Benazifr Bhutto killed in suicide attack!

[JoeChalupa]

Breaking news on all the news networks!

Benazir Bhutto dies
Ex-Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died, according to media reports. Bhutto's husband said she was shot at a rally where a suicide bomber detonated, killing several of her supporters.

Bhutto killed in Pakistan (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html)

What will happen next and how will the people of Pakistan react?

[Gerryatrics]

Watching now. Looks like they finally got her. Sad news. No idea how the people are going to react, but I'll predict somewhere between a significant portion and all Hell is about to break loose.

First link I could find: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698466,00.html

[JoeChalupa]

Now I hear it was an actual assassination and she didn't die from the suicide attack. She was hit by bullet fire. Al Queda?

[1369]

With Musharraf's "popularity" with the public, I'd bet that rumors start to spread that he had a hand in it.

[some_user86]

It doesn't matter. She was a corrupt leader when she was in power. Perhaps another, perhaps stronger candidate can come to the forefront now. Nawaz Sharif is an idiot too. Actually, I predict that this will create sympathy for her party, and her husband will come to power.

Politics sucks, and Pakistan has not known true democracy since about 1950 (for those deficient in history, Pakistan was created in 1947).

[ggoose25]

Well, it may not matter for Pakistan, but US stategery is ruined. They were banking on her losing in the general election to legitimize rule by Musharraf. Now GWB & Co. will need to find a new way to spin our friendship and reliance on a military dictator.

Time to invade Pakistan as liberators?

[boutons_]

"a corrupt leader when she was in power."

In that part of the planet, and even in USA, nearly all leaders are corrupt, enriching themselves and the plutocracy, subverting "democratic" will, etc, etc. You got a problem with that? If so, you're expectations are kindergarten naive.

[some_user86]

"a corrupt leader when she was in power."

In that part of the planet, and even in USA, nearly all leaders are corrupt, enriching themselves and the plutocracy, subverting "democratic" will, etc, etc. You got a problem with that? If so, you're expectations are kindergarten naive.

To the extent that she was corrupt? Compared to her, Nawaz Sharif is George Washington.

[some_user86]

Well, it may not matter for Pakistan, but US stategery is ruined. They were banking on her losing in the general election to legitimize rule by Musharraf. Now GWB & Co. will need to find a new way to spin our friendship and reliance on a military dictator.

Time to invade Pakistan as liberators?

Musharraf was in a lose-lose situation in terms of the election. The two big choices were either Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. For those who don't recall, Nawaz Sharif was the man that Musharraf ousted to come to power in the first place. Bhutto was by far the more palatable option for Musharraf, even after the fuck-up he created with the suspension of the judiciary. Now, it will be either Bhutto's husband (who will likely blame the attack on Musharraf) or Sharif.

It would be hillarious to watch a Musharraf-Sharif tandem years after Sharif tried to exile Musharraf only to have himself ousted by Musharraf's friends in the military.

I still think of Pakistan as a failed state. Given their recent problems in maintaining the NWFP and continued antagonism with Afghanistan's Karzai, it would be interesting to see if the country dissolves into civil war and ultimately disintegrates into separate states (Balochistan, a separate land for Pashtos, etc). Maybe not. It might just mean that Musharraf can again justify imposition of emergency powers (not like that was the worst thing in the world for US policy).




In terms of friendships with dictators, since when has US ever been able to justify friendships with them? I think we should just drop the pretenses. We like some dictators, but not others, and only when it fits our needs. Who cares but the ideologues?

[ggoose25]

My money is on Musharraf suspending elections again indefinitely in the wake of this tragedy. Thanks for the back history on Sharif, I didn't know too much about him.

And regarding US friendships with dictators... I know about that. Its hard work. Its tough.


PS: Ideologues are in the WH

[ggoose25]

Rudy is on the attack:


"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us."

[Twisted_Dawg]

If that country tilts to radical Islam......look out.

[some_user86]

PS: Ideologues are in the WH

Ideology didn't stop the ideologues from making nicies with Saddam during Iran-Iraq war in the 80s when they were in power (remember Rumsfeld's infamous handshake with Saddam?). It didn't stop them from going to China in the '70s (Nixon). It didn't stop them from installing dictators in South American governments in the 80s. Why should ideology stop these so-called ideologues now? Perhaps because they were never truly ideologues, but instead pandered to the constituency on a banner of democracy when they really stood for something else. I guess it also makes it hard to sell their brand of ideology when someone can so easily call them out for their hypocrisy.

It would be so much easier to just admit that they are doing what they think is appropriate for US policy (even if it means waltzing with a dictator).
^ N.B.: "Thinking what is appropriate" != "what is appropriate".
^^ N.B.: For those who don't know, "!=" is used in programming to denote "does not equal."

[ggoose25]

Ideology didn't stop the ideologues from making nicies with Saddam during Iran-Iraq war in the 80s when they were in power (remember Rumsfeld's infamous handshake with Saddam?). It didn't stop them from going to China in the '70s (Nixon). It didn't stop them from installing dictators in South American governments in the 80s. Why should ideology stop these so-called ideologues now? Perhaps because they were never truly ideologues, but instead pandered to the constituency on a banner of democracy when they really stood for something else. I guess it also makes it hard to sell their brand of ideology when someone can so easily call them out for their hypocrisy.

It would be so much easier to just admit that they are doing what they think is appropriate for US policy (even if it means waltzing with a dictator).

Well said.

I agree, however, skillful foreign policy and honesty are in short supply in this administration. I'd rather them level with me, but the truth isn't palatable after claiming the Iraq invasion was all about freedom after WMD went AWOL.

If Musharraf is the best bet against fighting terrorism then I think the US should continue to work with him regardless of how they have to justify it. The unending hypocrisy is certainly amusing.

[ChumpDumper]

I can only hope that terrorists were behind this and that it can proven to the satisfaction of the Pakistani people. Maybe then there will be some popular support behind another crackdown in in the border area with Afghanistan.

[PixelPusher]

I can only hope that terrorists were behind this and that it can proven to the satisfaction of the Pakistani people. Maybe then there will be some popular support behind another crackdown in in the border area with Afghanistan.
A pretty tall order, considering Musharref's crediblilty tank is running on fumes lately.

[mrsmaalox]

My money is on Musharraf suspending elections again indefinitely in the wake of this tragedy. Thanks for the back history on Sharif, I didn't know too much about him.

And regarding US friendships with dictators... I know about that. Its hard work. Its tough.


PS: Ideologues are in the WH
How can they possibly have an election? It's too soon for her party to sub another candidate.

[mrsmaalox]

I can only hope that terrorists were behind this and that it can proven to the satisfaction of the Pakistani people. Maybe then there will be some popular support behind another crackdown in in the border area with Afghanistan.

Well if it was terrorists, maybe we will finally rethink the aid been given to Pakistan to "fight terrorism and capture OBL".

[boutons_]

"aid been given to Pakistan"

Reports of the past few days say that dubya's military has thrown many $Bs at Pakistan since 9/11 and most of it totally wasted, esp in results in restraining Pakistan-baed Taleban and AQ.

In January, US special forces will be moving into Pakistan FATAs for "training" of Paki forces, perhaps more effective that US military trainers in Viet Nam in the early 60s.

[Chief]

so as soon as the news hit all businesses immediately shut down because over here if you have ur business running in times of tragedy it is likely to be burnt down or looted.

traffic was heavy, at some points traffic was not able to move onword because further up ahead people were being gunned down and cars and buses were set ablaze.

Karachi is headquarters of the PPP party so I expect heavy riotings over the next few day's. Hopefully i'll be out of here soon and to dubai in a few hours, thank god flights were delayed as we were not able to take normal airport route due to the firings and blazes

[whottt]

I don't know how corrupt Bhutto was, especially compared to the other leaders Pakistan has had...but she was the one in charge when Pakistan really began it's decline, and when the Taliban began to take control of Afghanistan...

So she was a poor leader, it's more like she was aristocracy than anything else. Her family is equivalent to the Bushes or the Kennedys...Pakistani royalty....mystifyingly popular, only members of her family get assassinated or executed more frequently.


I don't think her assassination is a good thing though...and I'm pretty sure Musharraf had something to do with it based on the way other members of her family were killed.

[mrsmaalox]

I don't think her assassination is a good thing though...and I'm pretty sure Musharraf had something to do with it based on the way other members of her family were killed.

I could probably just look this up, but were she and her father the only members of the family ever in charge of Pakistan?

[JoeChalupa]

It will be very interesting to see how Bush's visit to Pakistan will go.

[whottt]

I could probably just look this up, but were she and her father the only members of the family ever in charge of Pakistan?


I think so...but she also had a brother that was assassinated.

Still, that's equivalent to the Bushes and more than the Kennedys...


Her father was executed by the Pakistani Government....

[boutons_]

"she was the one in charge when Pakistan really began it's decline, and when the Taliban began to take control of Afghanistan...'

great "ideolgical" logic. co-incidence means causality. noted

The Taleban arose and were strengthened by the USA supporting them and their pre-cursors against the Russians. DIRECT FUCKING CAUSALITY.

[whottt]

The Taleban arose and were strengthened by the USA supporting them and their pre-cursors against the Russians. DIRECT FUCKING CAUSALITY.


Whore of anti-americanism...you have no objectivity and no openmindednesss and most importantly, no common sense. You are beyond all doubt the most close minded/hate driven person posting in the political forum and thus your opinions are worthless. Every single utterance you make is biased, slanted, twisted, filled with the distortion of hate and highly propagandized...

A truly worthless opinion, the most worthless in this forum.

[boutons_]

Whott the fuck, I'm flattered you don't have me on ignore, and even more flattered that you bother to respond.

Seems my bitch-slapping is really pulling your chain, bitch. :lol

[some_user86]

"she was the one in charge when Pakistan really began it's decline, and when the Taliban began to take control of Afghanistan...'

great "ideolgical" logic. co-incidence means causality. noted

The Taleban arose and were strengthened by the USA supporting them and their pre-cursors against the Russians. DIRECT FUCKING CAUSALITY.

If you don't know anything about a topic, you really shouldn't talk.

Bhutto voiced support for the Taliban and provided quite a bit of finance to their efforts. She even provided military assistance.

But you don't let facts get in the way of making an argument.

Dumbass. :donkey

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Whott the fuck, I'm flattered you don't have me on ignore, and even more flattered that you bother to respond.

Seems my bitch-slapping is really pulling your chain, bitch. :lol

No, I think it's more the fact you're a complete fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[JoeChalupa]

Joe Biden called this awhile ago.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

So the US Strategy is fucked. Now its time to move on. I say let the country disintegrate and attempt to influence its division into more ethnically homogeneous states.

Thats a prime reason all these countries are complete shitholes.

