Shot (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html) after a bomb killed supporters at a rally.

this is going to be a very bad bad start of something

this is going to be a very bad bad start of something

Unfortunately I think you are correct :(

Thursday's attacks come less than two weeks after Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf lifted an emergency declaration he said was necessary to secure his country from terrorists.

Bhutto had been critical of what she believed was a lack of effort by Musharraf's government to protect her.


Two weeks after the October assassination attempt, she wrote a commentary for CNN.com in which she questioned why Pakistan investigators refused international offers of help in finding the attackers.


Bad things indeed are about to happen in that part of the world. This smells of a conspiracy to keep her from running for office... and probably winning. This will not go down well at all. More unrest in an already troubled region....

So, was it Al-Qaeda/Taliban types killing her because...well, who needs a reason when you're crazy, right? Or was it, as Bhutto's friend and advisor Husain Haqqani maintains, a plot by Musharraf? And if the latter, what does the US do?
More unrest in an already troubled region....with nukes

This is a scarey situation indeed, the odd thing is this seems to bother me more than a guy I work with that's from India. So maybe we are overreacting, but I don't think so.

I wonder if elections will go thru as planned or if Musharef(sp) will remain in power. Heck, I wonder if he had a hand in it somehow.

Very sad indeed.

The area is inherently unstable. Gandhi never did anything so smart as to let Pakistan go its own way.

What does it mean? Well, not much. It was, imo, definitely Al-Queda, looking to foment instability wherever possible. This will once again, force us into deeper cooperation and support for Musharraf, as we now have no other options.

It might have been Musharraf, but we will never find that out. Its far to easy to find people in that country who probably believed with all their heart they were doing it for Bin Laden and it might have probably been an ISI agent controlling them. Or maybe the government just refused to allow full aggressive protection for her, fully aware that she was a prime target for the radicals.

W/E. In the end I don't think it matters one bit of difference, other than a chance for Pakistan to go another way is now lost. Everything in that area of the world is about Status Quo. Things like this are done to prevent change, not allow it.

I keep wondering to myself at the huge risks she was taking when she knew that her chance of living to election were slim to none.

Then my inner cynic thought an evil thought, what if she wanted to make a martyr of herself to help bring about a tidal wave of support for the change she lived for....

My heart aches.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071227/capt.596af4d416b544e0ad485570b37221c4.parade_magaz ine_benazir_bhutto_prn3.jpg?x=306&y=345&sig=Rti5.fzQYEQbJsg7laueBA--

I keep wondering to myself at the huge risks she was taking when she knew that her chance of living to election were slim to none.

Then my inner cynic thought an evil thought, what if she wanted to make a martyr of herself to help bring about a tidal wave of support for the change she lived for....

Should Dr. Martin Luther King not spoke out for what he believed despite countless death threats? The people who have made the greatest impact often stand up for their beliefs regardless of the threats of others.

As I think and read more about.. this is could be a extraordinarily cunning move by Al Queda.

The removal of Bhutto may spell the end for Musharraf.

Bhutto dead means that the average Pakistani now has no recourse to Musharraf. Democracy has been taken out of the picture and the people of Pakistan have no avenue of change. Democracy offered than taken away is worse than never having the option. You may very well see public opinion turn violently against Musharraf as he will be blamed for this by his enemies with no way for him to ever avoid the suspicion.

It will be very hard for him to hold onto power now as it now seems he has no way to legitimize his power and authority.

Reading comp for the win Kelraz, that's not what I said at all.

I was merely suggesting she was painting a bullseye on herself knowing she wouldn't be the one to actually bring about the change but instead her death might help forment the change.

Reading comp for the win Kelraz, that's not what I said at all.

I was merely suggesting she was painting a bullseye on herself knowing she wouldn't be the one to actually bring about the change but instead her death might help forment the change.

Actually my reading comprehension was quite dead on there. It may be a matter of writing comprehensively on your part instead. You were saying she should have stopped preaching her message in public for fear of getting killed. She died waving to supporters ... is waiving "painting a bullseye" because if so my niece is begging to be taken out ... perhaps she wishes to be a martyr also? And then you said she had no way of accomplishing her goals other than through martyrdom but she was the favorite to win in that election and last I checked the leader of a country has plenty of power to make changes. That's the whole point of the position.

As I think and read more about.. this is could be a extraordinarily cunning move by Al Queda.

The removal of Bhutto may spell the end for Musharraf.

Al-Qaeda does claim (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437) to be the culprit:“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.
More details, again pinning blame on al-Qaeda, are here (http://www.nysun.com/article/68672).

The attack yesterday at Rawalpindi bore the hallmarks of a sophisticated military operation. At first, Bhutto's rally was hit by a suicide bomb that turned out to be a decoy. According to press reports and a situation report of the incident relayed to The New York Sun by an American intelligence officer, Bhutto's armored limousine was shot by multiple snipers whose armor-piercing bullets penetrated the vehicle, hitting the former premier five times in the head, chest, and neck. Two of the snipers then detonated themselves shortly after the shooting, according to the situation report, while being pursued by local police.

A separate attack was thwarted at the local hospital where Bhutto possibly would have been revived had she survived the initial shooting. Also attacked yesterday was a rival politician, Nawaz Sharif (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Nawaz+Sharif), another former prime minister who took power after Bhutto lost power in 1996.So, you have special forces style assassination attempts (one successful) on Musharraf's two leading rivals. This would put Pakistan's leader in the spotlight -- maybe an intent of the perpetrators -- but the suicides accompanying all that are the hallmark of religious fanatics. Still, it has Sharif and Bhutto's people pointing fingers at Musharraf, and civil unrest proceeds further downhill. Very messy.

I hope AQ or whoever did this overplayed their hand. I've been seeing people on TV not necessarily supporters of Bhutto rising up against this murder.

I do want to mentioned though, everyone is talking about the change Bhutto was trying to invoke. We need to remember that until recently, Pakistan exported English speaking doctors and scientists and engineers in good quantity for the betternment of western civilization. That sadly changed over the past decade or so.

She wasn't trying to be radical, she just wanted to rescue what was being lost.

I do want to mentioned though, everyone is talking about the change Bhutto was trying to invoke. We need to remember that until recently, Pakistan exported English speaking doctors and scientists and engineers in good quantity for the betternment of western civilization. That sadly changed over the past decade or so.The development of a technically proficient and economically solvent middle class was a huge boon to Pakistan and has become a frequent target for both radicalism and political elements opposed to democratic reform. Trapped by the two extremes, it's no surprise that talent fled elsewhere.

AQ's taking credit for the assassination may -- hopefully -- result in a heavy response from Pakistan's pro-democracy populace. AQ would be wise to let Musharraf take the fall, throwing the entire political establishment into chaos.

Interesting and peculiar. Initial reports were that a shotgun blast killed Bhutto. Then shrapnel from the assassin's suicide bomb. Both are plausible, and without expert viewing maybe one could be mistaken for the other, especially post-bomb. Now Pakistan officials say (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/topofthehour.aspx?StoryId=103759) Bhutto died by hitting her sunroof's level while trying to duck -- or just avoid -- the attack. Also, no autopsy (http://in.news.yahoo.com/071228/211/6oyrl.html) conducted.

Actually my reading comprehension was quite dead on there. It may be a matter of writing comprehensively on your part instead. You were saying she should have stopped preaching her message in public for fear of getting killed. She died waving to supporters ... is waiving "painting a bullseye" because if so my niece is begging to be taken out ... perhaps she wishes to be a martyr also? And then you said she had no way of accomplishing her goals other than through martyrdom but she was the favorite to win in that election and last I checked the leader of a country has plenty of power to make changes. That's the whole point of the position.

I have to agree with Fanny, you are definitely reading his words through your own attitude filters. He offered a theory, and you have taken that and made it an argument. I did not see his statement saying she should have stopped anything; he was offering a question directed at her motivation and commitment to a belief. I agree, after seeing her respond to a similar question in an interview, that she may well have realized she would not necessarily live to see the change she desired; and, I also believe she knew that martyrdom would serve the march toward democracy in some ways even more strongly than her candidacy.

She was a strong, principled woman. And, as she had stated, a great threat to the Islamic fanatics. She may well be even more of a danger to them now.

I was certainly not meaning to denegrate her beliefs and approach to obtaining them. Instead I feel growing respect for her convictions and hope her gamble pays off. Of course in the intrim there is going to be a bloodbath, but perhaps it'll be such a bath that folks will awaken to their odds of beating back the Islamic extremists.

From what Ive read, you both have good, valid points.

Look.. They had tried to kill her by handing her a baby (A BABY FFS) wired with explosives, knowing she is a mother and would take the child to see it.

When people are willing to go to those extremes.. gtfo

Indeed. Chilling.

The North West Frontier Province (as we called it back in the day!) has always been a troubling place. Like I've said before, best way to deal with it is to leave it to its own devices, and every now and then send in a punitive expedition to burn down some villages.

Worked for the Brits.

Now her 19 Year old son is the chairman of her party.

He's staying in college at Oxford though, and her husband has been out of Pakistan (in Egypt?) for as long as she was. No, I'm not sure either will be able to affect as much as she could have.

Trying to get caught up on all the news and I ran across this...

During WW2, a tourist was walking down an Indian street. A shopkeeper had big trays of fruits and vegetables out front of his shop. A sacred cow sees this and wanders over for a snack. One of the shopkeeper's employees appears with a large stick, smacks the cow over the head, and drives it off.

In some wonderment, the tourist asks the shopkeeper, "I thought Hindus allowed the sacred cow to do whatever it wanted?"

The shopkeeper grinned and jerked a thumb at the employee with the stick. "He's moslem. That's why I hired him."You can contrast Pakistan and India during and after British rule. Modern day India continues to flourish, while Pakistan is collapsing.

Neither has much in the way of natural resources, though India has a somewhat geographic advantage. India had Ghandi, but in a way, so did Pakistan. Even recently, there were families and tribes being reunited across the India / Pakistan border that had been seperated since Ghandi's time and his life's work was partly credited for it.

So what the hell happened?

So what the hell happened?

I think much of the distress in the Pakistani-Indian region is again a direct result of centuries-old tribal conflicts, with the varied religious practices of the area serving to agggravate the situation.

It is difficult for us in America to relate to much of the grief in the Middle East and Asia because we are a collective body; as immigrants arrived they were assimilated, and while culture and traditions were maintained to some extent, the immigrant became an American first and foremost. We do not have the history in this country that the peoples of the Mid-East and Asia have, being such a young nation.

For people raised to hate, the hatred will not stop as long as there remain people to be hated. Many of these conflicts have been passed through the generations longer than the U.S. has existed. Leaders may come along like Ghandi, Sadat, Begin, Nehru, etc., who make some headway into moving beyond these conflicts, but it has never seemed to last very long past their deaths, with the exception of the Egypt-Israel accords.

CIA assessment points the finger at al-Qaeda and friends (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703252.html?wpisrc=_rsspolitics). The CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud were responsible for last month's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and that they also stand behind a new wave of violence threatening that country's stability, the agency's director, Michael V. Hayden, said in an interview.

Offering the most definitive public assessment by a U.S. intelligence official, Hayden said Bhutto was killed by fighters allied with Mehsud, a tribal leader in northwestern Pakistan, with support from al-Qaeda's terrorist network. That view mirrors the Pakistani government's assertions.
...
Days after Bhutto's Dec. 27 assassination in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistani officials released intercepted communications between Mehsud and his supporters in which the tribal leader praised the killing and, according to the officials, appeared to take credit for it.
...
Hayden made his statement shortly before a series of attacks occurred this week on Pakistani political figures and army units. Pakistani officials have blamed them on Mehsud's forces and other militants. On Wednesday, a group of several hundred insurgents overran a military outpost in the province of South Waziristan, killing 22 government paramilitary troops. The daring daylight raid was carried out by rebels loyal to Mehsud, Pakistani authorities said.
...
Hayden said that the United States has "not had a better partner in the war on terrorism than the Pakistanis." The turmoil of the past few weeks has only deepened that cooperation, he said, by highlighting "what are now even more clearly mutual and common interests."

So does India get a little more active in the hunt for Al-Qaeda? Or does Bush/Cheney somehow get blamed for this as well?

I have no idea what you're babbling on about.

This, btw, comes on the heels of this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011601238.html) from Adm. Fallon:ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Pakistan is taking a more welcoming view of U.S. suggestions for using American troops to train and advise its own forces in the fight against anti-government extremists, the commander of U.S. forces in that region said Wednesday.

Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, said he believes increased violence inside Pakistan in recent months has led Pakistani leaders to conclude that they must focus more intensively on extremist al-Qaida hideouts near the border with Afghanistan.
...
In the latest sign of trouble, the Pakistani military said Wednesday that Islamic militants overran a military outpost close to the Afghan border in a battle that killed seven Pakistani soldiers and left 20 missing.

Alleged Bhutto assassin caught (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/19/bhutto.arrest.ap/index.html). So the crazies sent a 15 year old as part of the team?

One of the earlier attempts supposedly involved an infant wrapped in explosives being handed to her.

Akipt, they were just exercising the right to abort a fetus....with TNT.

One of the earlier attempts supposedly involved an infant wrapped in explosives being handed to her.I'd believe that. My cautionary note wasn't about the willingness of terrorists to sacrifice a 15 year old, but entrusting the mission to a 15 year old. Then again, there aren't many suicide bombing veterans running around, either.

One of the earlier attempts supposedly involved an infant wrapped in explosives being handed to her.

That is sick :(

If true, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

how the hell did abortion get into this? what the shit indeed.

Wiggo, that sound above your head, was the joke, going over it....