Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack

POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 16:40
VIEWED: 12906
PAGE 13 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

BADKARMA00

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 11:22 PM

Anything's possible, of course, but I don't see it. Umar, or whatever the GeneralPresidente for life's name is, stike's me as smarter than that.

Also, Bhutto wasn't predicted to win, as many of the Pakistanis were reported as remembering her 'regime' as a corrupt one.

Still, maybe Omar saw her as a threat, and had her taken out, I don't know for sure. I DO know that if I was investigating it, I'd be taking a long look at the hubby, after some of the things I've been reading.

He ignored a great deal of sound advice from British and US officials about Bhutto's security arrangements, as well as several private firms. And he was in charge of her security.

And, before the body is cold, he and the son are stepping up to 'take charge' of the political party she headed. Added to that, it was the hubby who absolutely refused to allow an autopsy on the body.

Reports from the cursory exam where that she died from a blow to the head, which left a cranial depression some six to eight inches in diameter. That is not a bullet wound.

COuld have been debris, since I understand a bomb was involved, though I haven't seen any footage of the event, so I can't form a real opionion.

I suppose we'll never really know, but any unrest in a militant muslim country with Nukes is cause for concern, not just in the US, but everywhere.

Of course, unrest in ANY country with nukes is cause for concern, so it's not something that is unique to muslim countries. I'd laugh here, but it's not really funny.
Maybe a little ironic laugh. Or a snort, like. Yeah, an ironic snort.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Association of Cynics, Psychics, and Beatnicks

HERO

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Iyt' beginning to look like Bhutto was assassinated government-style by the ISI.

Yeah, and they did it leaving no evidence.

Matter of fact its also starting to look like Bhutto was assassinated by Jay Leno's striking comedy writers. And this sort of killing is exactly the sort of thing we've come to expect from the radical Canadian Historical Association / Société historique du Canada.

And there is every indication this was another tiger attack...but she was taunting it with a slingshot (perhaps a higher wall really is needed).

Or, it could be those Islamic Militants who have been trying to kill her for months using exactly these tactics and taking advantage of lax security and Bhutto's own disregard for her safety. Naw...no evidence of that.

H

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...Or, it could be those Islamic Militants who have been trying to kill her for months using exactly these tactics and taking advantage of lax security and Bhutto's own disregard for her safety. Naw...no evidence of that.

Fra. Ockham, Hero found your razor.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BADKARMA00

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:48 PM

Saw this story a little while ago, where Mustardish, or whatever, is asking Scotland Yard for help in the investigation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

To my mind, if he had anything to do with Bhutto's death, he wouldn't be asking for outside assistance from a fairly competent source. He'd be asking for, say, the FBI, lol.

My money is still on the husband, for reasons already mentioned. But I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know, at the moment.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

HERO

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Fred - Yeah, I'm lovin how I accuse Hero of mistaking TV for real life, then he uses a TV show as a statement about real life. (Was he serious? Really? It's just not possible...)

Apparently you feel the need for some sort of response.

Polls have constantly showed that while Americans do not generally support torture, they do support the need for aggressive interrogation tactics such as waterboarding (which simulate an act like drowning which is actual torture) and other methods that cause discomfort to the subject.

Those polls skyrocket on the subject when the question includes qualifiers such as the subject having direct information that could stop attacks and save lives or if there is a time constraint.

Add to that the fact that among the most popular television characters in recent history is a character who regularly uses torture, murder, blackmail, etc.

I think that a compelling argument can be made that people want the information those folks have and they understand that they may not like or approve of the methods needed to get the information, but the exigent circumstances are such that the methods have the implied approval of law and the American people. Its one of those things they just don't want to know too much about. Thats why they elect folk to make these decisions for them. It insulates them from the guilt.

Thus, like all good Americans, I abore torture and think it should NOT be legal, but I want our officials to use it if necessary and applaud the results of the use demonstrated in the prevention of attacks and the arrest or killing of terrorists, but should I learn of the use of those illegal methods by members of the government I expect those persons to be prosecuted and jailed, but I understand that places the intellegence persons in an untenable position of having to suffer for doing a job I expect them to do and that must be done for the good of everyone, thus I expect every measure to be taken to prevent me from knowing the things I don't want to know. Its complicated, but that is the mindset of most Americans on this subject.