In fact, can you imagine how bad ass of a covert operation the US would be able to pull off in pakistan if our money and resources weren't bogged in Iraq? We could attempt separation and leave those rural mountainous afghan border areas a new no man's land, waltz in there and commit heinous acts of violence to finally put those fucking terrorists to bed for at least another decade.

Plus we'd be able to earn brownie points with India by influencing a kashmir state that we allow India to own in the future with us turning a blind eye.

of course this hypothetical situation would all depend on the pakistani people's response in the coming weeks...

Really the only monkey wrench in a division plan is the nukes.

[Duff McCartney]

I think Pakistan is in deep trouble...obviously. I read an article about the struggle for the soul of Pakistan and some of the stories they had were just so amazing to read. It's a great way to see how easy it is, especially in places like Pakistan where corruption is rampant and basic social services are non-existent, how groups like Al-Qaeda and other radical Islam groups can influence and rally so many followers.

I think Pakistan and it's people is lacking serious hope...hope for the future and for it can become. When people lose hope, then they turn to radical ways to get it back...violence and the likes. I can only hope that Pakistan can pull itself out of a hole that appears to be getting deeper and deeper.

[whottt]

I think Pakistan and it's people is lacking serious hope...hope for the future and for it can become. When people lose hope, then they turn to radical ways to get it back...violence and the likes.

That exactly what it is...

And fanatical religious beliefs. Desperate reactions by desperate people.


I just want to know if Bhutto was legitimately winning all those elections and as popular as she seemed...


Because if she was then it's strange that she could be so popular if the people felt she was responsible for their struggles.

[violentkitten]

what it is are oppressive regimes and some religious fanatics. the ordinary people are caught in between.

[Nbadan]

CNN's Wolf Blitzer spent much of the first 16 minutes of today's Situation Room talking with Mark Siegel, Benazir Bhutto's longtime friend and spokesperson in the U.S. In October she sent an email (below) to Siegel. Siegel then sent it on to Blitzer on the condition it only be read in the event Bhutto was killed. In introducing the segment Blitzer said, "Only now can I reveal to you what I know. This is a story she wanted me to tell the world on her behalf if she were killed." The story, as detailed in the email, is that Pres. Pervez Musharraf was behind her assassination.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/BhuttoLetter_1227.jpg
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/BhuttoLetter2_1227.jpg

Link (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser)

[Nbadan]

Photo taken Just before Bhutto was attacked....


http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00410/bhutto_682_410072a.jpg

[Nbadan]

Ms. Bhutto, 54, was shot in the neck or head, according to differing accounts, as she stood in the open sunroof of a car and waved to crowds. Seconds later a suicide attacker detonated his bomb, damaging one of the cars in her motorcade, killing more than 20 people and wounding 50, the Interior Ministry said.

. . .

The attack bore hallmarks of the Qaeda-linked militants in Pakistan. But witnesses described a sniper firing from a nearby building, raising questions about how well the government had protected her in a usually well-guarded garrison town and fueling speculation that government sympathizers had played a part.

. . .

One former government minister said the backlash could make Mr. Musharraf’s position untenable. “Musharraf will not be able to control the situation now,” he said.

. . .

Apparently no autopsy was done, because the police did not request one, Dawn TV reported. Lawyers calling for an international neutral investigation are raising questions about the speed with which Ms. Bhutto’s body was moved. The body arrived in her southern home province, Sindh, before dawn, party officials told Agence-France Presse. The assassination is likely to deepen suspicion among Ms. Bhutto’s supporters of Pakistan’s security agencies. Ms. Bhutto has long accused parts of the government, namely the country’s premier military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of working against her and her party because they oppose her liberal, secular agenda.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

I'm sure some of you are asking why elements of Al-Queda would want attack the Bhutto convey if she was truly as sympathetic to their cause as some people here contend...

[Nbadan]

Reports from Pakistan coming in..


One Kansas City resident got a firsthand look at the chaos that tore through Pakistan after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Nabeeha Kazi, a Pakistani-American who is visiting family in Pakistan, described to The Kansas City Star by e-mail on Thursday the scene that engulfed the city of Karachi, about 500 miles from the assassination site. That’s where Kazi happened to be shopping with her mother at an open market.

“It is a disaster here,” Kazi wrote. “Chaos broke out as soon as we found out that (Bhutto) had been attacked. The city is in an incredibly unstable and dangerous predicament.”

Kansas City (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/420918.html)

[Nbadan]

KARACHI - UNIDENTIFIED gunmen shot dead a policeman in a stronghold of assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in Karachi on Friday, a day after she was killed in a suicide attack in Rawalpindi, police said.

---

The streets of Pakistan's biggest city were largely deserted on Friday with most shops shuttered and paramilitary troops and police patrolling.

---

A reporter travelling from Karachi to the Bhuttos' home district of Larkana said he saw hundreds of burnt-out vehicles and people were coming out on Friday morning and setting fire to more and trying to block roads.

---

'People are very angry. They attacked banks and government offices. There were no police anywhere. Two shops selling weapons were also looted,' Ms Maula Baksh, a journalist based in Larkana, said of the Thursday night violence.

Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Asia/STIStory_190746.html)

[Nbadan]

More than likely it wasn't Al-Queda terra-ist who attacked the Bhutto convey, but likely the same menace that shares much of the responsibility for attacking the U.S. on 9/11....

Benazir Bhutto takes on a powerful enemy
By Colin Freeman in Karachi


Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto plans to purge her country's intelligence services of hundreds of rogue agents suspected of supporting Islamic terrorism, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

In a move that puts her in direct confrontation with the nation's most powerful institutions, Ms Bhutto, who returned home from exile last week, said Pakistan's security agencies had to become "professional" outfits free from political agendas.

Foremost in her sights if she returns to power will be the notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the secretive "state within the state" that is blamed for orchestrating much of the terrorist violence convulsing Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan.

SNIP...

The source also gave the identities of three government officials said to have been named in a letter written by Ms Bhutto to Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, in which she accused them of plotting to attack her. The Sunday Telegraph is not revealing their names for legal reasons, but they include a serving senior commander within Pakistani intelligence.

Ms Bhutto makes no secret of her disdain for the ISI, long the most powerful of Pakistan's myriad security agencies. Formed in 1948 to look after external threats, it expanded out of control in the 1980s, when it was responsible for disbursing millions of dollars of US cash to Islamic mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/21/wpak121.xml)

[whottt]

I'm pretty sure Musharraf had something to do with it based on the way other members of her family were killed.


Well the question was is Musharraf going to turn out to be a guy who stands for making Pakistan better or was he going to turn out to be just like Saddam and every other dictator that takes over on that side of the world....I guess he answered that question. And he's got nukes.


Here's the catch...you cut off economic aid to Pakistan and the desperate conditions that are fueling their Radical Islamic movement become even worse.


MB said "some" Muslim fantatics....but the thing is, if they are all willing to strap a bomb to themselves and commit acts of terror....they don't need many 10 thousand is plenty.

If Mushrarraf is capable of this sort of thing, not much of the aid is getting through...although we know some is, but if you hit him with sanctions, what little is getting through is going to be the first thing to go and it's going to fuel the extremism.

LaMarcus...you can say we should pull out of Pakistan...but we had. We hadn't messed with Pakistan in a long long time at the time of Sept 11th...and most of those guys were Pakistanis.


The world is a small place now, and the have nots always hate the havs.


And they have nuclear potential and they are willing to commit suicide.


Screwed up situation...but it's not going to go away if we just pretend Pakistan doesn't exist. It's going to get worse. That's what lead to it in the first place.


This is why we have to turn one of those shitholes into a nonshithole...so then they can't just say it's America doing it to Muslims and America will align with anyone. Read...win in Iraq. That's the only way to combat it...

[Nbadan]

Chennai, Oct.19 (ANI): The retired brigadier who was given the responsibility of securing former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's car journey through Karachi on Thursday, used to be the handling officer of Osama bin Laden and Taliban chief Mulla Omar when he was attached with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Disclosing this information in an article for the rediff website, former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, B.Raman says that Brigadier (retired) Ejaz Shah, whose resignation is being demanded by Benazir Bhutto, is a close confidante of President General Pervez Musharraf.

Raman says that after Musharraf seized power on October 12, 1999, he had Shah posted as the Home Secretary of Punjab. He also says that Omar Sheikh, who orchestrated the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl, surrendered before Shah because Omar Sheikh knew him before and was confident that Ejaz Shah would see that he was not tortured.

So close are the links between Shah and Musharraf that when several allegations were filed against him, Musharraf sought to send him as Ambassador to Australia or Indonesia. Both countries reportedly refused to accept him. Musharraf then made him the Director General of the Intelligence Bureau and he saw to it that the death sentence against Omar Sheikh for his role in the Pearl case was not executed.

The courts have been repeatedly postponing hearings on the appeal filed by Omar Sheikh against the death sentence.

Shah, according to Raman, also played an active role in the campaign to discredit Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Caudhury after he started calling for the files of a large number of missing persons who were taken into custody by the police and the intelligence agencies.

Shah is also a close personal friend of many Punjabi leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid), which is opposed to Benazir's return.

According to these sources, the suicide bomber or bombers managed to penetrate the security cordon of the police and IB officers without being frisked, but could not penetrate the inner cordon of security guards of the PPP. When stopped on Thursday night, they blew themselves up at a distance from her vehicle. At the time of the explosion, Bhutto had gone inside the vehicle to rest for a while. This seems to have contributed to her miraculous escape. Had she been standing on top she might have been injured, if not killed? (ANI)

Link (http://in.news.yahoo.com/071019/139/6m5uk.html)

[Nbadan]

This is an in-depth report, filed last week, on Pakistan's political situation going in to their upcoming elections. This was before the assassination, of course.

Quite an eye opener, and puts the assassination in to stark relief....pay particular attention to the tenor of the very last :30, about Bhutto's outstanding Interpol warrant. Also note how little of this you've heard about any of this you're hearing on American television today.


a41ZGhPGR6A

[Nbadan]

Among the most interesting reactions today in America to the assassination, was Joe Biden's statement..


20w_km9lQCY

This crisis may help Biden in Iowa....

[Nbadan]

Joe Biden on Hardball discussing Bhutto Assassination...


Bin75ez-qxE

[boutons_]

Huge diplomatic setback for dubya. The US negotiated a year for her return, and was probably counting on her as next and friendlier President, or at least strongly influential opposition on whoever will be President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html?hpid=topnews

[Nbadan]

David Frost Interview with Benazifr Bhutto over the weekend...talks about assassination....


oIO8B6fpFSQ

[Nbadan]

The four men Benazir Bhutto fingers in her letter to Prez. Musharraf before her assassination....

Lieutenant General Hamid Gul


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/General_Hameed.jpg
"We are not afraid of the Americans; they can't fight on the ground.
We are only concerned about their high-altitude bombers."

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. Bhutto has a long history of accusing parts of the government, particularly Pakistan’s premier military intelligence agencies, of working against her and her party because they oppose her liberal, secular agenda. Bhutto claimed that the ISI has for decades backed militant Islamic groups in Kashmir and in Afghanistan.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto)

[Nbadan]

Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2006/12/25/20061225_44.jpg

Was the Chief Minister of the Pakistan's most populous province Punjab, since November 29, 2002 till 2007. He is tipped to become the Next Prime Minister of Pakistan and is part of the clique called "Chaudhrys of Gujrat

[Nbadan]

Ijaz Shah


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/976_mohammed_aziz_khan_2050081722-8808.jpg

Retired Brigadier Ijaz Shah is a Pakistani politician, and a long-term close associate of Pervez Musharraf known for his close links with terrorists; Shah is a former Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official and is currently the director-general of the Pakistani intelligence bureau; in his official capacity he was one of the individuals named as one of the prime suspects in the 2007 Karachi bombing at the return of Benazir Bhutto...but it's Shah's connection to Saeed Sheikh, the accused mastermind of the Daniel Pearl kidnapping and murder in Iraq that should kick those idle brain synapsis in your head a little...

[Nbadan]

Here is a CNN Video of the attack scene immediately after it happened

Benazir Bhutto assassinated (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail#cnnSTCVideo)

[some_user86]

al-Qaeda appears to have claimed responsibility for the attack.

I think I read another article which places blame on factions in the ISI, but believes that Musharraf was unlikely to have been involved with the attack. (ISI is semi-autonomous now anyways, with differing factions supporting each of the major powers in Pakistan.)

[some_user86]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/27/bhutto.dhs.alqaeda/
^ Al-Qaeda claims responsibility.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3100052.ece
^ Belief in ISI and Warlord behind attack (with little Musharraf responsibility).

[JoeChalupa]

Rudy's campaign just got a boost as did McCain's.

[whottt]

If Bhutto fingered Musharraf in her death letter that trumps anything else...

Especially when you see how her father was executed.

All Al-Qaeda claiming responsibility does is tell me that they have their lot thrown in with Musharraf....not exactly a surprise.

Musharraf is so corrupt he can pretty much be counted on to be bought or align with anyone depending on the situation...


Which is why I want a President that says he's going to nuke Mecca and other countries if any sort of Nuclear Terrorism is carried out in the US. Because that's the only threat they will understand...and it can't just be a guy that says he will do it...it has to be a guy you freaking know will do it...and that's Rudy.

I don't see any other way...you really can't sanction these guys, it only hurts the people.

[whottt]

By the way...Props to Bhutto...

The way this is reading to me...this lady is one of the bravest leaders of a country ever.

She basically knew she was going to get killed...and she placed herself in danger and gave up her life just to reveal who the corrupt party truly was, and how bad the situation was....that's congressional medal of honor worthy valor on her part...I don't care if she was a Silver Spoon or not. The Woman had balls...

[JoeChalupa]

Once nukes start flying God help us all.

[Nbadan]

By the way...Props to Bhutto...

The way this is reading to me...this lady is one of the bravest leaders of a country ever.

She basically knew she was going to get killed...and she placed herself in danger and gave up her life just to reveal who the corrupt party truly was, and how bad the situation was....that's congressional medal of honor worthy valor on her part...I don't care if she was a Silver Spoon or not. The Woman had balls...

...let's not gloss over the fact that Bhutto and her hubby were corrupt...

[whottt]

A. If you don't think they intend for the nukes to start flying you are very naive. The Maddrassas in Pakistan teach them to love the concept of nuclear annihilation and the destruction of the US. They were teaching them this when we weren't even involved with Pakistan and they weren't on our radar.


This is what they were teatching them in those schools...we when we hadn't even been involved with them in a decade...that's why Sept 11th happened.


B. The nuclear threat will not threaten their engines of destruction, their radicals, their homeless kids pulled off the street and given a purpose in life by Radical Islam...an alternative to a life spent dying slowly smoking opium

It won't threaten those guys...but it will threaten those that control them, and that seek to use Radical Islam as a means of attaining power...

Common sense really.


The best way for us to get nuked via terrorism? Is to have a President they don't think will nuke them in retaliation. As long as the nuclear threat exists, as long as those leaders think we have a guy that will nuke them, regardless of whether or not the world wants him to do it...you will never see an act of nuclear terrorism.


Read up on what they teach those homeless kids they pull off the street in Pakistan...then you'll understand exactly what is we face. Just how real and deadly the threat actually is....and how close we really are to the day that happens.


You guys call Bush stupid, ignorant greedy all you want...but he's proven he will act in opposition to world opinion, and he will do so forcefully...and it's something noticed by every guy in control of one of those countries.





So you guys can sit here and be anti-war and think it will make a difference...but you really have no idea of the mindset we face...


You are the rich wealthy fatcat, because you live within the borders of the United States of America...and it doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter if we pull out of Iraq or not....it does not matter, you will still be the rich wealthy decadent fatcat that they want to gut. It does matter if you are pro-war or anti-war...it does not matter.

You have...and they have not, and they hate you for it. You are evil to them.


You know how I know this stuff? Because I dated a Pakistani woman...she was raped at the age of 4 by her parents houseboy...not only did they not the fire the guy, they told her it was her fault...and she says her family was one of the more decent ones. When she tried to get a job, refused her prearranged marriage, and wanted to be independent her father beat her and tried to have her institutionalized. Lots of other stuff beyond that...


It's what happens when women have no voice in a society...a brutal destructive society emerges...

You've just seen what they think of women trying to have a voice over there....what happens to them.


It will not go away if we ignore it...


The only way it can be fougth is with representative government and giving a voice to the people...and Iraq is the place to start, whether we went over there for oil...or not. We pull out, Rad Islam will move in and tend to their wounds...and it will become an even more brutal war like society...only one that is very wealthy...

[boutons_]

Bolton blames US for Pakistain crisis.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bolton_US_helped_precipitate_conditions_for_1228.h tml

Coupled with the idea that US secretly negotiated Bhutto's repatriation, Bolton seems to be right on this one.

Damn, can't dubya and dickhead and their cowboy posse get anything right? They've ffucked up EVERYTHING they've touched, except tax cuts for the super-rich and corps.

Or maybe they wanted this assassination as a geo-political crisis to bolster Repug candidiates? We all know in our hearts that only Repugs can defend America, as they did so well on 9/11.

[whottt]

...let's not gloss over the fact that Bhutto and her hubby were corrupt...


Corrupt compared to who?

This woman knew she was going to get it and still went and faced death...which gives this spoiled, silverspoon, corrupt, aristorcrat, more balls and integrity than 75% of this forum.


Corrupt compared to who?

[JoeChalupa]

I'm not saying to ignore anything. My point is that it is just a matter of time that a nuclear war will happen and I pray, and you can call me all the names you want, that the world's leader, kumbaya, will realize that once you push that button there is no turning back. Are there radicals who are just itching to nuke the US? Sure there are but I also know there are radicals who just itching to nuke some middle east countries.
I am all for a strong defense and make no mistake about it, we must retaliate or if need be strike first but we must do it very wisely, if such a thing can be done.

[JoeChalupa]

Corrupt compared to who?

This woman knew she was going to get it and still went and faced death...which gives this spoiled, silverspoon, corrupt, aristorcrat, more balls and integrity than 75% of this forum.


Corrupt compared to who?

Is it fair to assume you count yourself among the 75%?

[boutons_]

The facts may never be known, but these are as good as any right now:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Police_abandoned_security_posts_before_Bhutto_1228 .html

Anyway, why should America care? The Army is the only force for stability in Pakistan, and America has been pumping it full of $Bs and hot hardware for years.

And it was reported a few weeks ago that US actually has its own military in helping the Pakis guard the nukes.

[whottt]

And BTW Dan...i am going to keep voting for guys that I think will be the most willing to use nuclear weapons...the guys that are scary, are the guys I like...

Rudy pusshing the button while dressed up in the finest lingere from Victoria's secret? Works for me...


You guys either stop putting up wimps against them...or you can get a sane, gentle and caring scary guy...but anyone whose platform begins with, let's leave so they'll like us...I am not voting for. Because that's the guy they will use nuclear terrorism to intimidate, for money, for resources, for power...and just to be guy who did that to the US.


Personally...I'd rather someone more moderate...but that alternative doesn't exist...because you refuse to let him exist...so the scary authoritarian it is.

W is one of the least likeable men I have ever seen in my life...just a look at him and you despise him and think he's a moron...the fact that he actually became more popular is testament to just how off you guys are on this.

[Nbadan]

Corrupt compared to who?

Her hubby funneled millions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts...so that would make her corrupt by every standard...

[Nbadan]

A mystery has emerged about how Bhutto perished..

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20071228/2007_12_28t130726_300x450_us_pakistan_qaeda.jpg

A handout released on Friday by Pakistan's Interior Ministry shows images of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's skull. Interior ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said on Friday Bhutto had not been shot, nor had she been hit by shrapnel from the blast but she had been killed when the force of the explosion crashed her head against a lever on the sun-roof of her vehicle.
(Interior Ministry/Handout/Reuters)

[JoeChalupa]

She's dead. That is all that matters besides who carried out the plot.

[Nbadan]

Unfortunately, it's much more complicated than this joe....

Alleged connection to 9/11


On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. <1>

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

[whottt]

I'm not saying to ignore anything. My point is that it is just a matter of time that a nuclear war will happen and I pray, and you can call me all the names you want, that the world's leader, kumbaya, will realize that once you push that button there is no turning back.

I'm not so sure about that...it drug the Japanese into the 20th century pretty effectively. And the longest lived group of human beings now live in Japan.


Nuclear energy is what gave us life...we are the result of nuclear reaction.


I don't want a nuclear war...but I want a guy that threatens one, not one that thinks this can be solved by pretending it's not happening and trying to mind his own business. The world is too small now to mind our own business...

And if we even do...as the world's wealthiest and most powerful country, they will not mind their own business.



Are there radicals who are just itching to nuke the US? Sure there are but I also know there are radicals who just itching to nuke some middle east countries.

Itching to nuke for no reason? Not I...I view it only as means of retaliation. But I just want to make completely sure they have no doubts we will retaliate.




I am all for a strong defense and make no mistake about it, we must retaliate or if need be strike first but we must do it very wisely, if such a thing can be done.


Dude these guys are macho...it's all about power and control, that's their way, that's what they respect..and the only way to change that is to liberalize their society...and that's not going to happen pretending they aren't there. It's going to get worse..as their population grows disproportionately with the governments ability to feed and care for them.


And the idea of country with the wealth of Iraq becoming that way...which is what will happen when we pull out..if this government does not succeed...should be the scariest thing you can imagine...

If a liberalixzed Arab Muslim Democracy emerges we are no longer isolated...sure a bunch of them will just say Iraq is the lapdog of the US...but more will say...you know, Iraq is doing good now...so it's not all about the rich impoverishing the poor muslims...and the pressure on those leaders that remain hardline will increase...the lies will be harder to pull of.

