Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
 

www.foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318510,00.html

saw that, that place is unbelievable. Then there was a shoot out at another "PM"'s rally.

This was coming. I remember listening to her CNN interview driving home last month and Wolf asked her if she is worried about being assasinated and she replied that she rather die there than leave the country.

Bin laden in Pakistan, Musharraf playing his games and US keeps providing him with more money. Wonder who is helping taliban then. Where is Eric?

Who in the hell is this guy?

What guy? :confused:

It sounding more and more like June 1914 all over again; arms race, assassins, nationalist terrorists - a train wreck in slow motion...

:iagree:

open a newspaper.

You say what you want about western society, but we don't generally kill your political opponent.

I know I heard this on the radio this morning, and all I could say, I'm not surprised, so sad!

No, we cast our dirty work on a patsy or a scapegoat.

You see this one coming. She was lucky to survive the first suicide bombing attempt in October. She was foolish to think she would survive another.

No disrespect, LeMansX5, but I'm not seeing how Musharraf can be referred to as "Bin laden in Pakistan." He is many things, most of which are not positive, but I don't see him blowing up skyscrapers filled with thousands of people.

It would be interesting to read the ensuing dialogue regarding Bhutto. She must have had delusions of grandeur, that she was the next Nelson Mandela, which obviously she was not if anyone were to read about her two previous stays in office. Yet she represented a modern Pakistan which put her center in the target of the militants. IMHO, she should have waited to end her exile. She was a victim of her own miscalculation.

She felt she had enough backing from the US so that she was untouchable. She forgot she didn't live in the US. As far as the Bin Laden comparison, I don't think you were suppose to take that literally. However you'd be hard pressed to dis-associate Pakistan's leadership from terrorist groups. Why do you think India hauled ass to get a nuclear arsenal :)

I meant Bin laden is hiding in Pakistan and Musharraf is of no help in catching him. People in that part of world believe that he is playing a double role between US and BL/tali to keep both happy.

:rolleyes:


Presidents
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley, JFK -- all assassinated
Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Reagan -- survived assassination attempts.

Presidential Candidates
RFK, George Wallace

Civil Rights Leaders
MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Fred Hampton -- all assassinated



:iagree:

:iagree:

We do our fair share of shooting in the USA. And imagine, that is all in the last 250 years...and is missing people like Robert Kennedy..

RFK = Robert Kennedy -- listed under "presidential candidates" ;)

But yes, there are many others not on the list such as senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, and political activists.

I really don't think ether Kennedy was killed by political opponents.

With the possible exception of Lincoln, I'm fairly sure that none of those were "political" assassinations(or attempts). All we're either insane, racially motivated(redundancy alert!), attempting to achieve fame(or infamy) or a combination of the above. Altho' Booth(IMO) was nuts too, his motives were political.

I'm sure that a case could be made that Malcolm X's assassination was political. While local and federal law enforcement officials stood aside and let it happen, IMO the main motive was the blood-feud within the Nation of Islam organization. You'd need to use a very loose definition to call that power struggle "political".

Too funny! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Might I invite you to do some reading:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...es/mban84l.jpg

In the history of assassinations, there was probably never an assassination of a head of state more fueled by political opposition than the JFK Assassination, with perhaps the exception of Julius Caesar. Even using the word "assassination" is too light of a word. The word "coup" is probably more appropriate. Yes, the populace was left in the dark (and obviously 40 years later, some are still in the dark), but that does not change what happened.

Still believe Bin Laden is responsible for blowing up those skyscrapers huh? Interesting how the FBI never even indicted the man and admits there isn't a shred of evidence linking him. What we're being told about Bhutto's assisination could be far from truth...

No thanks - you can keep the conspiracy theory fever swamps. I prefer the actual version of history versus the imaginary.

Our government can't even keep simple secrets, like dunking a couple of unlawful combatants, much less a palace coup...

Musharaf probably had something to do with it. If it wasn't him then one of his people.

Either way it was not as if this woman was some angel. She has a history of corruption and brutality under her regime. The only reason the west likes her is because she is a) woman and b) she wears her headscarf as if it is a fashion statement rather than religious statement.

