or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bhutto Killed in Suicide Attack
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bhutto Killed in Suicide Attack - Page 4

post #121 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If her body is exhumed, what guarantee will there be that "this evidence" hasn't been tampered with, and how can anyone ever know for sure if it has, or not? And re. whoever does the autopsy, will they be permitted to do a professional job, unhindered by Musharraf's thugs? And will the reporting be unbiased and accurate? All information that comes out of Pakistan, in the current climate, should be regarded with skepticism.

If anything, Bhutto's party will have a representative there at the exhumation and at the autopsy. Some other news that has gotten through the "filters"...

From Alalam News...

Quote:
A close aide to Benazir Bhutto also told AFP Saturday she saw a bullet wound in the Pakistani opposition leader's head when she bathed her body after her assassination.

Bhutto's spokeswoman Sherry Rehman, who said she was in the former premier's motorcade at the time of the gun and suicide attack, rejected government claims that the death was caused when Bhutto's head hit her sunroof.

"I was actually part of the party which bathed her body before the funeral," said Rehman, who added that her car was used to transport Bhutto to hospital.

"There was a bullet wound I saw that went in from the back of her head and came out the other side.

"We could not even wash her properly because the wound was still seeping. She lost a huge amount of blood."

Rehman accused the government of mounting a cover-up over Bhutto's death.

"The hospital was made to change its statement. They never gave a proper report," she said.

"I believe the interior ministry is saying that she died from some concussion that may have taken place against the sunroof.

"This is ridiculous, dangerous nonsense because it is a cover-up of what actually happened."

Also from Time magazine's website...


A Bhutto Successor?


Quote:
A senior official of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) told TIME late Saturday that the slain former prime minister's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, will likely be named as her political heir and the new party leader on Sunday. PPP members are due to meet to discuss the party's future and to give Bilawal, a student at Oxford, a chance to read his mother's last will and testament.

A Pakistani television news channel also carried reports that Bilawal will be made the new leader, which the channel said accorded with Benazir Bhutto's wishes. If confirmed, the teenager will become the third leader of the 40-year-old center-left party, one of Pakistan's most powerful. Bilawal will follow his grandfather, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who founded the PPP in 1967, led Pakistan as Prime Minister for four years in the mid 1970s and was hanged in 1979 by a military government, and Benazir, who took over from her father and was killed in a shooting and suicide bomb attack two days ago.

Well, in many ways this is what has to be done. Garner the sympathy vote. If he survives to even campaign. If the country even continues the elections. And if the country itself doesn't crumble into civil war.
post #122 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If her body is exhumed, what guarantee will there be that "this evidence" hasn't been tampered with, and how can anyone ever know for sure if it has, or not? And re. whoever does the autopsy, will they be permitted to do a professional job, unhindered by Musharraf's thugs? And will the reporting be unbiased and accurate? All information that comes out of Pakistan, in the current climate, should be regarded with skepticism.


I think her Party will see to it that the truth comes out. There were a few witnesses to this murder. I don't know that multiple versions of a story are that unusual in the early reporting of such a chaotic event.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #123 of 190
Hillary Clinton comes out with a new explanation: the killers might have been members of the Pakistani military.

Quote:
And for the second time in as many days, she cast doubt on Musharraf's contention that the suicide bombing that led to the death of the country's most popular opposition leader was masterminded by al-Qaida.

"There are those saying that al-Qaida did it. Others are saying it looked like it was an inside job - remember Rawalpindi is a garrison city," she said.



In determining the culprits, motivation (of course) should be a prime consideration. US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "We don't know who is responsible for this attack. ... But it is clear that whoever is responsible is someone who opposes peaceful, democratic development and change in Pakistan."

Read into that what you will.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #124 of 190
al-Qaida has become the convenient source of all evil. No one should be surprised if pro-Musharraf people were involved in this: with or without his knowledge.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #125 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

al-Qaida has become the convenient source of all evil. No one should be surprised if pro-Musharraf people were involved in this: with or without his knowledge.

It's possible. But there are half a dozen other scenarios and theories that could also be true. I'm glad you aren't joining the Judge Judy crowd who feels they have enough information to make a judgment and that they must make their decision in record time and then defend their decision until the end of time.

post #126 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Hillary Clinton comes out with a new explanation: the killers might have been members of the Pakistani military.