TO me that's the way you solve this problem...that's why I don't care why we went into Iraq...I view victory there(as in representative govt) as the #1 way to combat radical Islam worldwide. It won't end the conflict or radical Islam...but it will be a blow to it...the biggest blow we can mount.

[Nbadan]

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mehmood Ahmed resigned from his position. It was reported that the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta <2>; there were also claims that Indian intelligence had already produced proof for the Pakistani administration that this was so.The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mehmood."<3> Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."<4>

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."<5>

Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.

In an opinion piece published by the Wall Street Journal, Tunku Varadarajan has claimed that “It is a fact that Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."

Link (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866)

So Daniel Pearl was investigating the transfer of $100,000 from Omar Sheikh to Mohammed Atta in the weeks before 9/11, on the orders of the head of Pakistan's ISI, General Mehmood Ahmed...

The 9/11 Commission looks the other way when this information surfaces via Pearl's investigation.

Omar Sheikh orchestrates Daniel Pearl's death.

But we are conveniently told that Khalid Sheilk Mohammed is *the real killer* of Daniel Pearl,because he *confessed during waterboarding*.


Bhutto very matter-of-factly states in November, 2007 that Omar Sheikh assassinated Osama bin Laden.


Benazir Bhutto is assassinated on December 27, 2007.

[mullet]

i am going to keep voting for guys that I think will be the most willing to use nuclear weapons...the guys that are scary, are the guys I like...


:tu

[whottt]

Is it fair to assume you count yourself among the 75%?


Actually it isn't....the first thing I did after Sept 11th was go down to SA and try to join the armed forces. I wasn't deemed as suitable for being in the military inspite of getting 94 on my avsab, due to a head injury. They didn't want to spend the money it would take to clear me and I had no way of clearing myself. I don't care if anyone believes that or calls me a liar...because they're wrong. I know...America isn't the bad guy in this particular conflict. This is one of the rare opportunities we have to truly be the good guy. Only we don't want to do it...we want to be the indifferent guy, that minds his own business.


What these guys do to women, to minorities, to people who do not believe the way they do....is about 400 years behind the rest of the world...but their technology isn't. That's a huge problem....

[JoeChalupa]

Actually it isn't....the first thing I did after Sept 11th was go down to SA and try to join the armed forces. I wasn't deemed as suitable for being in the military inspite of getting 94 on my avsab, due to a head injury. They didn't want to spend the money it would take to clear me and I had no way of clearing myself. I don't care if anyone believes that or calls me a liar...because they're wrong. I know...America isn't the bad guy in this particular conflict. This is one of the rare opportunities we have to truly be the good guy. Only we don't want to do it...we want to be the indifferent guy, that minds his own business.

"I don't care if anyone believes that or calls me a liar...because they're wrong." I've said to many people myself. You can call me anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer or weak on national defense but I too know they are wrong. I don't think America is the bad guy at all. Far from it. You guys just like to think us guys think that way and you are wrong.

[Nbadan]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20071228/2007_12_28t125837_315x450_us_pakistan_qaeda.jpg

A handout released on Friday by Pakistan's Interior Ministry shows images of Benazir Bhutto's vehicle. Interior ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said on Friday Bhutto had not been shot, nor had she been hit by shrapnel from the blast but she had been killed when the force of the explosion crashed her head against a lever on the sun-roof of her vehicle.

[whottt]

Bhutto fingered the guy in her death letter...

You think it's propaganda?


If Musharraf wasn't behind it...he let it happen for his own gain. 100% certainty. Either way...it's hard to believe he stands for improving things in Pakistan, which is what he's been selling.

The thing is...if you sanction Pakistan, if you cut economic ties with them...it will only get worse, because the one resource they have to sell, is nuclear technology.

[whottt]

"I don't care if anyone believes that or calls me a liar...because they're wrong." I've said to many people myself. You can call me anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer or weak on national defense but I too know they are wrong. I don't think America is the bad guy at all. Far from it. You guys just like to think us guys think that way and you are wrong.


IF you say America is the cause of Radical Islam, that our policies are the cause of Radical Islam you are sympathizing with them...because that is what they say...that is the definition of sympathizing.


If you feel we should mind our own business, stay out of the affairs of others in this particular conflict, just sit back and be our wealthyselves...you are not standing for action, you are standing for inaction.

I don't see how it can be argued otherwise Joe.

You can say I'm attacking you personally...but I'm not..and people that do support this war get attacked nonstop...


Take a look at this forum...there about 3 guys left in here that aren't anti-war...I assure you, there are more than that on this forum, but there is 24/7 antiwar propaganda in this forum and it doesn't matter what those guys do or say, they still get hit with the same crap...WMD, War for Oil etc. En masse by the so called liberal posters on this forum.

Both sides attack the other...but one does it with much greater frequency.


You don't like being accused of terrorist sympathizing? I don't like being called a stupid greedy war profiteer...

[Nbadan]

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.

It was a stunning turnaround for Bhutto, a former prime minister who was forced from power in 1996 amid corruption charges. She was suddenly visiting with top State Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and conferring with members of the National Security Council. As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.

"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

But the diplomacy that ended abruptly with Bhutto's assassination yesterday was always an enormous gamble, according to current and former U.S. policymakers, intelligence officials and outside analysts. By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable -- in a country in which more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481_pf.html)

[Extra Stout]

Let's see here... Islamic terrorists gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Pakistani middle class of 30 million flees, creating humanitarian crisis. Via infiltration into the British Pakistani community, Islamists smuggle a nuke into London, detonate it and kill 5 million people. Every nation in NATO declares war on Pakistan. Nuclear retaliation kills 120 million Pakistanis. Fallout kills tens of thousands of Indians. Every Muslim nation on Earth declares war on NATO. Westerners caught in Muslim countries are universally slaughtered by mobs. Muslims in Europe and the U.S. start a general uprising in the cities.

That's all I've got so far.

[whottt]

Let's see here... Islamic terrorists gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Pakistani middle class of 30 million flees, creating humanitarian crisis. Via infiltration into the British Pakistani community, Islamists smuggle a nuke into London, detonate it and kill 5 million people. Every nation in NATO declares war on Pakistan. Nuclear retaliation kills 120 million Pakistanis. Fallout kills tens of thousands of Indians. Every Muslim nation on Earth declares war on NATO. Westerners caught in Muslim countries are universally slaughtered by mobs. Muslims in Europe and the U.S. start a general uprising in the cities.

That's all I've got so far.


I don't see anything that complex...

More like, Musharraf says...

Scenario A: Well, I want this and this and this...and I want you to tell India to STFU about Kashmire...and well if you don't? I may just have to start being alittle careless with my nuclear tech.

Actually that's probably what he has been doing anyway...and we were just hoping allying with us would drive a wedge between he and Radical Islam to where he couldn't go back.


Scenario B: A terrorist group successfully smuggles several nuclear devices into several major cities within the United State of America and says they will detonate one if certain demands are not met, perhaps they detonate one just to show they aren't full of it.....at which point we will either have a guy that will cave or we have a guy that won't...

If we have a guy that caves we will live with that threat for the foreseeable future...if we have a nice MYOB guy that won't cave a cities going ot get nuked, and then he'll probably cave.



Now if Rudy's in office...he says the day he gets into office...

IF a nuke goes off in a US city I'm going ot nuke Mecca, I'm going to Nuke Tehran and I going to Nuke Islamabad...

And I am going to do it wearing my best st of heels and my favorite nightie...and he's smiling as he says it.




I see that as a pretty effective deterrent personally...the crossdressing thing only makes him more scary...

[BradLohaus]

I think we should make sure that it is as difficult as possible for terrorists to get into the country before we start talking about nuking Mecca, which would pretty much guarantee permanent war with the Muslim world.

Rudy looks to be pretty soft on border defense to me. But given that he hired Norman Podhoretz as his senior foreign policy advisor, I don't doubt that he would nuke Mecca in a heartbeat. But border defense...what does that have to do with defending our country? Just nuke 'em.

Oh and you're all conspiracy theorists; a lone wacko killed Bhutto. Lone wackos have been planning and carrying out political assassinations throughout history.

Seriously though, it's amazing that she wrote a letter about this.

[JoeChalupa]

IF you say America is the cause of Radical Islam, that our policies are the cause of Radical Islam you are sympathizing with them...because that is what they say...that is the definition of sympathizing.


If you feel we should mind our own business, stay out of the affairs of others in this particular conflict, just sit back and be our wealthyselves...you are not standing for action, you are standing for inaction.

I don't see how it can be argued otherwise Joe.

You can say I'm attacking you personally...but I'm not..and people that do support this war get attacked nonstop...


Take a look at this forum...there about 3 guys left in here that aren't anti-war...I assure you, there are more than that on this forum, but there is 24/7 antiwar propaganda in this forum and it doesn't matter what those guys do or say, they still get hit with the same crap...WMD, War for Oil etc. En masse by the so called liberal posters on this forum.

Both sides attack the other...but one does it with much greater frequency.


You don't like being accused of terrorist sympathizing? I don't like being called a stupid greedy war profiteer...


IF you say America is the cause of Radical Islam, that our policies are the cause of Radical Islam you are sympathizing with them...because that is what they say...that is the definition of sympathizing.

Not once have I said that so you are dead wrong on that issue.



If you feel we should mind our own business, stay out of the affairs of others in this particular conflict, just sit back and be our wealthyselves...you are not standing for action, you are standing for inaction.

Again, not once have I ever said that.
I don't take things in here personally because I know that my views differ from others but I don't resort, at least I try not to, to lumping people together or questioning one's patriotism simply because they do have a different opinion. Action to me doesn't always mean war and that is probably the big difference in the way we view things.


Take a look at this forum...there about 3 guys left in here that aren't anti-war...I assure you, there are more than that on this forum, but there is 24/7 antiwar propaganda in this forum and it doesn't matter what those guys do or say, they still get hit with the same crap...WMD, War for Oil etc. En masse by the so called liberal posters on this forum.

Both sides attack the other...but one does it with much greater frequency.


You don't like being accused of terrorist sympathizing? I don't like being called a stupid greedy war profiteer...

In all my years in the military not ONCE did I speak to an officer who was pro-war and I worked with many in my field. Is war sometimes necessary? Of course it is but the wounds and effects are not left on the battlefield. Far from it.
Yeah, both sides attack the other but not everyone refers to name calling, which in my opinion lessenss the effect of one's argument. You can call my a terrorist sympathizer all you want but I KNOW you are wrong. Dead wrong. If you or anyone else thinks that I would not die for my country and love it any less than you do you are dead wrong. I can take quite a bit but when one questions my religion or the love of my country that does hit a nerve.
As I am sure it does you too.

