Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack

[Gfted1]

Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack

 

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

This is huge, and very worrying for the next few days and weeks. Will her supporters interpret it as something President Musharraf ordered. pr at least that he should have prevented? They may well do so. I think she was a decent person, despite her record of corruption, and certainly a very brave one for returning to Pakistan when she did, and staying when she did. I don't think Pakistan can afford to lose brave leaders.

[Sand]

What gets me is how Bush is always clamouring for action against Iran and its bid to become a nuclear power yet does NOTHING about Pakistan which has confirmed nuclear weapons and a very unstable political and social environment. Bhutto was indeed brave but this is just the tip of the iceberg and when the brown excrement fully hits the whirling blades I am betting that nukes will fly.

[Morgoth]

Who was this Bhutto dude anyway?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I wonder who was behind it, the islamists or musharraf?

 

 

What gets me is how Bush is always clamouring for action against Iran and its bid to become a nuclear power yet does NOTHING about Pakistan which has confirmed nuclear weapons and a very unstable political and social environment. Bhutto was indeed brave but this is just the tip of the iceberg and when the brown excrement fully hits the whirling blades I am betting that nukes will fly.

 

 

Pakistan will never dismount their nukes as long as India also has them, and if the US was to attempt to pressure Pakistan, things would go sour and the US would lose an important strategic partner in the region.

 

But I dont think there is a country on earth that would use nuclear weapons under any circumstance. To do so is automatic suicide. Even crazy ol' Kim in North Korea knows and respects that.

[Walsingham]

Who was this Bhutto dude anyway?

 

She was a kind of womanly dude. I don't know much about her, but she must have been very special to command political respect in such a rambunctious country, being a woman.

 

I don't believe it was Musharraf for two reasons:

 

1) Strategically Bhutto may well have been an opponent to Musharraf, but she was a firm ally against the Jifascists. She had no real choice in the matter since they had already sentenced her to death before she came back. Besides which, tehre's no way they'd let someone who believed in democracy and women's rights run around. Let alone get into power.

 

2) Tactically, the use of a suicide bomber implies jifascists. Well, jifascists or Tamil Tigers, but i think we can rule the latter out.

 

 

My money is on Taleban allied members of the ISI. These guys have some seriously odd notions about being 'clever', like provoking wars with India, financing terrorists in Kashmir, running heroin etc etc. They probably think they win all round with this stupidity.

 

