News – Athar Minallah, a board member of the hospital where Ms. Bhutto was treated, released her medical report along with an open letter showing that her doctors wanted to distance themselves from the government theory that Ms. Bhutto had died by hitting her head on a lever of her car's sunroof during the attack.
Who cares !
Kill this article it stinks , needs to be buried .
You should care. The Pakistani dictator Musharaf is behind the murder of Ms. Bhutto. The U.S. government is supporting the military dictatorship of President Musharaf. Pakistan is a nuclear power who could easely fall in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its worldwide terrorist network.
Do you still don't care? Wake-up and face reality!
"If there is a gunshot wound, the security was abysmal," Mr. Riedel said. The government did not want to be exposed on its careless approach to security, he said.
The government sees no problem with a homicide bomber getting that close regardless of whether there was a gunman or not? Either the Pakistani government is complicit or they are bumbling idiots.
Bush's best-laid plans
Politics รข;; The Bhutto assassination demonstrates anew the folly of the administration's efforts to manage history.
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/31/b...
Thanks for the link. Isn't it ironic how those, NeoCons in this case, who sought to use U.S. power to shape the world in their image may have actually fired the salvos that drive it in the other direction? These might begin to be listed as:
1. display that we are vulnerable, over-extended, and non-omnipotent
2. exposing ourselves to extreme indebtedness which may break the bank
3. further weakening of our supposed position of having a higher moral ground as we support Shah-like Musharraf's who play along with us
As Pakistan is a nuclear power and Musharraf has been an ally in the war on terror, it would seem that not offering support would be a little strange.
Which Pakistani leader would you rather see the U.S. support?
I don't see his ties to the U.S. that you do, and he is really just another Musharraf.
Seems like supporting him would be like China denouncing Bush and endorsing Cheney.
I'm not so good at humor, so maybe you're joking. Thanks anyway.
I think what HardStein is referring to is this:
"General Kiyani's appointment has US nod
Lt General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani -- a Punjabi officer from the famed Baloch Regiment, till recently the vice chief of Army Staff and Inter Services Intelligence chief, pro-US, and an old India hand -- recently took over from General Pervez Musharraf [Images] as Pakistan Army's 14th chief of Army Staff."
Ok. A little perspective there is useful.
Musharraf appoints a successor and the U.S. goes along. That makes sense. After all, it's their business more than ours. If a new guy is going to be answering the phone, I have no problem with that and I certainly wouldn't want to get in the middle of it.
Here's a little more on our new friend:
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-i...
Musharraf, an ally in the war on terror? If he is an ally, what is an enemy??
Iran is a better ally than Musharraf, at least they offered to turn over the known terrorists in their nation. Musharraf harbors them if not allows them to live there. Nice choice Bush, and nice flip-flop on another terror promise.
The last thing Musharaf needed was another politician the US could support, possibly in his place.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
The U.S. is willing to support anyone who isn't an extremist and will help fight terrorism.
Are you saying that he needs to support a religious fanatic to be in charge of a country with a nuclear arsenal in an effort to appeal to the terrorists?
I'll wait on your reply to say I disagree with you as you surely can't mean that, right?
The US has offered to help in the investigation (i.e., CIA and FBI).
How can one crook with scandals & no credibility left of its own investigate another crook sitting with the money and support of the first crook?
Only a country like Switzerland can offer to investigate.
I agree, but for a different reason.
First, I'm not sure you are fully aware of the capabilities of the FBI or CIA, but they are relatively great with a phenomenal amount of resource and experience. I'm not even sure if Switzerland has a comparable agency, so saying, "Call Switzerland," is a little like saying, "Go to hell."
I'm also not sure that the FBI and CIA have crooks and scandals to repair right now. I did a search and couldn't come up with anything.
I simply agree with not getting involved because I don't know that we have more resources in Pakistan than Pakistan. They should be able to figure this one out on their own.
I agree with nikkibabe on this one. But I also believe there is no point in investigating what happened at this point. My bet is most likely the ISI with the blessings of Musharraf is responsible for this. Musharraf is an enigma. He plays the politics extremly well, plays all sides & has always come out as the winner. I am certain the ISI have covered their tracks well & no evidence will ever link this to them or Musharraf.
Quote: "I'm also not sure that the FBI and CIA have crooks and scandals to repair right now. I did a search and couldn't come up with anything".