I'm just going to be sure to have some peace pipe to smoke so we can have a great discussion at the next GTG. :tu

[whottt]

Seriously though, it's amazing that she wrote a letter about this.


Did you actually read the letter? She was pretty clear on the safety measures Musharraf denied her...

If he wasn't a part of it, he let it happen...knowing full well what would happen. I mean this dude's almost been assassinated several times...it's not like he's ignorant of the measures needed to stay alive...and he denied them to her.

He's dirty...no matter how you look at it.


Of course with the attitudes radical muslims have towards women one of them was going to try to kill her...that's a no brainer. But the key issue is that he knew it would happen...and refused her the safety measures needed to survive. That's the same thing as being behind the assassination in my book.

[whottt]

Not once have I said that so you are dead wrong on that issue.



Again, not once have I ever said that.
I don't take things in here personally because I know that my views differ from others but I don't resort, at least I try not to, to lumping people together or questioning one's patriotism simply because they do have a different opinion. Action to me doesn't always mean war and that is probably the big difference in the way we view things.



In all my years in the military not ONCE did I speak to an officer who was pro-war and I worked with many in my field. Is war sometimes necessary? Of course it is but the wounds and effects are not left on the battlefield. Far from it.
Yeah, both sides attack the other but not everyone refers to name calling, which in my opinion lessenss the effect of one's argument. You can call my a terrorist sympathizer all you want but I KNOW you are wrong. Dead wrong. If you or anyone else thinks that I would not die for my country and love it any less than you do you are dead wrong. I can take quite a bit but when one questions my religion or the love of my country that does hit a nerve.
As I am sure it does you too.

I'm just going to be sure to have some peace pipe to smoke so we can have a great discussion at the next GTG. :tu


And you know what Joe...I don't think there's been a single time I just jumped into a thread and started after you personally(well ok there might have been a couple of times(...but I am usually just spouting off my views and you jump in and say I am attacking you.

[BradLohaus]

Did you actually read the letter? She was pretty clear on the safety measures Musharraf denied her...

If he wasn't a part of it, he let it happen...knowing full well what would happen. I mean this dude's almost been assassinated several times...it's not like he's ignorant of the measures needed to stay alive...and he denied them to her.

He's dirty...no matter how you look at it.

Oh I agree. He did it or he let it happen. I just think it's funny that some people in America think that things like that can't happen here.

[whottt]

I think we should make sure that it is as difficult as possible for terrorists to get into the country before we start talking about nuking Mecca, which would pretty much guarantee permanent war with the Muslim world.


That battle was lost before the war was even begun.





Rudy looks to be pretty soft on border defense to me. But given that he hired Norman Podhoretz as his senior foreign policy advisor, I don't doubt that he would nuke Mecca in a heartbeat. But border defense...what does that have to do with defending our country? Just nuke 'em.


Um...I am with you on the border defense...but if you think that's a better deterrent than the threat of nuclear annhilation you must have missed the entire second half of the 20th century.


The only way nuclear materials will wind up within our borders, the only way they can be contaiend and transported to be used against us is with the aid of foreign governments...that's why you threaten them for nuclear terrorism that occurs in the US.

There's no such thing as secure border...offer some underpaid border patrol millions of dollar and all the walls in the world are use less.


Threaten a power and control seeking narcissist with his life OTOH...just about the most effective threat you can make.

[Holt's Cat]

The little people have no clue what's going on at the top. It should be clear that things are not as they seem and, yes, $ buys influence and exceptions.

[whottt]

The little people have no clue what's going on at the top. It should be clear that things are not as they seem and, yes, $ buys influence and exceptions.



Funny...that's what they told me when I said Parker would be pissed off about the Spurs trying to sign Kidd...how do I know?


Human Nature is human nature...study that and there aren't many secrets.

[JoePublic]

And you know what Joe...I don't think there's been a single time I just jumped into a thread and started after you personally(well ok there might have been a couple of times(...but I am usually just spouting off my views and you jump in and say I am attacking you.

[Holt's Cat]

Um...I am with you on the border defense...but if you think that's a better deterrent than the threat of nuclear annhilation you must have missed the entire second half of the 20th century.

The US invaded two countries after an attack perpetrated by items picked up at a hardware store. Considering we are sitting on the world's largest stockpile of nuclear arms I would think our enemies are aware of the potential consequences.

We find ourselves sucked into ME politics due to our reliance on fossil fuels and support of various oppressive regimes in the region, not to mention our relationship with the state of Israel.

Rattling the nuclear saber at this point would be counterproductive considering the US and the EU are trying to pressure Iran into not pursuing nuclear weapons production.

The US is already in a tough spot. The last thing we need is a president threatening to destroy Mecca.

[JoeChalupa]

And you know what Joe...I don't think there's been a single time I just jumped into a thread and started after you personally(well ok there might have been a couple of times(...but I am usually just spouting off my views and you jump in and say I am attacking you.

No, no, no. I'm not accusing you of attacking me personally. I know that is not the case at all. That was not the intent of my posts. I throw my opinions in here and my intent is not to attack anyone personally...well, maybe TPark...but I just like to voice my views and opinions even if they are in the minority or totally whack to some.
But I think the fact that I don't feel speaking out against the war is being sympathetic to terrorist at all strikes a nerve. I know you don't mean it personally but when things like that are said it does hit me on a personal level. I like the fact that we can disagree yet have a great time and laugh as well. In the end, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, we are all in this together.
:smokin

[Holt's Cat]

Funny...that's what they told me when I said Parker would be pissed off about the Spurs trying to sign Kidd...how do I know?

That was such a novel observation.



Human Nature is human nature...study that and there aren't many secrets.

Sure, humankind tends to pursue its own interests first and foremost.

Now on to your latest gems.

[whottt]

W invaded two countries after an attack perpetrated by items picked up at a hardware store. Considering we are sitting on the world's largest stockpile of nuclear arms I would think our enemies are aware of the potential consequences


Fixed


And pretty much assured we won't have a nuclear attack on this soil while we are in office when he did so...

These guys realize the differences between our leaders...the next leader will tested...you can bet on that....

I look at Ron Paul....who gets sncikered by the other 15 candidates during debates...

And I look at Guilianni...who gives me the fucking creeps...


And I know exactly which one I would be more willing to put to the test...and that's the guy saying they don't want us there.


Now the truth is...the guys like Paul are willing to do the same thing...they just don't seem like they will...which to me increases the likleyhood that they will be the one that has to do it.

I rather that not happen.



As for your EU statements...the EU is our enemy. They are our economic rival and they want us, the last remaining superpower and the only nation greater than them, whittled down, on top of that they are fucking clueless...wake the fuck up...even Paul realizes that.

[Holt's Cat]

Fixed


And pretty much assured we won't have a nuclear attack on this soil while we are in office when he did so...

And increased the likelihood that we'll face one after he heads back to the ranch for good.



These guys realize the differences between our leaders...the next leader will tested...you can bet on that....


All leaders are tested. How many more will overreact?




I look at Ron Paul....who gets sncikered by the other 15 candidates during debates...


Because he says the things they are afraid to say. Be it on domestic or foreign policy. The rest have to pretend that 'they hate us because we're free' or that we need to continue to provide for Western Germany's defense here in 2007, soon to be 2008.




And I look at Guilianni...who gives me the fucking creeps...


And I know exactly which one I would be more willing to put to the test...and that's the guy saying they don't want us there.




Now the truth is...the guys like Paul are willing to do the same thing...they just don't seem like they will...which to me increases the likleyhood that they will be the one that has to do it.

I rather that not happen.


Even Giuliani isn't foolish enough to say he's ready to destroy Mecca out of the blue.



As for your EU statements...the EU is our enemy. They are our economic rival and they want us, the last remaining superpower and the only nation greater than them, whittled down, on top of that they are fucking clueless...wake the fuck up...even Paul realizes that.

Like it or not we can use their support in dealing with Iran.

[whottt]

That was such a novel observation.


Considering how many otherwise knowledgable posters didn't see it coming, or as a problem...I agree.


Good thing we still got a PG...2 titles in 4 years later.




Sure, humankind tends to pursue its own interests first and foremost.

Oversimplification...not to mention overly cynical.

IF you had that much insight into it you wouldn't have the views you have...you are the observee...not the observer.

[Holt's Cat]

I guess I need to hit the return key and the . key more...


wow this is really something.......



AWESOME now I am the observer....

[whottt]

And increased the likelihood that we'll face one after he heads back to the ranch for good.

Depending on who follows him up..and I disagree with increased...a lot more dead suicide bombers int he world now...not to mention more disillusioned.




All leaders are tested. How many more will overreact?

:lmao there's no such thing as overracting to a nuclear weapon detonated in a US city IMO.

The fact that you think there is...be sure to talk to me after it happens. And again in 6 months after it happened....








Because he says the things they are afraid to say. Be it on domestic or foreign policy.

More like they realize the chances of someone that naive and idealistic becoming President are virturally nil...American people will never trust someone like that.



The rest have to pretend that 'they hate us because we're free' or that we need to continue to provide for Western Germany's defense here in 2007, soon to be 2008.

I'm with you on the Western Germany thing...but what scares me is you think that's a really important issue.





Even Giuliani isn't foolish enough to say he's ready to destroy Mecca out of the blue.

:lmao

Out of the blue...how do you get out of the blue from this conversation?

One of us derailed....



Like it or not we can use their support in dealing with Iran.


Like it or not their support is entirely for their own benefit and pretty much the last thing they want to do, and counting on their help is akin to counting on some help from a couple of junkies in putting their dealer in jail...

France and Germany have like 0 oil...it matters. Just ask Saddam...

[whottt]

I guess I need to hit the return key and the . key more...


wow this is really something.......



AWESOME now I am the observer....


Start by observing here...

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

Not the best resource...but better than a message board.

[E20]

This debate/argument has sort of gone from the original point. The lady died and everybody knew it was coming for her. She was constantly being targeted and when she came back to Pakistan this year she was targeted again, you can't cheat death that many times. This ain't no shock. Musharraf will probably set order back in Pakistan in a couple of weeks. Everything will be back to normal. That is all.

[whottt]

This debate/argument has sort of gone from the original point. The lady died and everybody knew it was coming for her. She was constantly being targeted and when she came back to Pakistan this year she was targeted again, you can't cheat death that many times.

Yes you can...Musharraf is much more unpopular and he's cheated it more times.


This ain't no shock. Musharraf will probably set order back in Pakistan in a couple of weeks. Everything will be back to normal. That is all.

Normal there isn't good...for us.

[JoeChalupa]

Good posts.

[E20]

Yes you can...Musharraf is much more unpopular and he's cheated it more times.



