Benazir Bhutto Dies in Attack

[ISiddiqui]

Breaking News on both CNN.com and NYTimes.com!

Apparently in a suicide bombing, she was shot in the neck.

[Flasch186]

yup, the new front of the war on Al Qaeda will be in Pakistan (if it's not already), and like times before it's critical that civilized society win. Al Qaeda will not stop attacking until they are extinguished.

[Klinglerware]

Who said Al Qaeda was behind this?

[jeff061]

If it's convenient to someone it will be said.

[Flasch186]

are you kidding, theyve repeatedly tried to kill her over the last month(s).

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

are you kidding, theyve repeatedly tried to kill her over the last month(s).

Bhutto didn't seem to think it was Al Qaeda targeting her...

[Flasch186]

....if youre thinking Musharraf did this, I can see it plausible but his enemies are her enemies.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, regardless of who actually killed her, this makes the elections in Pakistan even more muddled. Sharif can't run. Bhutto is dead. Musharraf is entirely unliked. It's quite scary to think what will come out of this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Bhutto didn't seem to think it was Al Qaeda targeting her...

really?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071023/251/6mbfc.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...-blames-a.html

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189816.php

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...an.explosions/

http://article.wn.com/view/2007/12/2...ant_Territory/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This kind of stuff just goes to show just how nasty muslim fundamentalists can be. It's a damn shame that great leaders like her have to worry about idiots taking her out when trying to put a country back on its feet.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rif/index.html

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide attack, according to media reports.
Geo TV quoted her husband saying the politician had died following a bullet wound in the neck.

The suicide attack left at least 14 dead and 40 injured, Tariq Azim Khan, the country's former information minister, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The attacker is said to have detonated a bomb as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.

Bhutto is said to have been leaving the rally when the attack occurred and was taken to a hospital in an unconcious state, the Geo TV report said.

Earlier, a spokesman for Bhutto told CNN she was safe and taken away from the scene.

Video from the scene of the blast broadcast from Geo TV showed wounded people being loaded into ambulances.

Up to 20 people are dead, the report said.

Earlier, four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Friday, local police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police added.
While President Pervez Musharraf has promised free and fair parliamentary elections next month, continued instability in the tribal areas and the threat of attack on large crowds has kept people from attending political rallies and dampened the country's political process.

Campaigners from various political groups say fewer people are coming out to show their support due to government crackdowns and the threat of violence.

At least 136 people were killed and more than 387 wounded on October 18 when a suicide bomber attacked Bhutto's slow-moving motorcade. The former PM returned to the country after eight years of self-imposed exile to a massive show of support in the southern port city of Karachi.

Bhutto called it "an attack on democracy" and vowed it would not deter her political campaign.

Today's violence come less than two weeks ahead of January parliamentary elections and as many days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a six-week-old state of emergency he said was necessary to ensure the country's stability.

Critics said Musharraf's political maneuvering was meant to stifle the country's judiciary as well as curb the media and opposition groups to secure more power.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

really?

Yeah, really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/wo...l?pagewanted=1

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/wo...l?pagewanted=1

We'll never know but in your article it says she blames militants but asks why the Government isn't doing more to protect her, to crack down on the militants (AL Qaeda)

Originally Posted by from article

I am not accusing the government, but I am accusing certain individuals who abuse their positions, who abuse their powers,” she said at a news conference of hundreds of journalists in the garden of her home in Clifton, an upscale neighborhood of the southern port city of Karachi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21374344/

she says the Government or individuals of authority may be complicit but continued to blame Al Qaeda Militants. If you'd like to speculate on Government assassination, that's fine and could bear out, but she feared Al Qaeda most.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We'll never know but in your article it says she blames militants but asks why the Government isn't doing more to protect her, to crack down on the militants (AL Qaeda)

No, she's saying more than that...

“I know exactly who wants to kill me,” Ms. Bhutto said. “It is dignitaries of the former regime of General Zia who are today behind the extremism and the fanaticism.”

She named three Pakistani officials she believed were behind the plot. Sure, Islamic militants executed the attacks, but the Pakistani intelligence has used them for years for their own ends...

[Flasch186]

that all may be but I just dont see her connecting the specific dots in those articles about that attack. It could bear out that today is the culmination of those dots connecting but that's not what she had been saying about attacks in the past. Specific and outlined threats came from Al Qaeda....I suppose we'll find out eventually but I'll put my $.50 on Al Qaeda. that quote above needs some more context.

[ISiddiqui]

Musharraf does run the ISI, which is known for using fundamentalists for their own ends (as in Kashmir). It is not inconcievable that the ISI could have been behind it, just as likely as Al Queda right now. I don't think you can rule anyone out until someone takes credit (well, AQ would, the ISI wouldn't).

[molson]

It really doesn't matter so much who's behind it - it's not a murder mystery.

What matters now is the aftermath.

[Schmidty]

I have some comments, but I don't want to get put in the box for the first time.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that all may be but I just dont see her connecting the specific dots in those articles about that attack. It could bear out that today is the culmination of those dots connecting but that's not what she had been saying about attacks in the past. Specific and outlined threats came from Al Qaeda....I suppose we'll find out eventually but I'll put my $.50 on Al Qaeda. that quote above needs some more context.

Sure. Her quote was in the context of the first attack upon her arrival in Pakistan this year. But the point remains--Bhutto suspected that several plots against her had the direct support of her rivals in the Pakistani government and intelligence service.

In the end, as others have pointed out, we don't know who was ulimately behind the attack. We don't know if we'll ever find out. Your guess is as good as mine, but I do think that your first post did jump the gun a bit as to who was responsible. I decided to post what I posted because there are plausable alternative theories out there worth mentioning.

[PilotMan]

I hardly agree that she was a great leader. She was ousted for being corrupt and was hardly popular at that time. I think that her return was romanticized quite a bit and it was merely an expression of the peoples dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Her return was just a face to put to the look back at 'better times.'

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I hardly agree that she was a great leader. She was ousted for being corrupt and was hardly popular at that time. I think that her return was romanticized quite a bit and it was merely an expression of the peoples dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Her return was just a face to put to the look back at 'better times.'

IIRC, she's always been somewhat popular. Corruption is a charge that every Pakistani leader is saddled with at some point or another, at least the civilian leadership. Sharif was tagged with corruption too.

Both times she was removed by the President of Pakistan, not in election. After all, when she was removed the first time, and then ran again, she won the Prime Minister job a second time.

And of course she's corrupt. They all are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, she's always been somewhat popular. Corruption is a charge that every Pakistani leader is saddled with at some point or another, at least the civilian leadership. Sharif was tagged with corruption too.

Both times she was removed by the President of Pakistan, not in election. After all, when she was removed the first time, and then ran again, she won the Prime Minister job a second time.

And of course she's corrupt. They all are.

I'd agree with that. Corruption charges seem to be a convinent way to boot the other guy in a lot of 3rd world countries. I'm sure they're all corrupt to some extent, but we even have that in the U.S.

[ISiddiqui]

The entire Pakistani society is far more corrupt than what we are used to in Western states. When I was there a few years back, I was just struck by how money can basically get you out of all sorts of situations. Police officers definately will take bribes, especially for traffic stops (hell, that's one of the reasons they may make stops).

[wade moore]

I'm not going to address the "Whodunit?" aspect of this because I just don't know enough about the situation over there to speculate.

But no matter how you look at it, this is something I hate to see from a country that is teetering on the edge of Democracy/Not-Democracy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

But no matter how you look at it, this is something I hate to see from a country that is teetering on the edge of Democracy/Not-Democracy.

And one that has a fairly advanced nuclear program (started by Bhutto's father more than 30 years ago).

[DaddyTorgo]

tragedy

[JPhillips]

The more I read about this the less I think it was AQ. She was apparently shot at close range before the bomb went off. Her closest advisor is also pointing the finger at Musharref. It sounds much more like a professional job than an chance killing with a suicide bomber. It's also very fishy that four close advisors of Sharif were also killed over the past couple of days.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The more I read about this the less I think it was AQ. She was apparently shot at close range before the bomb went off. Her closest advisor is also pointing the finger at Musharref. It sounds much more like a professional job than an chance killing with a suicide bomber. It's also very fishy that four close advisors of Sharif were also killed over the past couple of days.

does sound fishy - "shoot her and then blow her up so that we can claim it was an AQ suicide bomb and coverup the evidence that she was shot"

i had a whole big long post planned out in my head, but i don't know that i have the energy for it. It's just...tragic.

[KWhit]

You guys hit on the point I was going to make:

A suicide bomb and a shot in the neck?

[mrsimperless]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The entire Pakistani society is far more corrupt than what we are used to in Western states. When I was there a few years back, I was just struck by how money can basically get you out of all sorts of situations. Police officers definately will take bribes, especially for traffic stops (hell, that's one of the reasons they may make stops).

A lot of more "under developed" nations are the same way. When in Thailand and getting my work permit the bribery/gifts given to the officials who signed the documents were blatant and seemingly expected. And I also heard many of the same stories about getting out of jail, etc. When you're stopped by the police over there from what I understand you basically pay them $25 and carry on about your business.

[mrsimperless]

Originally Posted by KWhit

You guys hit on the point I was going to make:

A suicide bomb and a shot in the neck?

From what I either heard or read on the bbc this morning it was believed that the attacker shot at her as he approached and then detonated himself. (Sorry, no link) But I definitely heard eye witness accounts of shots having been fired.

[chesapeake]

Bhutto and her advisors knew that her assassination was a better than even proposition if she decided to return to public life in Pakistan. But she did it, and in an even more public way than anyone could have ever expected. That takes some kind of courage.

I'm not sure what Musharraf gains from Bhutto's death. His regime is already shaky. The public unrest and violence this event will likely cause could be enough to topple him.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have the most to gain -- killing the leader of the Democratic movement and stirring up unrest against Musharraf, whom they have been trying to knock over for years, would be a big win for them.

[Young Drachma]

My goodness. That sure does muddle the picture up even more over there.