I guess the moron who made the comment above lives in LA LA LAND somewhere!!!!!!!!!!!
If kidnapping people off the streets in other countries, holding them in secret prisons and torturing them is not a scandal done by crooks, what is?
If destroying evidence of torture and interrogations of people held without charges is not scandal done by crooks, what is?
If tapping citizen's phones and listening to their phone calls is not scandal, what is?
The moron is a political independent with an IQ of over 150, but anyway...
Every conspiracy-theorist in the world alleges the CIA did something with their missing sock. If you're one of these, then intellient converstaion with you is impossible. The fact that you choose name-calling is a sure indication that you feel insecure with your position. I'll not stoop to that level, but try intelligent discourse instead.
I am stating that the capabilities of the FBI and CIA are immense and offering them is a fine gesture.
I am also saying that the intelligence agency of Switzerland... doesn't really exist, so telling them to help is a little bizarre.
In the intelligence community, contrary to popular belief, destruction of evidence after it's usefulness has ended is largely SOP.
Listening in on someone's phonecalls isn't something the FBI would be interested in doing without an order. I believe that international communications between terrorist organizations need to be tapped.
The CIA is with Musharraf, especialy in this case. The FBI is useless in this case. I think nikkibabe just meant "Switzerland" as being neutral, not Switzerland actually has any type of intelligence agency of any value. But, that's my guess. I'll let nikkibabe speak for themselves.
I'm prepared to give this nikkibabe person the benefit of doubt in light of your assertion that they believe the Swiss are neutral. I would also assert, though I would need to investigate for a while, that the U.S. is also rather neutral in the case of Bhutto's death. Is there anything that you know of that would indicate a desire on our part for her to die?
"nikkibabe speak for themselves" - are you telling me that nikkibabe is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder? If so, I'll handle her carefully in the future. Thanks.
"nikkibabe speak for themselves" - are you telling me that nikkibabe is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder? If so, I'll handle her carefully in the future. Thanks."
All I wrote is what I think nikkibabe meant when they mentioned "Switzerland" in the context of this discussion.
I have no idea how my explaining what I think a person meant is indicative of any type of disporder of that person.
That was my failed attempt at humor aimed at your typo in referring to nikkibabe in the plural "themselves" rather than the singular options available such as "themself", "himself", or "herself".
"Themself" is beginning to appear as a gender-neutral reflexive pronoun, a singular form of "themselves" meaning "himself" or "herself". The reason you didn't get my attempt at humor is that it is by no means fully accepted, and is best avoided when speaking or writing to prescriptively minded people as "themselves" is more generally accepted in these contexts.
So, you want me to tell you another joke?
I have one regarding a disassociative state of the color "orange", if you like.
Cool. I wrote "themselves" because I guessed nikkibabe is a woman, but then again can't assume just based on id name. "Themselves" does sound a bit off I agree.
"I have one regarding a disassociative state of the color "orange", if you like."
Sure, would love to hear another joke.
I wish everyone prosperity, joy, & happiness for this Year 2008!
There is a segment in our population that thinks we should get involved in investigating everything everywhere in the world - in other word, being the world's policeman.
We must remember the word sovereignty. If we don't understand what it means, reading the dictionary would be a good starting point.
Every sovereign nation in the world will assert its authority to manage its own law enforcement without outside influence. If that country needs help, it has several resources such as regional reciprocation treaties, or Interpol. It will be a smart move for our country to stay out of other countries' affairs, and leave them alone to manage their own affairs - in this case, Pakistan.
More..
Contd..
Let us also not forget that ISI (Pakistan's version of our FBI and CIA combined) wields tremendous power in Pakistan! Some say it even overshadows the power of their President. They have infiltrated the armed forces and has close ties to Taliban (from the days of Soviets' occupation of Afghanistan, and the clandestine CIA operations supporting the Mujahadeens {Charlie Wilson's War}) and AlQuaeda! It is a secret army within the Government, and many times they have defied even the orders of their President.
It will be better for us to watch the events unfold from a distance. As it is, the average Pakistani does not have good opinion of our government, and it will get worse fast if we started messing with their affairs!
Peace and Blessings!
To set matters straight, I suggested Switzerland due to their neutral stance in world politics rather than their abilities. Whenever there is a case of 'he said' and 'she said' a neutral entity is required.
CIA & FBI may have the resources BUT the rest of the world (except may be UK & Israel) do not trust them.