Uhm... The FBI doesn't bring indictments - that would be up a Federal Grand Jury. Maybe one was never convened because this administration considered it an act of war and not a criminal matter. IIRC, that's why Clinton never acted when friendly gov'ts offered bin laden to him. Not enough evidence indeed - his own videotaped admission notwithstanding. Of course, Eric will argue that was "forged"... :rofl: The financial trail alone led straight to binnie-boy like a four lane highway.
I don't know about the "truth" part, but I imagine most of the details of Bhutto's assassination will never be known - the track record for Pakistani "investigations" being what it is...

While I agree with most of your statement, I can't agree with the last line. Our government NOW can't keep a secret, pre 1970's...we could keep secrets like no other :thumbup:

It's a double-edged sword almost as matter a fact as the line from A Few Good Men...

Of course since you don't believe in conspiracy theories, I'm sure you would just assume it was some crazy nut who acted alone. Maybe he was mentally unstable or trying to achieve fame. Yeah...that must be it. :thumbup:

She was most likely killed by extremists, with or without Musharaffs knowledge. Look at it this way, she had over 63% of the popular vote..far more then the current Prez or ANY rival. She was obviously going to win in the coming months. This was VERY bad for anyone opposed to the US foreign policy. This is similar to when RFK was shot after it was obvious he won the California primary and was moving on...

It is far easier to take a possible leader out then a current leader. Remember that. Not to mention if Musharaff faked the election to win again, it would be too obvious and since they can't do the whole 'hanging chad' thing to pull an election, they have to rely on the old tested method. If that place doesn't go into a state of emergency or an all out coup, I'll be shocked.

Who said anything about keeping secrets? You are correct....they are terrible at keeping secrets. There is tons of leaks and tons of information that has been released by the government over the years on many of the assassinations.

During the 1990s, under the 1992 "JFK Act" which George Bush Sr. signed into law, over 4 million government documents were released by the Congressional Assassination Records Review Board. More than 90% of these documents pre-dated the assassination, yet were deemed worthy of being related to the assassination. That's a lot of documents having to do with something which you say was a random shooting by a lone nut.

The Assassination Records Review Board also subpeonaed any witnesses who were still alive and re-interviewed them. All these interviews are public record.

The most interesting testimony given was that of the autopsy doctors. Here is the transcripts of those:

ARRB Medical Testimony

Just a FYI: all nine doctors who were interviewed regarding the autopsy -- ALL of them said that the photographs currently in the National Archives (the same ones published in the Warren Commission report and later used by the House Select Committee in the 1970s) are NOT photographs of the body that they examined. They all described a big hole in the rear of the head, i.e. part of the rear skull missing -- yet the photos all show a tiny bullet-size hole in the rear of the head with the rest of the skull intact.


In any case, the autopsy is just one of about 20 different areas you can study on the assassination, and in all of the areas, the Warren Commission's evidence falls apart as either being lies or being based on phony evidence. There is not even a tiny bit of their evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

None of this evidence is hidden or being kept a secret. It is just ignorant people who still think the world is flat 15 years after it has been proven to be round. Yes, a round world is a hard concept to grasp for those who are used to living in a flat world. But it is no "conspiracy theory" anymore. It has been proven 10 times over and is now fact.

Nice conflation eric - taking a quote referring to US assassination attempts and stretching it to cover Bhutto's killing. Must take a lot of effort to jump to those conclusions...

I still don't think JFK was killed by a political opponent, the mob or Cuba probably

There's no reason to "think" when you can find out for sure by doing some research and reading...

FYI, the mob was surely involved. They may have even hired the assassins, although it's hard to know for sure as they all seemed to suddenly get themselves killed after the assassination and there is very little evidence of who did what, other than that certain people were involved and then murdered shortly after the assassination. And yes, anti-Castro Cubans were also involved as they were sore at Kennedy for hanging them out to dry during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Oswald was mixed up with that group. He was an FBI informant who had infiltrated the Cuban group undercover.

But the assassination was planned at the highest levels of government and was only able to succeed by removing the secret service protection on that day. On any other day, you would have had a massive presence of secret service agents all along the route. You would have had sharp shooters on top of and inside buildings, and security around each and every building. But instead, the Secret Service was ordered to stand down. Watch these 2 short videos of footage from before the assassination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAWiIRgx0g

Most interesting is the agent who throws his hands up in the air in disgust and confusion after being ordered not to run alongside the car as he would normally do.

So are you saying that the Mod, the FBI and Cuba all working together, that I don't believe!

Oooo.... Problems with the evidentiary trail of a 1960's presidential assassination - who'd have tho't it?? It's not like there was any turmoil at the time or interagency infighting. IIRC, simple things like custody of the body and evidence were major interagency battles. Not to mention problems with 30 year old memories - but I'm wasting my time....

BTW eric, a history website run by another conspiracy type whose day job is writing computer games does not a change in history make. It looks like Mr. Bradford is making quite a name for himself on the JFK Conspiracy circuit. Prob'ly pays better than Atari computer games these days.

Of course, you're also familiar with John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination web site. I'm sure that you'll agree a tenured professor of political science is at least as qualified as a computer game author in these matters.

Ooookay...So, they (FBI) provide investigative information to indicte "the shoe bomber" and Moussaoui (who was already in prison on the day of 911) but admit they don't have a shred of evidence against bin laden...You must look at history concerning this debate and consider "other" possible alternatives...
Perhaps you should do a bit more research on that "taped confession"...
To reiterate...not a shred of evidence linking bin laden to 911. Proper research on the financial trail actually points in an interesting direction.
Until all evidence and some type of real investigation comes to fruition, the events of that day may never come to light. Believe what you believe but I believe the word "conspiracy theory" should be removed from this debate as I doubt you're qualified to know what on that day (before & after) was theory and which was fact. One of the most important people recommended to the 911 comission by the families, is Sibel Edmonds. Unfortunately, she's been gagged beyond belief. Newsweek calls her the most gagged person in U.S. history.
There are "entities" that stand to profit from Bhutto's assasination, bottom line. The list of "who" could be endless. Regardless, it's a damn shame that such a possible light of hope for her country was extinguished.

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Jn4vTGb_8

i do think that the TWA plane that went down over the sound was hit by a rocket and the government covered that up.

Qualified???:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Tell me - oh Wise One, what are your "qualifications"....

A translator hired as a contractor, whose first day on the job is nearly two weeks after 9/11, uncovers evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks before her contract is terminated five months later. Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel to me...

Oh, BTW, in her "open letter", Edmonds writes, "Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.’" Even your "most important" person says Osama did it. Can't have it both ways...

"30 year old memories" do not make 9 autopsy doctors, all interviewed at different times and independently from eachother, each forget every detail about the most important autopsy they ever did and imagine that there was a big hole in the back of the president's head and that half of his skull was missing, when in fact there was only a tiny bullet size hole. :loco:

And BTW, anyone who watches the film of the assassination will see that part of his head was blown off. You can see chunks of his skull fly off and Jackie climbs onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve part of his head.

And that's what all the other witnesses said as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs&NR=1


But none of that mattered back in 1964, because the Warren Commission never interviewed any of the doctors from Parkland Hospital, they never interviewed the autopsy doctors from Bethesda, and the public did not get to see the Zapruder film until the 1980s when it was finally released to the public. What you don't know won't affect your opinion, and that was why most Americans believed the Warren Commission. Today less than 10% of Americans believe the Warren Commission. You can't get 90% of Americans to agree on anything, yet 90% think the Warren Commission was full of crap.

If she is just some conspiracy nut, then why has the Justice Department gone through such great lengths to keep her quiet? Currently she is under court order to not talk to the media or else she will go to prison.

OK eric, for the purposes of discussion, let's say you're right. The gov't screwed up the autopsy, misplaced(for whatever reason) the real photos, but what difference does it make? How does that prove conspiracy? We all did see the back of his skull fly off as a 6.5mm slug blew his brains out. Who needs an autopsy to know the cause of death?

I'm calling you on that one eric. Cite me the survey where 90% of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission. I don't think I even know 9 people of that opinion. I may not even know 9 people that give a big damn about any of this. The only reason that I care is that I'm tired of people like you wanting to use taxpayer money for countless investigations until the result agrees with your preconceived conclusion. If you think there's a conspiracy, spend your own money to prove it...

There you go again eric - just exactly where did I call her a "conspiracy nut". I have no idea what her motivation is - just that I think it's very doubtful that she's the "keystone" of 9/11 information...

The significance of having fake photos of JFK's autopsy is that someone put a big effort into creating them. In 1963, you didn't just load up photoshop on your Mac and go to work. Faking photographs was a huge ordeal, and the FBI obviously went through great lengths to do this. I suppose you think they also "misplaced" JFK's brain? Yes, that too is "missing" from the FBI's evidence.

And you are missing the obvious, which is that ALL pathologists agree that the large hole is the exit wound, not the entrance wound. If you agree that the back of his head blew off, then you are acknowledging that the shot came from the front. The Warren Commission report shows pictures with a large hole in the front and a tiny bullet hole in the back, thus painting the picture of a shot coming from the back where Oswald was.




First of all, I don't want to spend taxpayer money on this. I simply want the government to release all the information. We have something called the Freedom of Information Act, and if the JFK Assassination was simply a single act by a lone nut, then there is nothing in those files that could possibly be a threat to national security 44 years later.

But yet, the government -- specifically ONI (Naval Intel) refuses to release even a single document of the thousands they have on Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK Assassination. One must wonder why the Office of Naval Intelligence even has thousands of pre-1963 documents on a seemingly unimportant 24 year old individual who according to ONI never even worked for them.

As for polls, I can't seem to find much online except this one Gallop poll which shows a lower number -- 75%, with 19% agreeing with the lone gunman theory. (http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy). But the same statement holds true: find me something else that 75% of Americans agree on.

You know, I'm not trying to sell you a bill of goods here. If you just read even the most brief amount of stuff on the subject, you will be convinced. If I had a 15 minute conversation with you, I'd have an easier time convincing you of this than convincing you the world is round. The evidence is so one-sided that those who don't believe it simply are those who are uneducated on the subject and simply tend to believe the government, so they figure the government must be right, rather than people who have actually looked into it.

Wasn't this topic about Benazir Bhutto?

PS: I don't believe the Warren Commision report, and you couldn't if you actually read it. My dad is a JFK buff and has a copy of it..if you play loosely with the laws of physics its possible for one person to do it. However if you look at autopsy photos of JFK's head minutes after the shooting, it is obvious to anyone who has ever fired a weapon that the rounds came from different directions. That alone makes a single shooter impossible. :thumbup: Unless of course you believe you can be shot in the back with a bullet coming through the front of your neck and then get shot in the head with an exit wound out the rear of the skull.

Pretty dramatic series of pics, of B. Bhutto's last minutes on the planet.

WS, but some graphic scenes and some blood...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package....html#section1


One may have to log in/sign up to view the pic series...

Something I will never understand about these terrorists:

Do they realize that the average American probably didn't know of or care about this person, sadly? Do they understand the real people they wounded in killing the person was their own people, the Pakistanis? You didn't see crying people and rioting on the streets in the USA, you saw it in Pakistan. This is the part I do not understand. You kill your own because you think it hurts some far away nation. I'd bet anything the guy that shot her couldn't name 5 people in the Bush administration aside from GDub himself. Not to mention you killed another Muslim, isn't there some religious law about that in their so-called holy book?


I don't see US citizens in these pictures...
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/me...ing.car.ap.jpg
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/me...fin.afp.gi.jpg

diogenes........ welcome to eric's world.........

i am sooooooooooo glad i am not the only one alone here......

its must be the ecuadorian side......

ROFLMAO!

welcome!

the Koran is only holy and true to those who interpret it in their OWN image... just like some idiot Bible pushers do here. The more zealot one is, the higher the likelihood they are interpreting their own 'version' of what scripture says....


what i find funny is the following:

Global fears for Pakistan after Bhutto assassination

10 hours ago
PARIS (AFP) — The assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto sent shockwaves around the world on Friday with global leaders condemning the act as markets reacted with fear to the new blow to international stability.

US President George W. Bush led calls for Pakistan leader Pervez Musharraf to stay on the path of democracy despite the killing which the Pakistan government said was probably the work of Al-Qaeda.

World oil neared 97 dollars a barrel in international trading, its highest level in a month following the killing of Bhutto, dealers said.
Japanese stocks fell 1.65 percent on Friday and other major markets also followed Wall Street's fall immediately after the killing of Bhutto on Thursday.

Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Malaysia and Singapore warned their nationals against going to Pakistan. Japan told its citizens inside the country not to leave their hotels or lodgings.

Roseli Abdul, acting Malaysian high commissioner to Pakistan, said tensions were expected to remain high for two or three days, Bernama news agency reported.

Condemning the "cowardly" suicide attack, the US president urged Pakistanis "to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life."

The two-time former prime minister was shot in the neck by her attacker before he blew himself up at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi for the January 8 elections, killing at least 20 people.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown reaffirmed international calls to "build democracy" in talks with Musharraf on Friday, Brown's office said.
Brown called Musharraf to pass on Britain's condolences over Bhutto's death and to pledge extra support to combat the Al-Qaeda network.
The British leader said he "encouraged President Musharraf to stick to the course he has outlined to build democracy and stability in Pakistan."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described Bhutto's assassination as a "heinous crime" that "represents an assault on stability in Pakistan and its democratic processes" ahead of the elections which Bhutto's party had been tipped to win.

The UN Security Council joined Ban in a non-binding statement that condemned "in the strongest terms the terrorist suicide attack by extremists" which killed Bhutto.

Pakistan's neighbours, fearing an extremist spill-over if nuclear-armed Pakistan were to spiral out of control, were quick to respond.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who met Bhutto only hours before her death, called the assassination an act of "immense brutality" against one of the Muslim world's leading women.

"I am deeply sorry, deeply pained that this brave sister... this great daughter of the Muslim world is no longer with us," he said.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Bhutto's killing was a reminder of the "common dangers" faced by India and Pakistan.

"Mrs. Bhutto was no ordinary political leader but one who left a deep imprint on her time and age," he said.

From Europe, France voiced concerns over Pakistan's nuclear capability falling into the hands of the extremists and the killing threatening stability throughout South Asia.

"That is why we regard Pakistan and the odious assassination of Benazir Bhutto in part as an assassination of democracy... and we must not allow that," said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Strong reaction also came from the Muslim world.

Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called Bhutto's murder "a severe blow to Pakistan's democratic process" and expressed his hope that "the law be upheld and democracy be respected in Pakistan."
Turkey, a close ally of Pakistan, said the killing "undoubtedly aims to draw Pakistan into chaos and instability."

Iran urged authorities to track down the "terrorists" responsible, while Iraq's President Jalal Talabani called on the world to unite against the "cancer of terrorism".

Africa's biggest Muslim nation, Nigeria, deplored the "mindless political violence" and urged Bhutto's family to find solace knowing that "she died in active pursuit of her vision of true democracy for her country" and that she has become "an eternal martyr" to the cause.

Other European leaders also saw the killing of Bhutto as an attack on democracy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel labelled it a "cowardly terrorist attack" designed to destabilise Pakistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hoped "the organisers of the crime will be found and that they get the punishment they deserve".
International media predicted Pakistan's chaos would worsen.

Italy's Corriere della Sera said "Pakistan is becoming an ever bigger atomic time bomb" and highlighted fears that the military could take back power.
Jordanian newspaper Al Dustour said "Bhutto's assassination is a terrible act that paves the way for a civil war in Pakistan."

translation:

GW: eyes on you now, bud. better get going in the right direction.

OPEC: lets capitalize on this and make more $$$$$$

GB: I'm a pussy PM and I'm scared. I'll say the right thing, but I'm scared of more terror attacks in London.

UN: bad bad Pakistan. Next? (when's lunch? boy, this is a nice set up the American's pay most of... I want the Thai Chicken)

Afghanistan: Great. Freaking great. You morons. You had to up the ante. Nice. Kill a Muslim woman in power. Now the west is getting pissed.

India: You all better get your shit under control 'cause we WILL protect ourselves.

France: shit. We helped them develop their nuclear program. (*note: interesting coincidence. France apparently helps all middle eastern countries build nuclear plants, weapons, and delivery systems.) Now, when the world finds out its us, we'll be in trouble.

Idonesia - keep us out of this

Turkey - ditto. great. civil war.

Iran -- let's use this as an excuse to keep the world's interests elsewhere right now.

Nigeria - see Iran.

Germany - stop fighting so we can sell more cars.

Russia -- see Iran.

Italy -- states it for what it is...

Please... if you are going to be an adept Conspiracy Theorist, you really must frame your arguments in a more logical fashion.

First of all, you've stated repeatedly that there is not a "shred" of evidence" linking Bin Laden to 9/11. From the oft-quoted Muckraker Report of 06/26/2006:

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

"No hard evidence" is not even remotely close to "not a shred of evidence." Every 911 truther website use the phrases "lack of conclusive" evidence or "no hard evidence", so why are you stretching this to "not a shred of evidence"?