[Noop]

Very disappointing to hear.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And one that has a fairly advanced nuclear program (started by Bhutto's father more than 30 years ago).

And one who currently shelters (in fact, even glorifies) A.Q. Khan, the government scientist who sold nuclear secrets (and possibly equipment) on the black market to, amongst others, North Korea.

Just goes to show how short-sighted the "War on Terror" made everyone.

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I'm not sure what Musharraf gains from Bhutto's death. His regime is already shaky. The public unrest and violence this event will likely cause could be enough to topple him.

Or it gives him ample reason to declare martial law again and rule the country under emergency status for as long as he likes.

It's all speculation right now, and will be until more details emerge.

[chesapeake]

I've heard that theory. I'm not sure Musharraf has the political capital to declare martial law again and make it stick. And I'm not sure the army will back him.

But I agree, it is all speculation.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I've heard that theory. I'm not sure Musharraf has the political capital to declare martial law again and make it stick. And I'm not sure the army will back him.

But I agree, it is all speculation.

Of course, it's all speculation.

I would agree that Musharraf is unlikely to be behind this, since there is little for him to gain from Bhutto's assassination and much to lose, since much of the fallout would focus on him.

The resulting chaos would of course give the military the opportunity to guarantee it's current position by both deposing Musharraf once and for all and canceling elections, in the name of promoting stability.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Just goes to show how short-sighted the "War on Terror" made everyone.

Short-sighted alliances of convenience are nothing new for the region - I'd highly recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars for a comprehensive history of U.S. and Soviet/Russian involvement in Afghanistan and the resulting effects in the surrounding areas and throughout the Middle East.

[JW]

The method of the assassination does nothing to eliminate Al Qaeda. There is no reason Al Qaeda could not have orchestrated that attack. That doesn't mean btw that I think AQ did it. I have to go back to what Issiquidi said. You can't rule anyone out right now.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This kind of stuff just goes to show just how nasty muslim fundamentalists can be. It's a damn shame that great leaders like her have to worry about idiots taking her out when trying to put a country back on its feet.

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.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I have some comments, but I don't want to get put in the box for the first time.

Bah, its not that bad.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Short-sighted alliances of convenience are nothing new for the region - I'd highly recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars for a comprehensive history of U.S. and Soviet/Russian involvement in Afghanistan and the resulting effects in the surrounding areas and throughout the Middle East.

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.

[Young Drachma]

Mitt Romney is on FOX right now talking about it. He just looks like a flip-flopping slimball there. Not hardly presidential. I mean, Hillary sure does wear the stench of "I'll tell you whatever you want to hear..." but he looks the same way, only with less familiarity.

[SackAttack]

My first thought was Musharraf, but that almost seems like the obvious answer. So obvious that whoever's responsible wants attention to focus on him.

My second thought is, why was Sharif's party attacked as well?

To me, that suggests one of three things.

1) Musharraf is a moron who thinks that killing the opposition is going to intimidate the populace into letting him re-declare martial law and just hang onto power for as long as he likes.

2) The military is trying to bring Musharraf down, and making him look bad gives them the opportunity to step in.

3) An outside entity is stirring up trouble. India?

[Flasch186]

4) an AQ coordinated attack.

[Flasch186]

CNN reports that an AQ person claimed responsibility to a French newspaper but they're not confirming that yet.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

4) an AQ coordinated attack.

+1

they have the most to gain.

[SackAttack]

I'm not convinced AQ would try to shoot Bhutto and then set off a suicide bomb attack. That just seems like overkill, pardon the pun.

If they're behind it, I have to think they either a) would claim responsibility, or b) don't want to be spotlighted as the culprits. If the latter, why would you risk the killer being caught and questioned if the bomb doesn't go off?

Why not just send two or (if Bhutto's elimination was a high priority) three suicide bombers in? Triangulate, take her out, and do more damage among her crowd of supporters?

Not saying they couldn't have done it, only that their involvement doesn't seem to fit the facts at hand.

[molson]

It sure didn't take long for the conspiracy theories to start. India???

Sadly, it's probably the least surprising assassination in history.

Al-Qaeda itself doesn't have the organization it used to, but there are many, many groups throughout the world that claim links, and at the very least, share ideologies.

Musharraf and the Pakistani government need to answer accusations that the security was not what it needed to be, and I'm sure their responses in the coming days and months will be political, but it's a REAL stretch to say this is some kind of government hit. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My first thought was Musharraf, but that almost seems like the obvious answer. So obvious that whoever's responsible wants attention to focus on him.

My second thought is, why was Sharif's party attacked as well?

To me, that suggests one of three things.

1) Musharraf is a moron who thinks that killing the opposition is going to intimidate the populace into letting him re-declare martial law and just hang onto power for as long as he likes.

2) The military is trying to bring Musharraf down, and making him look bad gives them the opportunity to step in.

3) An outside entity is stirring up trouble. India?

Dude, if you think India has any interest in an unstable Pakistan...

An unstable, nuclear-armed, ISI (or Mujahadeen) controlled PAkistan is a danger for the US - its a fucking disaster for India.