Normal there isn't good...for us.
Benazir doesn't pack that much security as Musharraf does or common sense. From what I've seen on foreign news networks, she was constantly giving out speeches and even holding a parade out on in the open, that's basically a cat call for somebody to come and kill you and she was always on the move from one place or another gathering supporters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Musharraf rarely makes public appearances, if Musharraf played it dumb like Bhutto, he'd be dead. Also, correct me if I'm wrong again, but wouldn't Musharraf in power play towards the US's agenda?

Sure Musharraf is unpopular, but he is like Saddam, there is little chance that he will be assassianted(sp) by his own people.

[whottt]

No, no, no. I'm not accusing you of attacking me personally. I know that is not the case at all. That was not the intent of my posts. I throw my opinions in here and my intent is not to attack anyone personally...well, maybe TPark...but I just like to voice my views and opinions even if they are in the minority or totally whack to some.
But I think the fact that I don't feel speaking out against the war is being sympathetic to terrorist at all strikes a nerve. I know you don't mean it personally but when things like that are said it does hit me on a personal level. I like the fact that we can disagree yet have a great time and laugh as well. In the end, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, we are all in this together.
:smokin


I'll agree with that...and good messageboard argument never hurt anyone :smokin

[JoeChalupa]

I'll agree with that...and good messageboard argument never hurt anyone :smokin

I concur. :tu

[whottt]

Benazir doesn't pack that much security as Musharraf does or common sense. From what I've seen on foreign news networks, she was constantly giving out speeches and even holding a parade out on in the open, that's basically a cat call for somebody to come and kill you and she was always on the move from one place or another gathering supporters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Musharraf rarely makes public appearances, if Musharraf played it dumb like Bhutto, he'd be dead. Also, correct me if I'm wrong again, but wouldn't Musharraf in power play towards the US's agenda?

Sure Musharraf is unpopular, but he is like Saddam, there is little chance that he will be assassianted(sp) by his own people.


Um...Musharraf denied her the required security measures. She fingered the guy in her death letter...you think it's an election ploy?

That letter was only intended to be read upon her death...that's not a ploy to get elected.

That's about as true of a statement as you are going to get from a politician.


And no Musharraf staying in power does not aid the US...it's always been a case of holding our nose while dealing with him and hoping he was generally concerned with solving Pakistan's issues...and he sold that image well. Plus due to the crappiness of the Pakistani leaders...he did hold up favorably...for a while.


No him staying in power is not a good thing...because he's not commited to turning around the problems in Pakistan..or if he is, he's completely clueless on how to do it.

[E20]

Um...Musharraf denied her the required security measures. She fingered the guy in her death letter...you think it's an election ploy?

That letter was only intended to be read upon her death...that's not a ploy to get elected.

That's about as true of a statement as you are going to get from a politician.


And no Musharraf staying in power does not aid the US...it's always been a case of holding our nose while dealing with him and hoping he was generally concerned with solving Pakistan's issues...and he sold that image well. Plus due to the crappiness of the Pakistani leaders...he did hold up favorably...for a while.


No him staying in power is not a good thing...because he's not commited to turning around the problems in Pakistan..or if he is, he's completely clueless on how to do it.
I'm pretty sure Bhutto had personal body guards and followers that acted as them, but to put herself out in the open even with personal body guards or Musharraf giving her security isn't gonna do much in Pakistan, because a suicide bomber is uknown and the fact that she interacted with the public gives suicide bombers a clear advantage of killing her. She nearly was killed when she came out of exile, she could have easily been one of the 150 people that died around her because of the suicide blast a couple of weeks ago when she returned. When it comes down to it security personnel doesn't do much in countries like where everybody looks the same and you don't know who is a crazy guy with a bomb. That's why everybody saw her death coming, because of her style.

Also, about Musharraf staying in power: I'm not talking about the welfare and development of the Pakistani people being Musharraf's forte or the the US agenda, I'm talking about Musharraf cooperating with the US in finding terrorists/the war in terror. Because seriously, who cares about the Pakistani people?

[whottt]

Also, about Musharraf staying in power: I'm not talking about the welfare and development of the Pakistani people being Musharraf's forte or the the US agenda, I'm talking about Musharraf cooperating with the US in finding terrorists/the war in terror.

He's not really doing htat anynore and hasn't been for a while...my guess is we said no to something he wanted.





Because seriously, who cares about the Pakistani people?


I do...because of Sept 11th.

[Extra Stout]

Rawalpindi is a garrison city. Nobody breathes there without the military knowing about it.

For Bhutto to be killed there... for malevolent interests to get close to her in that of all cities, it means either than Musharraf was complicit, or more likely, that Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated ISI.

[smeagol]

Anybody for nuking Argentina?

[whottt]

Rawalpindi is a garrison city. Nobody breathes there without the military knowing about it.

For Bhutto to be killed there... for malevolent interests to get close to her in that of all cities, it means either than Musharraf was complicit, or more likely, that Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated ISI.


I don't even think the ISI or Musharraf would have to be directly involved...just withold the proper security measures. It really was that simple.


Not that it's hard to believe that the ISI would be involved...since just about everything going over there right now they have been a part of in recent history.

But it is telling that it happened in that city...for a number of reasons. No one puts the dark humor and irony mark on tragedy and murder like radical muslims...


In any case...Musharraf has now got the permanent brand of lowlife on him...whether he actually did have anything to do with it, or not.

[Extra Stout]

Anybody for nuking Argentina?
Iran might be.

[JoeChalupa]

I smell a conspiracy theory. There has to be some proof as to how she was really killed.

[Holt's Cat]

Depending on who follows him up..and I disagree with increased...a lot more dead suicide bombers int he world now...not to mention more disillusioned.

Disillusioned? More like enraged and fortified. The Great Satan has designs on the ME after all.




:lmao there's no such thing as overracting to a nuclear weapon detonated in a US city IMO.

The fact that you think there is...be sure to talk to me after it happens. And again in 6 months after it happened....


The problem for you is that I was not reponding to your straw man argument which you don't seem fit to declare until after the fact.

I said Bush's action was an overreaction. Unless we were hit by a nuclear attack that only you know about, try again.




More like they realize the chances of someone that naive and idealistic becoming President are virturally nil...American people will never trust someone like that.


Amusing, considering the presidencies of JFK and RR. It was the pragmatist Nixon who destroyed that trust.




I'm with you on the Western Germany thing...but what scares me is you think that's a really important issue.


Not an important issue, except when you consider the cost of maintaining bases in the Germanys of the world.




:lmao

Out of the blue...how do you get out of the blue from this conversation?

One of us derailed....


I think you derailed after your second J this afternoon. Make a coherent statement and perhaps you will be understood.




Like it or not their support is entirely for their own benefit and pretty much the last thing they want to do, and counting on their help is akin to counting on some help from a couple of junkies in putting their dealer in jail...

France and Germany have like 0 oil...it matters. Just ask Saddam...

Of course their support is for their own benefit just like our concern about whether or not they are offended by our policies.

[smeagol]

Iran might be.

They have already bombed us twice . . .

[whottt]

Disillusioned? More like enraged and fortified. The Great Satan has designs on the ME after all.

False...for all your "unique" perspective...you really don't go looking beyond the shallowest public opinion/knowledge...you just spin it differently.





The problem for you is that I was not reponding to your straw man argument which you don't seem fit to declare until after the fact.

Whatever makes you happy MB.




I said Bush's action was an overreaction. Unless we were hit by a nuclear attack that only you know about, try again.

You talking about going into Iraq?


Perhaps...the decision to do that can't be changed. It can't be changed later, it can't ever be changed again. The thing is...we are there now, what do we do...







Amusing, considering the presidencies of JFK and RR. It was the pragmatist Nixon who destroyed that trust.

Ok...





Not an important issue, except when you consider the cost of maintaining bases in the Germanys of the world.


So so greedy...why are you against the Iraq war again?





I think you derailed after your second J this afternoon. Make a coherent statement and perhaps you will be understood.

Believe it or not I don't argue when I'm stoned...





Of course their support is for their own benefit just like our concern about whether or not they are offended by our policies.

Their support is useless...it carries no military or true economic threat...and the split second they see an opportunity to become a regional power in the ME again...they will...and the fuckups with continue. If it's at our direct expense...all the better in their eyes.

Basically behind all your offcenter views you're just another cynic, and a fatalistic one at that. In 15 years you'll be living in a cabin in Idaho. Not that there's anything wrong with that really...you ought to just give up on the political process now and save yourself some long slow years of disillusionment. The USA is completely and hopelessly fucked up...right?

[whottt]

By the way Marcus...I disagree about Reagan. He may have been idealistic, but he certainly wasn't naive. And what he was was very threatening...just the fact that he might have been senile was pretty threatening. Everyone knew he loved this country and would do anything to protect it. Helped that he was personable...but he was threatening and there was a method to his madness. He wasn't naive.

Paul is naive...on several issues. His stances on some issues are just flat out unrealistic.

[boutons_]

Bush Administration has no 'Plan B' for Pakistan

12/30/2007 @ 10:19 am

Filed by John Byrne

http://rawstory.com/images/new/5_musharraf_bush1.jpg

"For the Bush administration, there is no Plan B for Pakistan."

Citing US officials operating in the Pakistan policy arena, this is the prognosis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901490_pf.html) of veteran Washington Post reporters Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler in Sunday editions of the paper. The Post ran the story on page 24.

Kessler and Wright paint a US foreign policy unchanged by the assassination of erstwhile prime minister Benazir Bhutto, one aimed at propping up controversial strongman Pervez Musharraf -- and lone pro-US leader in the country -- with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Next year, the US will begin a five-year, $750 million plan intended to bring jobs and security to restive border regions.

( Boutons: We know from how State and Defense have tightly un-monitored the 100s of $Bs that disappeared in Iraq that the $Bs pumped in Pakistan will hit the target. Yeah right, directly into the plutocracy and/or into the AQ/Taleban. Very effective, astute Repug leadership: bomb the fuck out of a country and/or throw 100s of $Bs at it )

"Despite anxiety among intelligence officials and experts, however, the administration is only slightly tweaking a course charted over the past 18 months to support the creation of a political center revolving around Musharraf, according to U.S. officials," the reporters write.

"Plan A still has to work," a senior administration official involved in Pakistan policy told the paper. "We all have to appeal to moderate forces to come together and carry the election and create a more solidly based government, then use that as a platform to fight the terrorists."

Bush's policy remains "wedded" to Musharraf despite warnings from experts and others who say his dictatorial methods are "untenable," they say. The Pakistani president recently deposed Supreme Court justices who would no go along with his plans.

"This administration has had a disastrous policy toward Pakistan, as bad as the Iraq policy," Robert Templer of the International Crisis Group told the Post. "They are clinging to the wreckage of Musharraf, flailing around. . . . Musharraf has outlived all possible usage to Pakistan and the United States."

Replied the US official: "We have a room full of tigers in Pakistan. This is a really complicated situation, and we have to use our influence in a lot of ways but also realize we can't determine the outcome. We're not dropping pixie dust on someone to anoint them as the next leader."

