NEWS: Anyone Who Believes Al Qaeda Killed Bhutto Is An Asshole

Well, they didn't just jump to it. The neo-con machine kicked in immediately. There were several "experts" appearing on TV telling us that al Qaeda had "obviously" committed the act. It was more that the press did not question their baseless accusations. Also, one guy did say al Qaeda did it, as our resident rhetoric tool has shown us. So, now he and his fellow right wing clowns can disregard all further denials by al Qaeda. It would be like a member of the Republican party in Oregon taking credit for killing Kennedy, while Republican headquarters says they have nothing to do with it. Al Qaeda actually have an official spokesman for anyone paying attention.

yes, but i bet you they knew what those "experts" were going to say when they asked them to appear on their shows. like they ever really say anything else.

not at all brotha, after they showed some interest i began to explain the situation, i started to get very passionate, and then recieved the non-eye contact, please stop now your killing the party, vibe from everyone

whatever...

just read that her son/father will be assuming the leadership of her party, and watched her 19 year old son very defiently state

My Mother Always Said...The Best Revenge Is Democracy!!!

i'm worried for this young man's life

Most of the people that are bringing it up on the internet are whack-jobs and their explanations are conspiracy theories. Do a Google search on it and see the sites and comments it brings up. Fortunately, you do not appear to be a whack-job. My thread is directed at those people, not you.

It was definitely al Qaeda.

Ha, yeah whack-job was an odd choice of words on my part.

I don't have a problem with the al-Queda explanation in concept. She's a moderate, a secularist, anti-terrorist, and a WOMAN, they certainly don't want her in power in a country like Pakistan! Meshud claimed that it wasn't him, and he didn't believe it was Taliban militants because they don't strike women, which I find to be absurd given the Taliban's record of human rights abuses related to women and the obvious fact that thousands of women have been killed in al-Queda's attacks around the world (although admittedly perhaps none have been targeted specifically for assassination, but I can't see entities like the Taliban or al-Queda feeling that their hands are tied if they're in a holy war and they need to eliminate a key player but can't because she's female? Gimme a break, that's not how holy wars work; infidelity supersedes femininity especially when one attempts to assume a position of power. Part of the problem here though may be using the terms Taliban and al-Queda as totally interchangeable, which they are admittedly not.)
Furthermore, if one can confirm Adnkronos International and Asia Times Online's claims that Mustafa Abu al-Yazid contacted both organizations by telephone to claim responsibility for the assassination on the part of al-Queda... well, uhm, he would know. As the head of al-Queda's operations in Afghanistan, he would know better than Meshud, a tribal Waziri Taliban commander. There's a totem pole difference there.
Where it becomes unbelievable is that the Pakistan government specifically blames Baitullah Meshud as the mastermind, where he says he had nothing to do with it. al-Queda's Afghani leader supposedly claims responsibility for the attack, and if that report can be confirmed, I think it's very plausible then that Meshud didn't know about it because it was a death squad cell formed specifically for the assassination attempts and didn't necessarily come through Waziristan. Which would add up if it weren't for the contradictory claim and phone call evidence produced by Pakistan.
This leaves me troubled about the following things:

- Pakistan is sticking to its guns about Meshud being involved, producing a phone call and everything... Why would he lie? Why would they lie? If al-Yazid is claiming responsibility on behalf of al-Queda, and Pakistan has this recorded phone call, Meshud has no particular reason to deny it, so his denial is troubling. If al-Yazid's calls are real, and so is Meshud's denial, then the assassination didn't go through his command, which is plausible, but then that means the Pakistani government's phone call is fake, and why would they fabricate such a call if al-Queda is really responsible, why not accept al-Yazid's claim? No, the only way this all adds up to make sense as it stands right now is if both al-Yazid's and the Pakistani government's phone calls are fabricated, and Meshud's denials are true. But we'll wait to see how it plays out, maybe Meshud has some reason for denying his involvement that we can't understand yet, or maybe even HIS denial was fake. But at LEAST one thing in those three things has to be untrue.

- Why would Pakistan attempt to cover up the true cause of death? Someone mentioned earlier that if she ducked and was concussed into the lever as a result, then it would deny her a martyr's death; is this a plausible explanation? Plausible enough for us to stop worrying about it? Or is there something in the use of firearms versus the use of explosives to kill her that benefits someone in some other way? No one is denying that firearms were present, so it can't be an attempt to cover up the lack of security; the government spokespeople are just saying that thankfully the bullets missed her. So I don't understand who gains from the discrepancy.

- the 4,000-armed-guard security was so strict that a teenager with firecrackers in his pocket was turned away from entry into the area. Is it true that the guards up and left after a certain point, and if so, why? Were they recalled under someone's authority? If so, with 4,000 personnel, at least ONE of them should be leanable on in order to get that information. If not, how did such a failure happen, and how did not only explosives but FIREARMS slip through? That seems to go past the point of incompetence and into suspicion of complicity.

- There was undeniably a suicide bomber involved in the assassination. Not Muharraf nor Sharif nor anyone in the APDM or anyone else who could stand to gain from it politically has suicide bombers in their employ! Being willing to die for religion or a holy war or what not is very believable. Being willing to shoot someone for a political assassination and maybe-maybe-not getting away with it is also very believable. But blowing oneself up? Not only is there no hope of survival, let alone escape, but it's incredibly gruesome to do to oneself... No, that has to be militant fanaticism, no way anyone in the current government nor any potential government could get someone to blow themselves up for purely political reasons. I don't buy it. So conspiracy theories, though I am prone to them given how much stuff here doesn't add up, are very limited by the fact that al-Queda or a similar fanatical jihadist-type organization has to be involved somehow.

So it's all totally confusing. You can neither form a conspiratorial explanation nor a straight-forward explanation that explain half of this contradiction.

I will tell you this, though... When I saw her interviewed in August or September sometime (I'm not sure with whom, it was definitely a female interviewer though, either American or Canadian television news feature) talking about her decision to return, and her attempts to reach a power-sharing deal with Musharraf... I was both inspired and saddened. There's a brave woman, I thought, one who has made some mistakes but is passionate enough about her country to risk everything to return... and sadly, she probably won't live to see next year. I didn't know who she was before I watched that interview, but I remember thinking she seemed like someone who could bring some positive change to the region, but feeling very frightened for her well-being and wondering how she could be so confident and risk her life when it would be so dangerous for her to even try to return.
I'm incredibly depressed to have been correct.

Im not the most articulate of people, so thank you for for saying this..i agree 100%

The gunman was standing right next to the suicide bomber. They were a unit. The last two suicide bomb attacks failed, so whoever organised this attack brought along a gunman as well.

Do you think it's more likely that Al Qaeda use jihadist with a gun or that Musharraf uses a pair of agents who are willing to commit suicide in the line of duty?

What's the source for this? A bomb, certainly. A suicide bomber? Pardon me if it's obvious from the footage; I try to avoid watching these things.

who gives a flying fuck?

Apparently you do, because you answered with such an angry response. Probably should have addressed why you used some bullshit, ignorant talking point, though.

I have no clue about the situation as I dont really follow these kinds of things (Mainly yes iam here for the boobies ) (NICE BOOBS TOKEWL4UNDIES)

So am I. Rhetoric about democracy somehow means more coming from this kid than it does from George W. Bush.

Like, I'm inspired and stuff, instead of rolling my eyes at some privledged golden boy's protestations.

Here's to hoping that this kid is the real deal, like his mom was..

I would argue that it was definitely a suicide bomber due to the nature of the location and crowd, making the site not really somewhere that you could "set-it-and-forget-it". especially since she was in a vehicle. But even if the bomb was not strapped to a person, it definitely blew up the gunman; surely no one would suggest that the gunman didn't know about a bomb that had been placed! how would it have been triggered?
This is all rhetorical, obviously, I could argue the counter-argument just as easily but I severely doubt its plausibility, that's all.

Depends how it's done. Plastic is plastic; form it into a vest panel, tell him it's body armour. Acoustic trigger would be possible. If it's a rifle, a pressure trigger in the shoulder of the "armour" would work well.

Point is, it's much easier to blame whoever, when the shooter is conveniently no longer available to question. Since we're already thinking about conspiracies.

Speaking of conspiracies...

Link

Sorry.

Really sorry because that damn video surfaced.

the white house agreed with pakistan that a U.N. investigation isn't neccessary

if there's nothing to hide
then why would the U.N.'s involvement be an issue

This White House thinks it has shoved the UN out of the way and need not pay any attention to it, except when it's a convenient tool. Therefore, this White House will always seek to exclude the UN from anything of significance.

exactly. the while house views the UN as a collection of spineless, sissy politicians who aren't worth bothering with for the most part. you know, like congress, but with French people in it, which is worse x 10 to them.