Benazir Bhutto Dies in Attack

[mrsimperless]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Stick to PS3 posts. Bhutto was as much of a crook as any other Pakistani leader in the last 40 years - hell, her husband corruption was legendary. Calling her a "great leader" without knowing the details smacks of stupidity. Yes, she was more pro-Western than many other Pakistani leaders, but probably not to the scale of Musharaf. From a US perspective, an army man in power is significantly better IMO - if only because he controls the real power source in Pakistan, and the fact that he's hunting Islamist extremists bodes well (or "less bad") for any long-term reform of the ISI.

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

The New York Times has "followed the money" to show some corruption and I don't think anyone except Bhutto's most strident supporters believe she wasn't guilty of massive corruption. The Swiss government even convicted Bhutto and her husband of money laundering (they had Swiss bank accounts).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

As I mentioned before, I agree with that. I have no doubt that she had some level of corruption as it's nearly required to get anywhere politically in that country. But a lot of those corruption charges are used for nothing more than political gain and the people making the charges are likely doing similar things on their end.

Bhutto represented a pro-democracy movement. She was idolized by women not just in Pakistan, but across the Muslim world simply because she was able to be a leader in a society controlled by men. She also knew that a return to Pakistan would likely mean an untimely death for her, yet she went back because she knew people wanted her leadership. She could have sat in Dubai with her family and lived the good life, but she chose the road less travelled. Those kinds of traits make her a great leader IMO.

[molson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071228...cksbhuttocause

Two interesting notes there:

-She wasn't killed by a bullet or the bomb. She fractured her skull when she hit her head against the sun roof lever when trying to duck back inside the car.

-A call was intercepted from a high-up member of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan congratulating a militant for the attack. But I guess since that's from the government, it won't mean much to conspiracy people.

[Wolfpack]

I could buy that second point, but that first one seems awfully hard to believe. She died because she failed to pull herself down into her own car correctly? How much force must you descend with in order to fracture your skull (and fatally at that)? It'd be one thing if the bomber blew himself up while she was outside the sun roof and the concussion whiplashed her into it or something, but this doesn't make as much sense.

Then again, it still comes back to what would the government gain by suggesting she wasn't killed by the assassin (at least directly). I'd guess it reduces her martyr's roll somewhat if her death was actually self-inflicted, but would there be any other cultural or political significance?

[ISiddiqui]

It'd be one thing if the bomber blew himself up while she was outside the sun roof and the concussion whiplashed her into it or something

That's what I was thinking when I first heard it. That she ducked, but before she was buckled in, the bomb concussion slammed her into the roof.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's what I was thinking when I first heard it. That she ducked, but before she was buckled in, the bomb concussion slammed her into the roof.

That's reportedly exactly what happened. Press is now saying the the bomb shockwave was what threw her head against the edge of the sunroof.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318788,00.html

[st.cronin]

On the way in to work this morning, I heard an NPR report that Al-Qaeda is claiming not to be responsible for this. I'm inclined to think that there may prove to be AQ connections, as in "this person was trained by AQ" or "the assassin was on friendly terms with bin Laden" or something. But my guess is that the plot is more Pakistani-politic than al-qaeda.

[Flasch186]

the video of the incident looks like you can clearly see someone shooting at her from mere feet away so if she wasnt hit, when he even had the gun propped for stability, then either the gun was jacked, he's an awful shot, or there is something more amiss.

it also seems that the sites where AQ normally would claim responsibility are quiet on this topic. The only claims from AQ are being touted in a French paper and have not been confirmed.

[jeff061]

We'll never be able to cut through the BS and focus on the truth. Not like it really matters anyways.

[Cringer]

Was there a grassy knoll anywhere near this attack?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Wow, I have that book right here on my desk. Haven't read it yet--it's among several nonfiction books I have been trying to get around to reading.