On Washington's agenda is getting another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to reverse his plans to boycott a Jan. 8 election, which may be postponed due to Bhutto's killing and the subsequent unrest. Sharif could create a "centrist space" for Pakistani politics, though his platform is anti-American.

Musharraf toppled Sharif's government in a 1999 military coup. The former general has accused Sharif of attempting to kill him.

Experts say Bush's plan to steer his foreign policy ship along the "Plan A" course is dangerous at best. "Farcical elections" will produce an anemic government ripe for Musharraf's manipulation, a Brookings Institution scholar said.

"It's folly," added C. Christine Fair of the Rand Corp. "Pakistanis are going to read [elections] as a sham to prop up Musharraf as Washington's water boy."

Others offer even dimmer scenarios.

"In the best case for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the worst case for the world, Pakistan could fall into such turmoil that the very control of the state could fall into Islamist hands, or Pakistan could effectively fracture -- with its massive armaments, including dozens of nuclear weapons, falling into the wrong hands," J. Alexander Thier, a former UN official told the Post.

Read Wright and Kessler's full story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901490_pf.html).

[boutons_]

Now that Bhutto is dead, and considering how important she was to US for faking dubya's "freedom and democracy" of Mushareff's regime, her words may be listened to (but not by chauvinist assholes here who think America is perfect and all other countries suck) :


Benazir Bhutto: US Policy Causes World Terrorism (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/benazir-bhutto-us-policy-causes-world.html)

Benazir Bhutto paid the ultimate price for stating that the US imperial policy of propping up tin horn dictators causes world terrorism. She dared to say so. Condemning what she called "A False Choice for Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101046.html)", the late Benazir Bhutto laid "terrorism" at the White House doorstep, blaming US policies for causing, fueling and inspiring what US regimes call "terrorism".

When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.Benazir Bhutto, A False Choice for Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101046.html)

(Boutons: eg, occupying and supporting the oppressive, theocratic regime in Saudi Arabia, which supplied the 9/11 attack team )

The claim that she died from having banged her head is a ludicrous cover story not even worthy of the Bush regime. Bhutto's considered remarks are consistent with previous articles on this blog, specifically: Terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/05/terrorism-is-worse-under-gop-regimes.html). Bhutto would have found FBI statistics that support her analysis: the root causes of "terrorism" are US imperialistic policies, specifically the material and diplomatic support of dictators like Musharraf and earlier, Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran, et al. It should be obvious that citizens of other nations resent US support of dictators who oppress them.
For too long, the international perception has been that Musharraf's regime is the only thing standing between the West and nuclear-armed fundamentalists.Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic parties have never garnered more than 13 percent in any free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. The notion of Musharraf's regime as the only non-Islamist option is disingenuous and the worst type of fear-mongering.Much has been said about Pakistan being a key Western ally in the war against terrorism. It is the fifth-largest recipient of US aid -- the Bush administration proposed $785 million in its latest budget. Yet terrorism around the world has increased. Why is it that all terrorist plots -- from the Sept. 11 attacks, to Madrid, to London, to Mumbai -- seem to have roots in Islamabad?Benazir Bhutto, A False Choice for Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101046.html)

The policies Bhutto alludes to are primarily those of the right wing, the GOP in particular, though Democrats and every other party are compromised by the US Military/Industrial Complex, at the very heart of US imperialism and, thus, the root cause of terrorism. War is a racket fought by the masses for privileged elites, big corporations, and venal politicians like Bush. The war racket creates victims in the US and enemies --potential terrorists --abroad.

War policies benefit a tiny elite, no-bid contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater and their stockholders. The war against Iraq is financed by America's working poor and middle classes who continue to pay for the war with their lives abroad and with their jobs, their retirement prospects, and their access to health care at home.

Because of Reagan/Bush tax cuts, this group disproportionately and unfairly picks up the tab for a war that has created for the US legions of enemies. But no friends. [See: Frankenstein the CIA created (http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html), Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports Jason Burke in Peshawar, Sunday January 17, 1999, Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)]

The policies that oppress Americans have even worse effects for millions who must live under repressive regimes backed by Bush and his sponsors in big oil.
The National Accountability Bureau has persecuted opposition leaders for a decade on unproven corruption and mismanagement charges, hoping to grind them into submission. However, when politicians accused of corruption cross over to the regime, the charges miraculously disappear.

Musharraf's regime exploits the judicial system as yet another instrument of coercion and intimidation to consolidate its illegitimate power. But the politics of personal destruction will not prevent me and other party leaders from bringing our case before the people of our nation this year, even if that could lead to imprisonment.Benazir Bhutto, A False Choice for Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101046.html)

Bhutto refers to Bush's remarks in his State of the Union address (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301075.html). In that address, Bush said that the great question of the day "... is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity." Benazir Bhutto was not naive. I am sure that she understood that Bush's remarks were but a sop to the audience, his base, the media, the gullible. Bush, a proven liar, must be judged only by his actions. He does not get the benefit of the doubt. Like every other GOP regime, he has made terrorism worse. The Brookings Institution had written a report based on FBI stats. It was entitled: Total Acts of Terrorism in the US 1980-98, America's Response to Terrorism. It dealt primarily with Ronald Reagan's similarly failed "War on Terrorism". Brookings, inexplicably, pulled the article. Nevermind! I have saved the chart that they prepared based on FBI stats. The conclusion now safe from a conservative memory hole is this: during the two year period in which Ronald Reagan promised "terrorists" that "you can run but you can't hide", terrorist attacks against the United States increased. There were, as I recall, about three times as many terrorist attacks against US interests as during the Clinton administration. [Source: Total Acts of Terrorism in the US 1980-98, America's Response to Terrorism, The Brookings Institution (Based on FBI Statistics)] As it was in the economic sphere, the Reagan administration was utterly ineffective against terrorism.

Reagan's adventure in Lebanon is remembered for two things: a) the thousands of lives lost amid even more waves of refugees; b) Reagan's ignominious pull-out following the bombing of the US marine barracks. Thought cowardly at the time, it may be too charitable in retrospect to attribute to Reagan remorse for having wrongly invaded to begin with. That's too much to expect from the GOP. In this earlier invasion, Ronald Reagan supported Israel just as Bush has done more recently. [See: Reagan Orders Marines Out of Lebanon (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id413.htm)]

Bush's continuing partnership with big oil is salt in the wound. Millions disaffected by US oil imperialism understand better than do Americans the reasons a Bush regime supports the ruthless dictators who oppress them. As an Iranian diplomat told me in Houston: oil is a curse. He was not alone. Many "industry-watchers" now use the term "curse" to refer to the nature of oil exploitation that democracy, public institutions, and civil liberties are often retarded because of it. Civil liberties are most often dispensed with altogether.

Oil wealth concentrates at the top. People in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Azerbaijan enjoy few benefits of oil production in their countries. We now see in the US the unseemly spectacle that other nations have always known, that is, ruthless factions scrapping for control and riches. US policy and its fascist partnership with big oil inspires resentment among those who are left out, those who bear the brunt, those for whom oil means only oppression.

Bush's base —the nation's elite, his corporate sponsors, and the so-called defense industry —have paid nothing, risked nothing! Rather —they feed at the trough. The upper one percent of the population has gotten several tax cuts while the big oil companies report record profits rising concurrently with higher prices at the pump.
Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. ... We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.

—Hoping for Fear, by Paul Krugman, Using Fear Commentary, NY Times (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp)There are big profits in the death business. Go to Texas and consult the CEO of Murder, Inc., otherwise known as DynCorp (http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Dyncorp.shtml).
The war in Iraq has boosted DynCorp's revenues, responsible for about $400 million of the company's nearly $2 billion in sales. And while the company didn't specify how much the effort has added to profits, there has certainly been an upside, Lagana said, although he added that profit margins are lower than in other private industry -- often below 10 percent.

For government contractors and other US-based businesses that are doing work in Iraq, the war there has continued to provide opportunity and benefits, although experts and companies alike say they are difficult to quantify. To be sure, security businesses, oil producers and defense contractors are among the biggest winners. Those who manufacture key products, from bulletproof vests to bullets themselves, and, more recently, those involved in reconstruction, have reaped the benefits, too.

--Businesses find benefits, costs in war work (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060325-war-work.htm)Given their miserable records, why do GOP regimes persist? I can think of two reasons off hand. 1) wars are easily exploited to stir feelings of patriotism and false pride; 2) the GOP is the official party of big oil. Big oil depends upon the GOP to wage its oil wars. You pick up the tab. In return, the GOP gets a lot of money with which to steal and/or rig elections.

In the meantime, Americans are less safe under the dictators of "Imperial America". According to the Pew Research Center, American skepticism about the war in Iraq has increased steadily from its inception. The war in Iraq, like American imperial policies cause terrorism.

Now --let's put to rest the idiotic "cover story" that Bhutto's "main death" was a bump on the head. BS!!! It was a mob style hit job and there is unambiguous video of at least two hit men.

Two 'Hit Men' Murder Bhutto

In the meantime, consistent with US destruction of 911 evidence, "fire crews" hose down the crime scene. Evidence against Bhutto's murderers may be lost forever. Bhutto's Assassination Evidence Destroyed (http://current.com/items/88801788_bhutto_s_assassination_evidence_destroyed )UPDATED: Mobile pictures - Benazir was defintely shot dead before the Blast (http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/12/29/mobile-pictures-benazir-was-defintely-shot-dead-before-the-blast/)

Related developments from Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/):
Iraq: At least 16 killed in another bloody day of US occupation (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2972262820071229) : The bodies of three people were found in different areas of Baghdad Rioting in Pakistan continues (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/la-fg-pakistan30dec30,0,891395.story): Nearly 50 people have been killed since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. President Musharraf vows to restore order after a third day of violence.

Pakistan TV station shows Bhutto shooter, contradicts government: (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/news/article_1383765.php/Pakistan_TV_station_shows_Bhutto_shooter_contradic ts_government)The footage clearly shows Bhutto collapsing into her armoured- vehicle before the suicide blast, contradicting official government claims that she recoiled only after the blast and cracked her skull on the sunroof.

Pakistan rejects foreign help in Bhutto investigation (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071228.wbhutto1228/BNStory/International/home):Pakistan rejected foreign help in investigating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Saturday, despite controversy over the circumstances of her death and three days of paralyzing turmoil.

Bolton: US 'helped precipitate' conditions for Bhutto's assassination (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bolton_US_helped_precipitate_conditions_for_1228.h tml): John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, said it was a mistake to collaborate with Bhutto's "desire to get back into the game in Pakistan" and view her as an alternative to the country's current leader, Pervez Musharraf.

