Bhutto Killed in Suicide Attack - Page 4

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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.

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."

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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.

Originally Posted by Flat Stanley

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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.

"Everyone KNOWS it was Musharraf! She even said so herself!"

Originally Posted by mojo2

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.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Of all people to say this.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

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.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

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.

Originally Posted by mojo2

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

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

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.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

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.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

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

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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

Originally Posted by shetline

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?

Originally Posted by shetline

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?

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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

Originally Posted by shetline

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

Originally Posted by NOFEER

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Yep, she was shot.

Horrible.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

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.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

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".

Originally Posted by segovius

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.

Originally Posted by shetline

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.