 

~~~

 

Kaft, not to put too fine a point on it, but when you say using nukes would be like committing suicide... we're talking about people who do that all the time. Like, just now.

[thepixiesrock]

I might be niave, but I would think the people who are in contol of the nukes are not the same type of people doing these suicide bombings.

[Walsingham]

I might be niave, but I would think the people who are in contol of the nukes are not the same type of people doing these suicide bombings.

 

I wasn't being clear. I meant that if the jifascists seized power then they would have the nukes. And, you may still be right, because just like in an ordinary suicide bombing the self-satisfied 'scholar' ordering the nukes to fly will be thousands of miles away when he tells them to go.

[thepixiesrock]

I agree

[Sand]

If the Islamic extremists take control I have no doubt that they will use the nuclear weapons they would have access to. These people use suicide bombers to get their point across. They are ready to die, wanting to die so they can be martyrs and get a sure seat in their version of heaven. When death holds no fear there is no amount of horror that a person can unleash if given the chance.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Sand

[Humodour]

Times like this I'm glad Australia isn't in ICBM range.

[Tale]

Times like this I'm glad Australia isn't in ICBM range.

Do they have subs?

[Walsingham]

If the Islamic extremists take control I have no doubt that they will use the nuclear weapons they would have access to. These people use suicide bombers to get their point across. They are ready to die, wanting to die so they can be martyrs and get a sure seat in their version of heaven. When death holds no fear there is no amount of horror that a person can unleash if given the chance.

 

Well, i think it would be oversimplifying to say that the morning after they get nukes they be awake before dawn like kids at Christmas, itching to unleash fiery death. But between the years of hatred, and the nature of terrorist politics (like scissor paper stone, with moderation and increased violence as options - increased violence always wins) it would be simply a matter of time. They'd make more and more demands before convincing themselves that we'd not retaliate. They might be right, since the question becomes who are we retaliating against?

 

Altogether not good under such circumstances. But don't fret, chaps. It's all just a neocon scare story. You can sleep safe and sound.

[Pop]

It doesn't make any sense for Musharraf to have killed Bhutto. He needed Bhutto to gain legitimacy through the power-sharing that was inevitable. Now that won't happen. Sharif certainly won't play ball.

 

As for the woman herself, she was firmly anti-extremist, but she was also, if not corrupt herself, permissive of her husband's. He skimmed millions off of gov't contracts back when she was in power.

 

Still, there exists the possibility that it was an ISI hit. From what I've heard she was shot twice and then the suicide bomber struck, which is unusually if not suspicious.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Pop

[Humodour]

Times like this I'm glad Australia isn't in ICBM range.

Do they have subs?

 

We're developing a plan to counteract short and medium range missiles launched from subs and warships, yeah. Doubt it'll be any more effective than America's though.

[jaguars4ever]

Musharraf denied Bhutto's (and 3 US senator's) requests for reasonable security for her after the attempted October assassination.

 

[Walsingham]

Musharraf denied Bhutto's (and 3 US senator's) requests for reasonable security for her after the attempted October assassination.

 

 

Jags, this article argues two points that she was surrounded by her own supporters. The only way she could have avoided suicide bombing is the same one everyone has to use, varying her routes, and applying total secrecy. But she was clearly ignoring the risks in order to raise her profile.

 

Stratfor.com:

 

"Musharraf on his own is unable to deal with a growing crisis of governance in the country, much less with Islamist militancy. The solution was to bring Bhutto

[jaguars4ever]

Musharraf denied Bhutto's (and 3 US senator's) requests for reasonable security for her after the attempted October assassination.

 

 

Jags, this article argues two points that she was surrounded by her own supporters. The only way she could have avoided suicide bombing is the same one everyone has to use, varying her routes, and applying total secrecy. But she was clearly ignoring the risks in order to raise her profile.

Performing those PR functions was part of her role as a democratic politician. Given that the presidential elections are coming up, a desire to raise one's profile is not only reasonable but categorically required to effectuate the electoral process. As someone whom purports himself to be a democrat, Musharraf should have a vested interest in doing everything reasonable in his power to protect his fellow democratic candidates from foreseeable dangers. Given that terrorists attempted to assassinate Bhutto with bombs on her very return, Musharraf knew or should have known about the dangers posed to her. And assuming he's some kind of idiot who can't even appreciate such risks, the senators' requests should have hammered in the presence of the foreseeable danger.

 

But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred. So Musharraf's denial was an actual cause and a substantial factor in bringing about her death. To vitiate all blame on Bhutto's stipulated assumption of the risk would not be correct. From the article, it appears that she did everything reasonable in her power to prevent the bombing in the circumstances of her status as an upcoming presidential candidate.

 

I understand what you're saying though. But applying total secrecy, etc would be an option for perhaps a hermit whose need to interact with the public is remote. Partial blame can only be attributed to Bhutto if she acted unreasonably in voluntarily exposing herself to known risks, or that her standard of care fell below that which was reasonably required for her own protection. I don't think either is the case.

[Walsingham]

Jags, the jammers are for IEDs not suicide bombers. And even then they don't work against command wires (obviously). I don't think he was remiss to not provide them. I mean it's the kind of trash you could foist on a corporate client as a sort of comp on insurance, but it's just fluff. as for bomb detection equipment, anyone who tells you they have some is selling lead to gold.

 

"But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred."

 

Is completely false.

 

You correctly say that Musharraf would have to be an idiot to not do all he could to protect her, since it was in his interests. But you conclude this makes him an idiot. I suggest that his continued survival in the toughest political position in the world indicates he is not an idiot. I conclude that in fact he did everything he could, bearing in mind he can't trust his own security intelligence service.

[jaguars4ever]

I conclude that in fact he did everything he could, bearing in mind he can't trust his own security intelligence service.

If he did, then I would agree with you Walsy.

 

However, the facts state otherwise: Musharraf received at least 4 requests for additional security measures (tinted windows/jammers/police mobiles) from Bhutto herself as well as 3 senators.

 

There's no dispute by you that Musharraf, as incumbent president, had a duty to protect Bhutto from unreasonable harm. However, given the political and sociological climate in Pakistan, would a reasonable president have denied requests for additional security under these circumstances? I don't think so. (1) The gravity of the danger posed by bombs is incredible; (2) The probability of an occurance of such bombings is also high given the current history. Therefore, approving the requests was neither an excessive burden of precaution nor did it negate some kind of social utility. It was negligent foresight on his part, and a breach of the presidential duties bestowed to him "upon taking office".

 

Consequently, given that Musharraf denied the approval of the security requests, and that the approval of the security requests was in his power, he did not do everything reasonable in his power to confer protection. Thus, some of the fault must be apportioned to Musharraf's forebearance.

Edited December 28, 2007 by jaguars4ever

[Gorgon]

I've been searching for some hard facts about the poltical spectrum in Pakistan, and the Isamic parties, all I can find are opinion pieces, you see, i'm not at all convinced that the Islamic parties have the strenght to overthrow the government, or somehow land on top in the aftermath of a civil war.

[Gorth]

Consequently, given that Musharraf denied the approval of the security requests, and that the approval of the security requests was in his power, he did not do everything reasonable in his power to confer protection. Thus, some of the fault must be apportioned to Musharraf's forebearance.

Ironically, if eye witnesses (including a US reporter/photographer on site) are to be believed, none of the suggested measures would have made any difference. Apparantly she was shot when she stood up in her car, waving at the crowds. A bullet proof vest under her clothes would have gone a long way to prolong her political career. The gunman blew himself up after the assassination.

[jaguars4ever]

It seems Al Qaeda are claiming this one, but it hasn't been confirmed (the source was some phone in to some random Italian news agency so it's hardly reliable).

[Sand]

All I have to say is just think how things could have turned out differently if Bush "stayed the course" in Afghanistan and hunted Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the last man instead of going into a worthless and useless war with the quagmire that is Iraq.

[Tale]

Consequently, given that Musharraf denied the approval of the security requests, and that the approval of the security requests was in his power, he did not do everything reasonable in his power to confer protection. Thus, some of the fault must be apportioned to Musharraf's forebearance.

Ironically, if eye witnesses (including a US reporter/photographer on site) are to be believed, none of the suggested measures would have made any difference. Apparantly she was shot when she stood up in her car, waving at the crowds. A bullet proof vest under her clothes would have gone a long way to prolong her political career. The gunman blew himself up after the assassination.

Now it's reported that shrapnel killed her and there probably was no gunfire.