow our heads and say "yes master". That way no one gets hurt!