In determining the culprits, motivation (of course) should be a prime consideration. US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "We don't know who is responsible for this attack. ... But it is clear that whoever is responsible is someone who opposes peaceful, democratic development and change in Pakistan."

Read into that what you will.

She had any numbers of enemies who'd have loved the opportunity to do her in, although few who use suicide bombing as an m.o.

But let's look at this, just for splits and giggles.

AQ hated her. Musharraf hated her.

She let it be known that if she were ever killed that the likely killer was Musharraf.

AQ then kills her, knowing many would point the finger at Musharraf, as she indicated.

If that scenario was true, she might have brought on her own death by providing the real killer a cover to hide behind.
Quote:
"Everyone KNOWS it was Musharraf! She even said so herself!"

But it is all just speculation.
post #127 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

I'm glad you aren't joining the Judge Judy crowd who feels they have enough information to make a judgment and that they must make their decision in record time and then defend their decision until the end of time.

Of all people to say this.
post #128 of 190
Has anyone ruled out a CIA connection yet? Maybe it was an attempt to keep Mu-W (he is an important "friend" of the G) in power to prolong the WoT.

Before any of the US-lovers out there claim that could not possibly happen, take a review of CIA history first; it ain't pretty.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #129 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Of all people to say this.

Why would you believe this to be strange for me to say?
post #130 of 190
http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2...-was-dead.html is suggesting there might be a connection between Bhutto's comments in this interview and her death.

She states, "Omar Sheikh killed Osama Bin Laden", and Frost doesn't bat an eyebrow. As was pointed in a posted comment, she likely meant to say Daniel Pearl. Can't believe Frost didn't call her on this. (While KSM supposedly cut Pearl's throat, Sheihk was the dude who set it all up)

PS In the comments section after the Frost interview, there was a link to an interview of Cheney by Tony Snow, where Cheney said, "we never made the case that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11." It's pretty clear from the text that he meant to say Saddam (a lie, in this case as Cheney tried pretty hard to pin a connection to 9/11 on Saddam.). I assume it's a slip up similar to Bhutto's.

"Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.

My point: making connections to conspiracies based on statements made by pols is a dangerous busniess.
post #131 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Has anyone ruled out a CIA connection yet? Maybe it was an attempt to keep Mu-W (he is an important "friend" of the G) in power to prolong the WoT.

Before any of the US-lovers out there claim that could not possibly happen, take a review of CIA history first; it ain't pretty.

Why would the CIA want to further destabilize an already unstable nuke-ready country? Bhutto in power would be a good thing for the US?

Maybe it was rogue elements of the Texas Rangers.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #132 of 190
A tape seems to have surfaced (read it on my cell phone news) that suggests her death was actually a gunshot... the Pakistani gov't might be in for a rough new year.

Beware them Texas Rangers... The world is currently getting screwed by a former member of the Texas Guard.

What would conspiracy theories be without Texas?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #133 of 190
The World is controlled from the third subbasement of a flat on the east end of Dallas. It's a known fact..
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #134 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A tape seems to have surfaced (read it on my cell phone news) that suggests her death was actually a gunshot... the Pakistani gov't might be in for a rough new year.



Amateur video Linked here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7165448.stm
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #135 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

Why would you believe this to be strange for me to say?

This...and countless other examples.
post #136 of 190
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #137 of 190
Something is really not looking good here...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #138 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

Why would the CIA want to further destabilize and already unstable nuke-ready country? Bhutto in power would be a good thing for the US?

If Bhutto really did mean that bin Laden was dead in the interview mentioned above and it was true then it means several things;

1) That Musharraf and the US know it too and are concealing it.

2) That she was prepared to break silence.

3) That all the bin Laden tapes and 'al Qaeda' messages are fakes and lies by the US.

I think you might find a reason or two there....

The nukes thing is not so much a problem. Seeing as 'al Qaeda' are largely a constructed myth - and given the above being true this would be doubly the case - then there is no-one really capable of mounting a serious bid for power or toppling the Government.

In fact, neither the Taleban nor any Islamist group have really done anything other than cause chaos and carnage. they just are not a threat on the level of taking power. A few wannabe jihadis might succeed in blowing things up from time to time but there is not - and never has been - any concept of any terrorist cell taking power or defeating an installed government. Especially a dictatorship like Musharaf's. It didn't happen under Saddam and it didn't happen under Asad. It just isn't part of the agenda.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #139 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Has anyone ruled out a CIA connection yet? Maybe it was an attempt to keep Mu-W (he is an important "friend" of the G) in power to prolong the WoT.

Before any of the US-lovers out there claim that could not possibly happen, take a review of CIA history first; it ain't pretty.

CIA? ISI? Considering that "AL QAEDA" is creation of intelligence agencies in the first place, with the CIA and ISI (InterServices Intelligence) being instrumental in AQ's inception and subsequent publicity, assign blame on any one party, for example AQ, and that implicates the other two, by association at the very least.

And no, CIA history is not pretty, of course. But that is par for the course re. any intelligence agency of any country. The only difference with CIA is their prodigiously inflated budget, officially some $40 billion annually, with unofficial charge over $1 trillion "black" budget, regulated by itself. By rights, they should have had some idea that both India and Pakistan had a fully developed nuclear weapons program in 1998, but no, they were clueless, and when the two countries shared 9 atomic tests in 2 weeks, it all came as a complete surprise. And of course they had no clue about the impending 9/11 attacks, did they? (Or they might, perhaps, have mentioned something in advance?).
The CIA really puts a different spin on the old adage "You Get What You Pay For"!!!

CIA-ISI-Gulbuddin Hekmatyar-Bin Laden-Al Qaeda Connection etc etc etc article here:
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #140 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Has anyone ruled out a CIA connection yet? Maybe it was an attempt to keep Mu-W (he is an important "friend" of the G) in power to prolong the WoT.

Before any of the US-lovers out there claim that could not possibly happen, take a review of CIA history first; it ain't pretty.

With this crowd? Are you new? A CIA connection is simply an assumed fact by many.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #141 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

With this crowd? Are you new? A CIA connection is simply an assumed fact by many.

-----------------------------------
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #142 of 190
According to a videotape aired on UK's Channel 4, someone fired a gun at Bhutto, who then collapsed back into her car. Shortly after, there was an explosion, set off by a different person.

In the Bush/Blair tradition, it looks like the version of events from the Musharraf Government is yet another heap of lies.

Next?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #143 of 190
Would-be Ford assassin freed from prison on parole



Quote:
One of the women who unsuccessfully tried to assassinate President Ford 32 years ago was released on parole Monday from a federal prison in California, according to a Bureau of Prisons spokesman.

...

Moore was arrested in September 22, 1975, outside the St. Francis Hotel after firing a single shot at Ford. A bystander had grabbed Moore's arms just before she fired a .38 caliber revolver, and that was credited with possibly saving the president's life. The bullet missed Ford's head by inches.

Seventeen days earlier, Ford survived a separate attempt on his life, from Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme in Sacramento.

She's the first (presidential) assassin ever released I guess, right? I mean who was the one behind the trigger, survived not getting killed herself and is a woman, right?

Interesting.
post #144 of 190
Yep, she was shot.

Horrible.
post #145 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

In the Bush/Blair tradition, it looks like the version of events from the Musharraf Government is yet another heap of lies.

The sad thing is that so often the supposed antidote to lies is ridiculous fantasies. How long until we hear "People just don't fall that fast!" being voiced over frame-by-frame slow-mo of the assassination on YouTube, with red arrows drawn toward every glint of light, "proving" that Bhutto was rigged to die with explosive CIA implants?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #146 of 190
Honestly, these two assassin's look so out of place to me. One's wearing a black suit with sunglasses (Secret Agent Man!) and the bomber behind him looks like an extra from "Lawrence of Arabia".

Meanwhile, two Pakistani policemen look the other way. They also look very much like rookies.

All conjecture of course. Just that when I watch something like this I try to see what is out of place.
post #147 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The sad thing is that so often the supposed antidote to lies is ridiculous fantasies. How long until we hear "People just don't fall that fast!" being voiced over frame-by-frame slow-mo of the assassination on YouTube, with red arrows drawn toward every glint of light, "proving" that Bhutto was rigged to die with explosive CIA implants?

If the truth was told from the start, then "ridiculous fantasies" would be redundant, excess baggage.

If lies are good enough for you, then I guess they are good enough for the general population.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #148 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The sad thing is that so often the supposed antidote to lies is ridiculous fantasies. How long until we hear "People just don't fall that fast!" being voiced over frame-by-frame slow-mo of the assassination on YouTube, with red arrows drawn toward every glint of light, "proving" that Bhutto was rigged to die with explosive CIA implants?

You know, if you look carefully, you can tell that the video was shot on a sound stage.



Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Honestly, these two assassin's look so out of place to me. One's wearing a black suit with sunglasses (Secret Agent Man!) and the bomber behind him looks like an extra from "Lawrence of Arabia".

Meanwhile, two Pakistani policemen look the other way. They also look very much like rookies.

All conjecture of course. Just that when I watch something like this I try to see what is out of place.

Those two do stand out, don't they.

It was pointed out on another board I go to, that a third person comes up and appears to speak to the 'secret agent' shooter just before the shooting; I have not been able to spot it yet myself though.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #149 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If lies are good enough for you, then I guess they are good enough for the general population.

Lies aren't good enough. But using absurdity to fill the vacuum is not an improvement.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #150 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Lies aren't good enough. But using absurdity to fill the vacuum is not an improvement.

Judging by your past comments (re. what you are plainly and obviously referring to), the reams of lies spewed forth seem more than plenty good enough for you. You have repeatedly given the Bush Administration and various people/government agencies (who have knowingly lied, changed their stories, obfuscated and all the other indications of guilt and/or complicity) 5000 miles of slack, when one tenth of an angstrom is too f*cking much, especially considering the circumstances.

When it comes to the "absurdities which have emerged to fill the vacuum", do me a goddamned %$#@&^ favor and leave me out of it. I am not promoting them. Furthermore, there should never have been any degree of a vacuum to start with, from Day One.; you are intelligent and savvy enough to know that, (I trust)... but in the way of the coward, you are more content to side with crooks and slag off those who merely ask questions; the only logical explanation being is that you must disapprove of people asking (the wrong) questions. That kind of attitude reminds of that arch-weasel, former White House Press Sec. Ari Fleischer, when he warned that "Americans should watch what they are saying".

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #151 of 190
she was assasinated---what diff to govt that it was a gun shot or bomb??? they should know in our video world the truth will come out so why even offer a decision...why is it important to the government that it was the bomb and trauma from the moonroof (she was dumb for putting her head out--maybe part of the question is did she do this herself or was encouraged to see the people.) there is a much bigger story here but educate me how the govt gains by a bomb killing her not a gun
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #152 of 190
If there was only the bomber (there obviously was a blast), then this could be passed off as a lone wolf on a selfish mission.

However, the video shows there were two people at work (at least), making this a conspiracy, which opens up more than a few cans of worms.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #153 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

she was assasinated---what diff to govt that it was a gun shot or bomb??? they should know in our video world the truth will come out so why even offer a decision...why is it important to the government that it was the bomb and trauma from the moonroof (she was dumb for putting her head out--maybe part of the question is did she do this herself or was encouraged to see the people.) there is a much bigger story here but educate me how the govt gains by a bomb killing her not a gun

There are many here that will entirely miss the point of you post and argue that your post means you are questioning any reason for investigating the killing. They will continue, likely after many, repeated followup posts to explain yourself.

As I have said before, whatever the fatal wound, no one is denying she was assassinated, that I have heard, anyway. It is entirely possible the Pakistani government is trying to cover things up. The head wound could be a total fraud. How it helps anyone to claim a fantasy wound killed her after a public shooting and explosion, is hard to explain.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #154 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Yep, she was shot.

Horrible.

100% shows she was shot at. Definitely.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #155 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

There are many here that will entirely miss the point of you post and argue that your post means you are questioning any reason for investigating the killing. They will continue, likely after many, repeated followup posts to explain yourself.

As I have said before, whatever the fatal wound, no one is denying she was assassinated, that I have heard, anyway. It is entirely possible the Pakistani government is trying to cover things up. The head wound could be a total fraud. How it helps anyone to claim a fantasy wound killed her after a public shooting and explosion, is hard to explain.

a leading figure as she was, the assassination needs to be investigated...i'm still unclear why the govt would rather her die by the bomb and moonroof, rather than the gunshot. gov't and coverup are synonomous
so if she was shot does that mean the gov't provided security was weak, was adequate, was planned to fail or is it just very difficult to protect someone with that many people swarming the car. i know the gov't probably had a good reason to kill her, but didn't want to because of her martyr status. so did the govt allow this to happen or couldn't control all the other interests, did a rogue military or police, securtity allow this.

how does it benefit te govt and others if she died by the blast?
thanks for your patience
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #156 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

a leading figure as she was, the assassination needs to be investigated...i'm still unclear why the govt would rather her die by the bomb and moonroof, rather than the gunshot. gov't and coverup are synonomous
so if she was shot does that mean the gov't provided security was weak, was adequate, was planned to fail or is it just very difficult to protect someone with that many people swarming the car. i know the gov't probably had a good reason to kill her, but didn't want to because of her martyr status. so did the govt allow this to happen or couldn't control all the other interests, did a rogue military or police, securtity allow this.

how does it benefit te govt and others if she died by the blast?
thanks for your patience

Modus Operandi.

Whenever you hear of a suicide attack the MSM always wheels out an 'expert' to proclaim; 'this has all the hallmarks of al Qaeda'.

The 'hallmarks of al Qaeda are suicide bombings in public places with generally, a claim of responsibility/posthumous statement from the perpetrator after the fact.

The 'hallmarks of al Qaeda' are not assassination of single public figures and are not lone sniper/automatic weapon assassinations.

If the Government were responsible then they benefit by blaming 'al Qaeda' because such bombings are commonplace and do not warrant close scrutiny as to the perpetrators.

Single targeted assassinations do.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #157 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Judging by your past comments (re. what you are plainly and obviously referring to), the reams of lies spewed forth seem more than plenty good enough for you.

Exactly what would I have to be doing or saying to prove I wasn't content with lies?

Quote:
You have repeatedly given the Bush Administration and various people/government agencies (who have knowingly lied, changed their stories, obfuscated and all the other indications of guilt and/or complicity) 5000 miles of slack, when one tenth of an angstrom is too f*cking much, especially considering the circumstances.

I have no love of the Bush administration. What slack have I cut them, and where? Do I have have to act as if 9/11 being planned and orchestrated by Bush et al is THE number one possibility before I can be considered to have sufficiently reduced the excess slack I'm supposedly providing?

Quote:
When it comes to the "absurdities which have emerged to fill the vacuum", do me a goddamned %$#@&^ favor and leave me out of it. I am not promoting them. Furthermore, there should never have been any degree of a vacuum to start with, from Day One.;

Even in the absolute best of circumstances, any chaotic, messy catastrophe is going to leave unanswered questions, and the answered questions may take a lot of time to become answered. Add in the normal human instinct for people to cover their asses when they know they've been incompetent, or they're simply afraid that they might appear incompetent or culpable, and some "degree of a vacuum" is practically guaranteed.

Just as the fanciful Grand Conspiracy theories are practically guaranteed to arise. Information is always incomplete, and no explanation, even if you're lucky enough to have one that's solid and well-documented, will ever satisfy everyone.

Quote:
...you are intelligent and savvy enough to know that, (I trust)... but in the way of the coward, you are more content to side with crooks and slag off those who merely ask questions;

"In the way of the coward"? (Moderators, I am braced for reprimand.) Fuck you.

Yes, I'm not so "brave" as you are in the fantasy within your own mind, so courageously refusing to let THEM pull the wool over your eyes! A form of "bravery" accomplished by presuming guilt before innocence for anyone in power, by stalwartly refusing to believe that anything is ever coincidence or chance, by reversing the maxim, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence," and putting malice first.

I happen to think that "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence" is a good approach to life, even for where people I dislike greatly are involved. Especially so when malice would actually require a great deal of competence to pull off and cover up.

Quote:
...the only logical explanation...

You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

Quote:
...being is that you must disapprove of people asking (the wrong) questions. That kind of attitude reminds of that arch-weasel, former White House Press Sec. Ari Fleischer, when he warned that "Americans should watch what they are saying".


You presume to accuse others of weaseling, and pull that "only asking questions" crap? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and rather than suspect you of maliciously and knowingly being deceptive, I'll assume you've actually duped yourself into believing this "only asking questions" line.

And in case it hadn't occurred to you, there's a big difference between someone speaking for the President ominously threatening freedom of expression, and an ordinary citizen perfectly content to let you say whatever you want to say, but also feeling perfectly free to call what you say idiotic when he sees it that way.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #158 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Modus Operandi.

Whenever you hear of a suicide attack the MSM always wheels out an 'expert' to proclaim; 'this has all the hallmarks of al Qaeda'.

The 'hallmarks of al Qaeda are suicide bombings in public places with generally, a claim of responsibility/posthumous statement from the perpetrator after the fact.

The 'hallmarks of al Qaeda' are not assassination of single public figures and are not lone sniper/automatic weapon assassinations.

If the Government were responsible then they benefit by blaming 'al Qaeda' because such bombings are commonplace and do not warrant close scrutiny as to the perpetrators.

Single targeted assassinations do.

Very sound logic. Then would it not then follow that it would have been to the government's benefit to claim she died of massive trauma from the explosion or gunshots instead of an instantly questionable sunroof injury.

If they are trying to coverup exactly how she died, assuming it was something other than the publicly viewed shooting and/or explosion (and that the gunman and/or explosion were meant as some sort of false flag operation) then it would be pretty dumb to throw that away and come up with a nonsensical cause of death.

MO, suspects, coverups, investigations etc. No one has explained how it benefits the government to makeup the sunroof injury. I suppose this is mainly because there is no benefit.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #159 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Very sound logic. Then would it not then follow that it would have been to the government's benefit to claim she died of massive trauma from the explosion or gunshots instead of an instantly questionable sunroof injury.

If they are trying to coverup exactly how she died, assuming it was something other than the publicly viewed shooting and/or explosion (and that the gunman and/or explosion were meant as some sort of false flag operation) then it would be pretty dumb to throw that away and come up with a nonsensical cause of death.

MO, suspects, coverups, investigations etc. No one has explained how it benefits the government to makeup the sunroof injury. I suppose this is mainly because there is no benefit.

It's true. All they had to do is keep quiet about it.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theories imo - and, although this may shock you, I speak as someone who does not believe or trust our 'glorious leaders' and have no doubt they are capable of virtually any crime or mendacity - they postulate a cabal who is clever enough to put into operation the 'master plan' but oth, are also stupid enough to mess it up so bad they leave evidence all over the place and, in effect, shout it from the rooftops.

The real conspiracies are probably those no-one has ever heard of. Just like the perfect murders; they are done by the model citizen no-one would ever suspect of anything for a minute. That's why they get away with it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #160 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Exactly what would I have to be doing or saying to prove I wasn't content with lies?


I have no love of the Bush administration. What slack have I cut them, and where? Do I have have to act as if 9/11 being planned and orchestrated by Bush et al is THE number one possibility before I can be considered to have sufficiently reduced the excess slack I'm supposedly providing?


Even in the absolute best of circumstances, any chaotic, messy catastrophe is going to leave unanswered questions, and the answered questions may take a lot of time to become answered. Add in the normal human instinct for people to cover their asses when they know they've been incompetent, or they're simply afraid that they might appear incompetent or culpable, and some "degree of a vacuum" is practically guaranteed.

Just as the fanciful Grand Conspiracy theories are practically guaranteed to arise. Information is always incomplete, and no explanation, even if you're lucky enough to have one that's solid and well-documented, will ever satisfy everyone.


"In the way of the coward"? (Moderators, I am braced for reprimand.) Fuck you.

Yes, I'm not so "brave" as you are in the fantasy within your own mind, so courageously refusing to let THEM pull the wool over your eyes! A form of "bravery" accomplished by presuming guilt before innocence for anyone in power, by stalwartly refusing to believe that anything is ever coincidence or chance, by reversing the maxim, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence," and putting malice first.

I happen to think that "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence" is a good approach to life, even for where people I dislike greatly are involved. Especially so when malice would actually require a great deal of competence to pull off and cover up.


You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.


You presume to accuse others of weaseling, and pull that "only asking questions" crap? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and rather than suspect you of maliciously and knowingly being deceptive, I'll assume you've actually duped yourself into believing this "only asking questions" line.

And in case it hadn't occurred to you, there's a big difference between someone speaking for the President ominously threatening freedom of expression, and an ordinary citizen perfectly content to let you say whatever you want to say, but also feeling perfectly free to call what you say idiotic when he sees it that way.

Yikes. Always quickfire on dealing out criticism, but when it goes the other way, it's temper tantrum time?

Incompetence? What kind of world are you living in? Most people who are 'incompetent' end up being demoted or fired, or more. In situations like what you are referring to, "courtmartialed or jailed" would be more expected or appropriate. In BushWorld, and presumably yours(?), the rankest of incompetence imaginable, and on a scale that is breathtakingly expansive, is met with indifference, non-reaction, or even goddamned promotions.

You're still giving them 5000 miles of slack.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bhutto Killed in Suicide Attack