I can't recommend this book enough. It's thick and will take you some to get through, but it's worth it. Not only does it give a fantastically detailed account of what went on in Afghanistan politically from about 1979 on and how it relates to U.S. actions (and the resulting ramifications throughout the muslim world) but it also gives the reader a greater appreciation of how foreign policy attitudes can shape and skew priorities. Lots of good info about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan in that time frame as well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I can't recommend this book enough. It's thick and will take you some to get through, but it's worth it. Not only does it give a fantastically detailed account of what went on in Afghanistan politically from about 1979 on and how it relates to U.S. actions (and the resulting ramifications throughout the muslim world) but it also gives the reader a greater appreciation of how foreign policy attitudes can shape and skew priorities. Lots of good info about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan in that time frame as well.

Cool! I'll definitely have to raise it up higher in my queue of books then. Thanks!

[JPhillips]

This BBC report certainly casts doubt on the government's story.

[KWhit]

No kidding. That footage is pretty telling, IMO.

[Crapshoot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...233334,00.html


FYI, a decent read (and overly fair to Bhutto IMO). Those of you without more than a cursory knowledge of Pakistani politics would do well to recognize the whole story before labeling her a martyr.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...233334,00.html


FYI, a decent read (and overly fair to Bhutto IMO). Those of you without more than a cursory knowledge of Pakistani politics would do well to recognize the whole story before labeling her a martyr.

Agreed. This is classic misperception at play: just because a leader has a pro-western orientation does not necessarily mean he or she is sympathetic to democracy. Likewise, someone with democratic values isn't necessarily going to be a friend to the west.

Reading the news today, in a move surprising to no one, it sounds like Bhutto willed the leadership of her party to her husband until her 19 year old son can take the reins. There doesn't appear to be any power struggle or much dissent in the choice; it is almost as though there is some sort of cult of personality going on in that party, where people just take it for granted that the party should be led by a Bhutto.

Edit: reading the guardian article, I can see how choosing Bhutto's husband and son as the next leaders of the party could be a Pakistani cultural manifestation of "fealty to the landowner". It does seem odd for a democratic/social-justice movement nonetheless...

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand, in non-US, non-European countries, it seems quite common for the spouse to take over. Look at Latin American politics and Eva Peron or even recently, Cristina Kirchner (yes, both are from Argentina, but it goes beyond just that country).

[ISiddiqui]

Interestingly enough, it appears that doctors at the hospital were asking for an autopsy to find out how Bhutto died, but the police chief said there was no need for that.

[JPhillips]

Sorry about the whole hit her head thing.

From the Times of India:

In a dramatic U-turn, Pakistan government has "apologised" for claiming that former premier Benazir Bhutto died of a skull fracture after hitting the sunroof of her car during a suicide attack.

Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan has asked the media and people to "forgive and ignore" comments made by his ministry's spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema which were slammed by her Pakistan People's Party as "lies" and led to an uproar at home and abroad.

The Interior Minister made the apology during a briefing for Pakistani newspaper editors on Monday.

[Flasch186]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/...ot/us_pakistan

Originally Posted by article

CIA blames extremist for Bhutto killing

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The CIA has concluded that a Pakistani tribal leader's network was behind the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, according to a U.S. intelligence official.
ADVERTISEMENT

The tribal leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is an extremist with strong ties to al-Qaida and an alliance with the Taliban. He heads up a network in South Waziristan, a lawless border region abutting Afghanistan. He has been blamed for an organized campaign of assassinations of Pakistani officials and suicide bombings in the country.

The CIA concluded that Mehsud was behind the Dec. 27 killing of Bhutto shortly after it occurred, according to an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Washington Post first reported the CIA's take on Friday, in an interview with CIA director Michael Hayden. "This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden told the newspaper.

The intelligence official said Mehsud, believed to be in his early 30s, is a "committed jihadist" who recruits and trains suicide operatives for the Taliban and al-Qaida. His network carries out suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, primarily along the border. The attacks have stretched from Nuristan province in northeast Afghanistan to Helmand province in the south.

He has bragged of having 3,000 would-be suicide bombers. His suicide squads have taken credit for attacks against the military and police in northwestern Pakistan, as well as bombings at a hotel in the capital of Islamabad that killed a security guard and at the Islamabad international airport.

Mehsud's men kidnapped nearly 250 Pakistani soldiers in August and held them until November, when he negotiated the release of two dozen jailed tribesmen, a group that included extremists and would-be suicide bombers.

Mehsud's forces also are believed to be behind an attack Wednesday on a Pakistani army fort near the Afghan border that left at least 22 soldiers dead or missing. The insurgents later abandoned the fort.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has blamed Mehsud's movement, Tehrik-e-Taliban, for 19 suicide attacks that killed more than 450 people over the last three months.

Mehsud, whose tribe of the same name is the most violent in South Waziristan province, signed a peace pact with Pakistan's army in February 2005. In it, he promised to deny shelter to foreign al-Qaida fighters in exchange for an end to military operations in the region and compensation for tribesmen killed by the military.

"It was a disaster for the U.S. The bad guys had more operational freedom," said Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism. Rogers has made more than a dozen trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the last two years.

Al-Qaida has since re-established its headquarters in the sanctuary of the tribal area, and suicide bombers and Taliban fighters are believed to cross into Afghanistan regularly to attack civilians and U.S. and Afghan forces.

Mehsud fought in the late 1990s for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, according to U.S. intelligence.

The Musharraf government fingered Mehsud for Bhutto's death in December, but some members of her political party and her family have questioned those assertions. There have been complaints that the government failed to provide her adequate security and vague allegations that elements within the government might have been involved in the assassination.

In December, the Pakistani government released the transcript of a purported conversation in which an al-Qaida operative reported to Mehsud that his men carried out the attack on Bhutto.

Rogers, who receives frequent intelligence briefings on Pakistan, told AP he has not seen definitive proof Mehsud's organization carried out the attack.

"We had good information that he was at least making the attempt to do it. If his folks were the first ones to do it, I haven't seen that yet. I do believe he had every intention to kill Bhutto. I don't think you can say (he did it) that definitely."

Bhutto was a secular politician popular in the U.S. and other Western countries for her opposition to hard-line Islam. Mehsud has denied involvement in her death.

[jeff061]

The creation of another "threat" begins. Oh well, better than just straight up invading that area of Pakistan.

[BishopMVP]

No offense, and that's probably the most likely scenario, but I find it hilarious whenever the media reports on what an intelligence agency "believes".

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

No offense, and that's probably the most likely scenario, but I find it hilarious whenever the media reports on what an intelligence agency "believes".

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

She could have sat in Dubai with her family and lived the good life, but she chose the road less travelled.

Man, oh man. I'd love to live in Dubai. My friend works/lives there, and he tells me it's like a giant technological/architectural oasis in the middle of the desert.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.

Yeah, that was what struck me as well. As Al Queda or people linked with Al Queda every denied carrying out a successful attack? I think if this guy did it, he'd be trumpeting it all over the place, so that other extremists flock to him (if he can kill Bhutto, he must be a big time guy, so the thinking may go).

It seems to me that the CIA is trying to help out ole Musharraf.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.

Did Mehsud ever deny it? I remember hearing the denials from one Al-Qu'aida linked group, but there are enough there it's entirely conceivable one could have done it on their own, and the media here tends to lump them all under the al-Qu'aida branch (even if from what I've heard it's really Lashkar-e-Ta'iba at the top of the chain since we went into Afghanistan.)

As far as the symbolic/tangible value, that's nagged at me too. Maybe it gets you more name recognition and recruits, but it just invites so much more international scrutiny and military crackdowns I don't think it would be worth it from their point of view. I mean, Bhutto herself if elected had no chance of going into Waziristan and eliminating these groups, but if you make her a martyr the population could rise up and get the willpower to demand change. And I also don't see if being good from Musharraf's perspective either, so I guess some misguided lonesome operation makes the most sense because her death wasn't a real win for any of the major players.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Did Mehsud ever deny it?

According to the article linked:

Mehsud has denied involvement in her death.

[BishopMVP]

Jesus, I'm illiterate. To be fair, it was the last line, and who actually reads entire articles these days?

[JPhillips]

I don't get why Mehsud would worry about scrutiny from taking credit for the assasination when he's been willing to overrun government military bases and dare the government to stop him.

I'm struck that in that article the only quote directly related to blaming Mehsoud just says " We have no reason to question that." Not exactly a firm case.

[Crapshoot]

Mehsud didn't do it. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that. The Pakistani tribal lands are controlled by people like him, to the point where the government doesn't even pretend to have sovereignty in most of the NWF area.