Your's is different. You agree that torture should be illegal. You also agree that those who use it should be prosecuted. You just think that its better for innocents to die in unprevented attacks and you WANT the rest of us to know the things thatwe really don't want to know so that the rest of us are forced to act to prevent the torture rather then acting to prevent the terror.

Your opinion is complicated as well and I appreciate it. Unfortunately your opinion results in terrorist attacks being more likely to happen and the arrest and prosecution of those often in the best position to prevent them. That is a recipe for disaster and I urge you to reconsider.

Its better to debate the finer points of moral argument over coffee on a peaceful morning then it is during the funeral of a loved one killed in a preventable terrorist attack.

H

HERO

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
To my mind, if he had anything to do with Bhutto's death, he wouldn't be asking for outside assistance from a fairly competent source. He'd be asking for, say, the FBI, lol.

To be fair, the FBI is probably better at this then just about anybody. That 'just about anybody' is probably Scottland Yard so I think his pick is good because SY has a much lower political flag and Britain has a decent rep in the area.

Quote:

My money is still on the husband, for reasons already mentioned. But I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know, at the moment.

I don't doubt there were a lot of folks, like the husband, who'd be happy to benefit from all this. That goes to things like failure to have good private security, failure of the police to do a good job, and even a little thing like pulling her down and saying "lady, don't be standing up like that..."

But my money is on the Jihadists. They were coming its their fault. Bhutto could have been walking around without any security at all and it would have been fine without all the folks out there trying to kill her.

Its like the tiger killings in San Fransisco, some folk want to ignore the tiger and its history, but the tiger is the one who did the killing...low wall, slingshot, alcohol...whatever, the tiger killed that teenager.

H

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:16 AM

"preventable terrorist attack."

No. Such. Thing.

And until damn fools realize this, were stuck in the idiotic cycle the same way we were with prohibition, and now are with the war on (some) drugs... and now GWOT, yeah, right.

Best way to prevent it is not shitting on and pissing off the rest of the world any more than you have to in order to ensure your own interests inside your own borders.

Alternatively, you could consign us all to rubber rooms after taking our shoes and belts away, but I would bet you even THAT would not make us "safe", just unfree.

Give me back my freedom and let ME deal with these assholes, worst they can do is kill me, and if they fumble that ball, I'll be returning the favor.

REALLY scary thought of the day ?

When mainstream newsies are saying the same thing your resident anarchic type is... I kid you not.

THIS post,
(BAH, I can't figure how to direct link it, but it's above in this thread, the one flaming our intel agencies)

and then THIS editorial.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080103/cm_ucru/anironfistinavelvetglove
;_ylt=AveCQFLnHcfM1.Di_1Ocqu_9wxIF

Freaky, innit ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

HERO

Thursday, January 3, 2008 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"preventable terrorist attack."

No. Such. Thing.

And until damn fools realize this, were stuck in the idiotic cycle the same way we were with prohibition, and now are with the war on (some) drugs... and now GWOT, yeah, right.

Then how do you explain PREVENTED terrorist attacks?

Or is it your contention that aside from successful attacks NO other attack have ever been attempted? Cause I think that's a pretty difficult conclusion to reach.

Since 9/11 there have been no successful attacks in the United States. Is it your contention that aside from 9/11 there have been no attempted attacks in this country that have failed because of one reason or another?

Your contention seems to be that we are at the mercy of terrorists who can strike at their whim (since you say their attacks can't be prevented) and yet they choose not too...why?

Sorry, I just can't see how you can claim that terrorist attacks can't be prevented.

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Then how do you explain PREVENTED terrorist attacks?

Okay, imma break it down for ya. 9-11 was their summer blockbuster, and it didn't make the expected bucks- in fact, it lost them $. So, no sequel.
Small independents were certainly released, but they made no impact as they found no audience.

Now Hero, take your blue pill.

Simplifying Chrisisall

HERO

Thursday, January 3, 2008 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, imma break it down for ya. 9-11 was their summer blockbuster, and it didn't make the expected bucks- in fact, it lost them $. So, no sequel.

I disagree.

Nearly everybody bought a ticket to 9/11, although few liked what they saw (kinda like a Michael Moore movie). The reason for no sequel is because they couldn't line up the actors (who are all dead or in Gitmo...except Bin Ladden who's in rehab), the financing hit a snag, no studio support, and there's a lot of counter programming.

Not to mention that everytime somebody floats a script...it bombed by the critics.

H

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE