I'd be very surprised if Musharraf had a direct role in the killing. I think, on balance, he stands to lose more now than before. Brett
If this was a move from jihadists, as Musharraf claims, than they would stand to lose even more. And why wait until after the Meeting with President Karzai?
Spectacular attack using suicide bombers... Al Qaeda's style. Musharraf would have been better suited with poison or something less attention grabbing. Also, Musharraf risks losing a lot more with this happening then he did by letting her take place in the political process. He was having enough difficutly holding his country/ government togather without this. It wouldnt surprise me if UBL and Al Qaeda did eventually claim responsibility for this. Why haven't they already? They are better served by the public outrage against Musharrafs government as a result of this. They benifit greatly when Musharraf is kept off balace politically because thats less effort he can put into combatting them. If his government falls, they will thrive in the power vaccum that will exist in aftermath. Why the second attack? The first one failed, and Al Qaeda has a habit of re-attacking targets until they succeed (WTC is a great example).
I can't help but think, regardless of who did this, that we just witnessed a watershed event. I also tend to believe that to a certain extent, it doesn't matter who did it...much like Sarajevo in June of 1914, in Rawalpindi today, it feels like the genie is out of the bottle.
You don't "really" think Musharraf is our ally do you? Bhutto might have leaned more our way than he, that's why she's gone. Not long ago an attempt was made on her life, 100 plus got whacked, she lucked out. Today the final numbers probably aren't really in yet, these people have little to no respect for human life so why should I respect them as well. Should they duke it out I hope it's contained, that's what I was driving at. India unfortunately is no different, who knows if Al Qeada does take over it will be India who's our next buddy over there. Make no mistake, Ghandi is not alive and well nor is his philosophy. The Indians are of the same blood, different religions but innately no real difference and just as fanatical. Don't worry about it breeding more terrorism, it's already there, both places. Should they whittle they're numbers down at their expense, so be it. This throws a whole new cog into OUR election. Look for the minor players Thompson and hopefully Paul to bow out. Look for McCain to really get noticed since he probably has more influence and experience on the world stage.
Do you really think that this has the same gravity as Sarajevo in 1914? I'm not against what you're saying, but there doesn't seem to be that whole "shot heard 'round the world" feel to this. Not here in the west anyway. What would really get the west fully involved in this is the nuclear threat. Completely regardless of who eventually takes power, whether by election or not, the security of the nuclear weapons should be at the top of everybody's list. There should be a MEU in the Indian Ocean very soon waiting to see what the populace, the government, Al Qaeda, and India intend to do. I'm sure there's already a sub there doing what it does.
This reminds me of a quote from Billy Madison: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." And of course Mark Twain said it best: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." I'm just sorry they let you vote. SD
No doubt more than you have. Don't like it, tough, let them wipe each other out, not my problem. And you've contributed what to the conversation? Three fingers, guess which ONE is for you.
As tough guy cool as that sounds, you're not a character in a Terminator movie. It's not cool or tough at all. Your attitude is disturbing. People will be killed. Islamofascism will spread. Children will be killed and maimed. Nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of our enemies if we are not careful. The security of our own nation is seriously threatened. This is very much your problem. If you don't want to take it seriously then get the fuck out of the way. It's people with attitudes like yours that make me yearn to fight a war on American soil where our own brothers and mothers and dogs and cars and houses get killed and destroyed. Complacency is the bane of my existence. You suck on this particular issue and you get negative rep. It's not personal. I'll still have a beer with you. I just suggest you reflect on your attitude.
As usual, Brett is one of the more rational ones here. Shocking...... Bhutto was not that popular in Pakistan, her rule was known as particularly corrupt in a country that is used to it. While the international media has depicted widespread chaos in parts of the country in the past, like when Musharraf declared emergencey rule, the reality was quite different on the ground. I don't know if that is the case this time but I would imagine that with her relatively little support she had among the public, whatever rioting there is will die down soon. The people in Pakistan aren't particularly fond of Musharraf but none fo the alternatives, including Sharif, Bhutto (formerly) or the fundamentalists, are particularly appealing. Where the fundamentalists did make gains in elections a few years ago in the Northwest Frontier Provinces that border Afghanistan(Google it, it is among the most lawless parts of the country, and where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a large amount of support), they are in danger of losing a lot of power in the next election because they failed to deliver on basic promises like better sewage and water services, simple bread and butter issues. They failed where governments before them failed and will probably pay for it at the ballot box (ironically, that is large part of the reason why Hamas and Hezbollah gained a lot of support in Palestine and Lebanon, they provided services when Fatah and/or the government could or did not). I don't see Pakistan slding towards a civil war quite yet. Part of the reason we are seeing a lot of violence in Pakistan right now is a simple matter, we are paying more attention to it nowadays. It has long been a chaotic and violent country. Bhutto's father was executed and the President who was responsible for it, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, died in suspicious plane crash in 1988. There is a lot of turmoil and violence over there right now, but the Army still holds the keys to power and they don't like the fundamentalists and they don't wnat their nukes to fall into the wrong hands. And most of the public sees the Army and its leadership as the only halfway competent authority in the country. So as long as the Army and the people are okay with the Army, Pakistan and its nukes will be somewhat okay, whatever okay is in that region of the world.
+1 It just doesn't make sense to me that Al Qaeda, would pass up the opportunity to hit Benazir Bhutto and President Karzai when they were together that morning. It seems to big of a target to pass up, especially as the attack happened the same day. The attacker got within six feet of Karzai, shot her twice, then blew himself up, I've never read of that pattern in pakistan before... It seems like a case of "[SIZE=-1]These blast points are too accurate for Sand People[/SIZE]" Couple that with the security allegations from before, (if you recall she had 20,000 security personnel protecting her in the October attack, a lot of incompetent troops apparently) from a psychological (and no, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I spent a couple of hours in a holiday inn two towns over last night) perspective it seems to be consistent with the actions of a man who was losing power and support, with an increasingly "defiant" judiciary working against him. +1 +1
My impression of Bhutto's support was that it was solely because she represented an alternative to Musharraf, not because she was popular in and of herself. As Flash pointed out, her term was notably corrupt even by Central Asian standards. But she was "liberal" and, more importantly, not Musharraf, which was enough for most of the opposition. Neither al-Qaeda nor Musharraf had much to gain by killing her. Musharraf just wants things quiet, and he's got all the guns anyway. AQ loathes Musharraf, and sparking more civil unrest would only strengthen his position - renew the state of emergency, etc. Then again, none of the al-Qaeda elements have ever shown much in the way of political savvy. It could very easily have been something as idiotic as "She is apostate woman operating in men's business and not wearing burqua! Kill the woman!" Gavrilo Princip wasn't very bright, either.
Hold on there cowboy, you are reading a little too much into this whole thing. Bhutto was actually a useful foil for Musharraf because she was not that much of a threat to him, her party was probably not going to do that well in the upcoming elections. Also, just because you don't see the way she was assassinated in a Wikipedia list or you have never heard of it does not mean that Al Qaeda is not going to try it. It is not like using a suicide boat or airliners as guided missiles was in their repertoire either but that did not stop them from doing either. Finally, are you sure she was shot? Please leave the rampant speculation to the people who are paid to do it.
Hadn't the US been pressuring Musharraf into a power sharing agreement with Bhutto for the last five months? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/w...?em&ex=1198990800&en=41884ad5ef78712e&ei=5087
Uhhhhh...got news for you Flash...that's what this whole thread is...your posts included. I think you dropped this.
Yet she was still opposing his party in the upcoming elections. Bhutto was not much of a threat to Musharraf, she was more popular with the international media than the populace of Pakistan. A power sharing agreement would have been good press but in reality would have left the power in Musharraf's hands, which is probably why Bhutto never signed up.
I thought the agreement was her entire reason from coming out of exile and returning to Pakistan? And most sources I've read, had predicted her PPP party would have emerged as the largest party in parliament after the 8th. (this comes from the subscriber side of stratfor.org so I can't post a link)
The possibility of an agreement was only one reason that she came back, the main reason is that she saw a political opportunity in the populace's weariness with Musharraf's rule. Corrupt she may have been, but she was born and bred a politician and saw an opportunity in coming back this year, agreement or not. Stratfor might be a decent site, and from what I have seen they are, but I would not put a lot of stock in that assesment. But who knows with the chaos that is Pakistani politics? If you can read the tea leaves in that country there are more than a few people that would love to hire you.
Just heard on the radio that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for Bhutto's assassination. Anyone else heard the same?
The only thing I've seen so far about Al Qaeda being blamed is that Musharraf is saying there is evidence of Al Qaeda and Taliban involvement. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_re_as/pakistan . An interesting point that was discussed earlier that the article overrides is that although it was orginally thought she died of gunshot wounds, the doctor is now stating that it was shrapnel, "No bullet was found in her body".