With scandals galore, majority of your own countrymen I believe do not trust these agencies.
Your country should have invaded and occupied Pakistan instead of Iraq. All the Taliban and Al Qeada leaders would have been behind bars in Gitmo long ago. Fear of nuclear weapons getting in to hands of these maniacs would have eliminated.
See, now you have to contend with 3 countries.
It was because of the fear of those very nukes that we turned away from Pakistan, Waziristan in particular. Remember it was the neocon chickenhawks that were making these decisions. They saw Iraq as an easy and valuable target. Read up on PNAC and you will see that the neocons focus was on Iraq and had been for a full decade. Militarily it was relatively easy, yet they had no contingency plans for the post military phase. That is why we are still there and will be there for decades. Of course that was always the neocon plan as they saw Iraq as a geo-political prize we must possess. Thus the huge permanent bases already built and the massive embassy now under construction in Baghdad. They simply did not predict the insurgent violence that would erupt.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
rontravel
gabeh73
MaryLynn_
maninthemiddle
contentmanager
Groppir
AlwaysAngry
NoWayMan
DianCor
Arten
Grisson
Victorys
mdvaldosta
Dicax_Maximus
Medicpharm
Oxyon
TaylorPo
Helixbuilder
stwor
BessThigpen
JulianneFarmer
acdnc
martar
czone
Madbird
creatza5555
avpd85
EulaAyers
shouldnot
er_saurabhgupta1986
zephyr_ali
billikoster
Shankari25
SamuelRubin
Lurch
studentambassador
ecotourusa
JohnQPublic
aframerindio
getreal1
chayanat
searchbeam
ameliog
postaphis
dissent
bettermansecret
61)
"Dr. Khan declined through Mr. Minallah to speak with a reporter on the grounds that he was an employee of a government hospital and was fearful of government reprisals if he did not support its version of events."
"Three shots were fired but they missed her," Brigadier Cheema said. "Then there was an explosion."
What was the handgun the assassin used? Specially the caliber 9mm, 7.62mm. 5.7mm (FN 57N)
Where are the recovered bullets?
Do the bullets "match" the handgun
I have read rumors of multiple snipers with silenced rifles.
Well there is a video of a guy pointing a gun at her. I wonder if that is fake too. And how come ,fter the USA government told her that terrorist are plotting to kill her, she went out lacking enough security? Was she trying to be a Martyr?
Good question.
It seems she would have changed he plans or hired more security herself.
Maybe she felt a false sense of security and figured that mixing with her own country-men would be safe enough.
There was one clip I saw that showed a security guard standing right next to the assassin and doing absolutely nothing but fading into the background! IMO this was a set up and security was nowhere near what it could or should have been.
Interesting.
Do you have a link to that clip? I'd like to see it also.
Thanks if you do.
I have searched high and low and have been unable to relocate it. My mistake was in not bookmarking it!
You're not day dreaming. I saw it on ABC evening news. Showed the security guys ducking for cover as the gunfire erupted.
The shooting of President Reagan and Squeaky Fromme's attempt on Ford (she was just a lousy shot) proves that there is no such thing as foolproof security. But in each case, the secret service agents were all over the assailant in a heartbeat. Not in Pakistan. It sure looked like either the security guys there are selected solely by their level of cowardice or they were told to fold up when the attack came.
Thanks anyway.
I believe you, I just wanted to see.
WK - It's not the clearest of videos, and I'm not exactly convinced (no smoke from the pistol), but here ya go...
http://www.blogsofwar.com/2007/12/28/benazir-bh...
If it posts.....
Thanks, DM.
Hard to make out much, but interesting.
A reminder to the skeptics as to Bhutto's intentions that Musharaf promised her security and yet failed miserably not once, but twice. He detested her and knew she had to be eliminated to preserve his rule with elections nearing. He did not have to arrange her murder but merely to stand by and let it happen. Plenty of extremists were waiting to do the job.
IF the US govt warned her, why didn`t they warn Musharraf who was actually in charge of the nations` police, military, security?
Or, if they did warn him, why did he ignore both the US govt warnings and Bhutto`s pleas for more security? And why isn`t our govt saying more about this?
Clinton did it! (hillary)
Well... another powerful woman in the world.
Would Hillary allow it?
Just joking. Thanks, ADAGUY, I could use the smile.