Bhutto herself urged that should she be assassinated, members of the Musharraf government be investigated. Related stories from The Existentialist Cowboy (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/)






Terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/05/terrorism-is-worse-under-gop-regimes.html).
Bush's Utter Failure Proven in Government's Own Stats and Charts (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/bushs-utter-failure-proven-in.html)
Magna Carta: "No one is above the law" (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/magna-carta-no-one-is-above-law.html)
Pro Torture GOP Protects Bush, Blocks Torture Ban, Supports Bush Torture Policies (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/pro-torture-gop-protects-bush-from.html)
How the GOP Abuses Language to Cloak its Criminal Political Agenda (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-gop-abuses-language-to-cloak-its.html)
The War Racket: How Americans Pay for Bush's War Crimes at the Bank, the Pump, the Shop & the Graveside (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/07/war-racket-how-americans-pay-for-bushs.html)
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/benazir-bhutto-us-policy-causes-world.html


=====================

Well, well, well, I'm looking forward to the chauvinsts trying to refute "The Ugly American" flavor of the above. You're welcome to paste articles. :)

(http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/benazir-bhutto-us-policy-causes-world.html)dubya should gag on his own vomit when he lies about "spreading freedom and democracy". It's all about American oil/commercial imperialism, not about freedom and democracy.



(http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/benazir-bhutto-us-policy-causes-world.html)

[xrayzebra]

Her son is to carry the torch for her party. But hubby is going
to fill in till her son finishes college in England.

Guess they are following or leading both our countries course in
history. Clinton/Bush/Bhutto.Read All About It (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071231/D8TS3MJG1.html)

[whottt]

Bush Administration has no 'Plan B' for Pakistan

12/30/2007 @ 10:19 am

Filed by John Byrne

http://rawstory.com/images/new/5_musharraf_bush1.jpg

"For the Bush administration, there is no Plan B for Pakistan."

Citing US officials operating in the Pakistan policy arena, this is the prognosis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901490_pf.html) of veteran Washington Post reporters Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler in Sunday editions of the paper. The Post ran the story on page 24.

Kessler and Wright paint a US foreign policy unchanged by the assassination of erstwhile prime minister Benazir Bhutto, one aimed at propping up controversial strongman Pervez Musharraf -- and lone pro-US leader in the country -- with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Next year, the US will begin a five-year, $750 million plan intended to bring jobs and security to restive border regions.

( Boutons: We know from how State and Defense have tightly un-monitored the 100s of $Bs that disappeared in Iraq that the $Bs pumped in Pakistan will hit the target. Yeah right, directly into the plutocracy and/or into the AQ/Taleban. Very effective, astute Repug leadership: bomb the fuck out of a country and/or throw 100s of $Bs at it )

"Despite anxiety among intelligence officials and experts, however, the administration is only slightly tweaking a course charted over the past 18 months to support the creation of a political center revolving around Musharraf, according to U.S. officials," the reporters write.

"Plan A still has to work," a senior administration official involved in Pakistan policy told the paper. "We all have to appeal to moderate forces to come together and carry the election and create a more solidly based government, then use that as a platform to fight the terrorists."

Bush's policy remains "wedded" to Musharraf despite warnings from experts and others who say his dictatorial methods are "untenable," they say. The Pakistani president recently deposed Supreme Court justices who would no go along with his plans.

"This administration has had a disastrous policy toward Pakistan, as bad as the Iraq policy," Robert Templer of the International Crisis Group told the Post. "They are clinging to the wreckage of Musharraf, flailing around. . . . Musharraf has outlived all possible usage to Pakistan and the United States."

Replied the US official: "We have a room full of tigers in Pakistan. This is a really complicated situation, and we have to use our influence in a lot of ways but also realize we can't determine the outcome. We're not dropping pixie dust on someone to anoint them as the next leader."

On Washington's agenda is getting another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to reverse his plans to boycott a Jan. 8 election, which may be postponed due to Bhutto's killing and the subsequent unrest. Sharif could create a "centrist space" for Pakistani politics, though his platform is anti-American.

Musharraf toppled Sharif's government in a 1999 military coup. The former general has accused Sharif of attempting to kill him.

Experts say Bush's plan to steer his foreign policy ship along the "Plan A" course is dangerous at best. "Farcical elections" will produce an anemic government ripe for Musharraf's manipulation, a Brookings Institution scholar said.

"It's folly," added C. Christine Fair of the Rand Corp. "Pakistanis are going to read [elections] as a sham to prop up Musharraf as Washington's water boy."

Others offer even dimmer scenarios.

"In the best case for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the worst case for the world, Pakistan could fall into such turmoil that the very control of the state could fall into Islamist hands, or Pakistan could effectively fracture -- with its massive armaments, including dozens of nuclear weapons, falling into the wrong hands," J. Alexander Thier, a former UN official told the Post.

Read Wright and Kessler's full story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901490_pf.html).





Wow...you posted a lefty blog. Incredible insight.

I know what Bhutto said...I know what they all say, they pass the buck to us. Which is the cause of terrorism...



The reason I have no respect for your POV or that opinion, is because it's fucking stupid.


What casues terrorism is the shitty living conditions in those countries.


The idea that our alliances, or friendships with dictatorial regimes cause it is fucking stupid.


Saddam was a dictatorial regime..not only were we not allied with him, we took his fucking ass out...and all you guys whining about our friendships with dictatorial regimes, have not shut the fuck up since...now we're imperialists.


Futhermore...everyone does business with the Saudies...we have protected them from external threats, but we do not prop that government up, the only reason our military was there was because Saddam was in power...

And let's see, he tried to sieze Iranian land, he invaded Kuwait...oh yeah, not a fucking chance he was going to go after Saudi Arabia was there? Not even when his military was aligning to do it.



Additionally...when 911 occurred...we were not friendly with the dicatorial regimes in Afghanistan or Pakistan...in fact, we barely knew they existed...and those were the regimes that produced the terrorists for, and set up 911.



You opinion is fucking stupid, like that of hysterical nonsensical fucking bitch....and as for Bhutto...she's like every other leader of a fucked up country that stays in power by passing the buck for her own failed leadership.

They all do it...it works, it directs the anger from their failures as leaders, the miserable living conditions and human rights, of those countries, towards us.


The way to solve it..is to put in governmental systems that represent all the people, where the leaders are held accountable to the people, and where they can be changed, without a war, or political coup...

Just like it works here you idiot...which is why ou need to shut the fuck about IRaq...because that is what we are trying to do there...I promise you, the leadership in charge, is not the leadership we would have put in, had we wanted puppet government that was a dictatorial regime...we'd have left Saddam in...we'd be friends with the Iranian leadership.



The Saudis suck..but the guys most outraged by them are the ones that want to take that country over...Usama.





It's a shame Bhutto died, but don't be sitting here talking about her corrupt she is, and then use her opinion to justify your similar opinion, you idiot.



I never said she was a great leader...in fact I said she was a poor leader, and your quotes provided evidence of just that.



The USA is not the reason Pakistan is a shithole, we are not the reason Iran, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are shitholes, in fact if not for us, those countries would be even greater humanitarian shitholes than they currently are...the leaders of those countries are the reasons they are shitholes...yes we ally with some of them, mainly because if we didn't the Russians would have, and they were greater threat, just like we allied with Musharraf, because we needed to get to Afghanistan and isolate the Taliban, he was less shitty, and we also put pressure on them all for Democratic Reform...it's really simple to figure out, unless you are fucking stupid.

[whottt]

boutons: We're friends with dictatorial regimes. We're fucking the world up, we cause all it's problems.


boutons after we invade a dictatorial regime and remove it's leadership: Imperialism! War for Oil! War Mongers!


Just shut the fuck up until you make sense.


boutons: Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan then?



Becaause they weren't inviolation of a cease fire with us... and they also hadn't been weakedned by 13 years of sanctions...



I make sense...you don't. You hysterically scream propagandized and contradictory statements, the only similarities being that USA = Badguy in both of them.

[boutons_]

Whott the Fuck, you're losing it, and it's very amusing.

I make so much sense that You Can't Handle The Truth of the disaster your right wing buddies dubya and dickhkead have created.

[xrayzebra]

I smell a conspiracy theory. There has to be some proof as to how she was really killed.

Bush did it, like he blew up (down) the WTC. Everyone
knows how ruthless he is. Cheney was agging him on.

[Nbadan]

Looks like Dubya and Musharraf do have many things in common....

Bhutto report:
Musharraf planned to fix elections
By Saeed Shah | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007


NAUDERO, Pakistan--The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.

Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.

Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.

"It was compiled from sources within the (intelligence) services who were working directly with Benazir Bhutto," Lashari said, speaking Monday at Bhutto's house in her ancestral village of Naudero, where her husband and children continued to mourn her death.

The ISI had no official comment. However, an agency official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the subject, dismissed the allegations as "a lot of talk but not much substance."

Link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24001.html)

[Nbadan]

There is no perfect crime...and now the fingerprints of Benazir Bhuttos real assassins begin to appear....

Islamabad, Jan 2 (PTI) The controversy over former premier Benazir Bhutto's assassination has taken another turn with a section of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) claiming she was targeted with sophisticated "laser beam technology".


http://insulatorz.home.att.net/argon2.jpg


Laser technology is operated by computerized technology to shoot the target when the person to be shot gets in the telecommunication circuit and the laser technology acts to its best when the target is busy talking on his/her mobile the computer can easily check the path which is visualized on lap top or screen of the computer used to target with the laser beam at ease. These technology is with developed nation in the field of nuclear technology, US, Russia, and others etc and cannot be easily available to the killer unless provided. Moot question is that did Benazir fell dead as when she was talking on phone if so then the Laser beam is used in first instance and the wound must have burn of radiation caused by this cause which could have been be easily traced or verified by the Doctors or specialist with only physical observation and other tests."

...


Controversy surrounding the assassination intensified yesterday amid reports that crucial records had been removed from the Rawalpindi General Hospital where Bhutto was taken, and claims she was killed using laser-beam technology.

The Nation on its front page said the gunfire and bomb blasts at Bhutto's election rally "were a decoy to hide the real shooters" and claimed laser technology similar to that used by American forces in Iraq had been used.

The newspaper cited unnamed sources and said the technology was unlikely to have been available to the al-Qa'ida and Taliban jihadi leader Baitullah Mahsood, whom the Government has said orchestrated the opposition leader's death.

The report came as a doctor at the Rawalpindi General Hospital disclosed that "the Government took all the medical records after Benazir Bhutto's time of death was read out", adding that he and others had been warned not to talk publicly about the case.

Link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22999519-2703,00.html)

[boutons_]

We can't even get the truth about 9/11 in America the Beautiful.

We'll never get the truth about Bhutto's murder in a historic shit hole like Pakistan.

And other countries demanding that Pakistan come clean is pure bullshit. Pakistan is a sovereign country and answers to nobody.

How would you RWB American chauvinist like Pakistan having the hubris to demand the truth about 9/11?

[Nbadan]

http://laweekly.blogs.com/fish/images/2007/12/31/bushgun.jpg