But then you bring the Sibel Edmonds into your argument. Let's get the story straight - Anthony Romero, the director of the ACLU, which is representing Ms. Edmonds in her civil case, stated "Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in American history..." which was merely quoted by Newsweek. Citing this as an editorial comment attributable to Newsweek is incorrect and irresponsible.

But then wait... since you did bring Sibel Edmonds to the forefront of this discussion, in page 3, paragraph 2 of her letter to Sen. Thomas Kean of 04/01/2007 states:

"Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of
intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue."

Your two statements directly refute each other. Nice try, though...

:iagree: :thud:

DrDrex,
RE: your "translation" of the headline official reaction story...

RACK IT! :thumbup:

Outfookinstanding, imo.
BR,mD

Regarding...
 

The Keneddy asassinations, a book called Double Cross, an inside story of mobster Sam Giancana (written, I believe by his brother) is a good read.

Here is Bhutto's last interview...things get quite interesting around the 5min mark...:confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

As I wrote...
 

...

Well here you go, video of the gunman shooting at Benazir and even with this...PROOF...the government in Pakistan claims she wasn't shot. So that is still possible, I mean there is no visual of her getting hit by the shot and there is no video proof showing a bullet enter or exit (like JFK). But they can not deny there was not a shooter, and thus a shooter and suicide bomber at the same time....Eric... do the honors "CONSPIRACY".

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6be_1198938194

It is so obvious what this is. But people will believe what they wish. You have a distraction, and then you have the assassination. The "official" investigation will claim that the "distraction" (in this case, the bomb) was the assassination.

This was a similar case to when RFK was murdered. Sirhan starts shooting wildly about 5-8 feet in front of him and empties his entire gun and even when finished, still keeps pulling the trigger as if there were more bullets to shoot. Security guards tackle Sirhan, but can't seem to get the gun out of his hands. Meanwhile, the autopsy later says Kennedy was shot at point blank range in the back of the head (he was facing Sirhan). And a count of the number of people shot and the number of bullet holes in the walls of the pantry find 11 shots. Sirhan had an 8-shooter. But Sirhan is not given any of this information. Instead he is given a public defender who does not present any evidence at trial and does not make a single objection during the entire trial. Sirhan himself claims he blacked out and does not remember what he did, and is quickly found guilty and sentence to life in prison.

In the case of Bhutto, all I have read so far is that she was shot 3 times in the head, and that was the cause of death. But to acknowledge a shooter means you have to do a real investigation. On the other hand, if the assassin was a suicide bomber, then you can simply call the investigation a dead end and blame it on whoever you want. I'd be shocked if this was not carried out by the ISI.

Al-Queda has been trying to assassinate Musharraf for years now -- there have been several attempts on his life in just the last year and about a dozen of the past 5 years. There is no way they would do something like this that would effectively assure his re-election.

Even the Associated Press is full of crap. The last paragraph of that article says:

The dispute and conflicting reports about Bhutto's exact cause of death was expected to further enflame the violence wracking this nuclear-armed nation two days after the popular former prime minister was killed in a suicide attack.


Nice for them to contradict themselves within the same sentence. First they say the cause of death is in dispute, but then they say she was killed in a suicide attack.

Also, this is further proof of the government's involvement. Anyone who has followed any of these Islamic extremist groups over the years knows that when they carry out an attack, they always publicly claim responsibility and usually even brag about it. If they deny it, it means it wasn't them.

there is no contradiction there. They are referring to the event. Not the actual action. You should really review the rhetoric and truly understand language before making stupid judgements.

Yes there is. The article said:

the popular former prime minister was killed in a suicide attack


That is not true. She was shot by one or more assassins. Shooting someone with a pistol is not a "suicide attack". In their own article they say it is disputed about how she was killed. So by saying that she was killed in a suicide attack, they are giving their opinion and reporting that opinion as if it were fact.

Here is a blown up photo of an assassin holding a gun aimed at her:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids...XB.5RWWlN5tQ--

There were pictures of her bleeding from wounds in her head. So now the Pakistani government has backed down from their claim that she was killed by the bomb, and now they are claiming she was killed from a blow to the head. They claim her head was smashed into the sunroof of the vehicle as they were trying to evacuate her from the scene.

You don't have the truth yet till they exhume her body and prove it so the AP was doing what news agencies do best, speculating.

Well here is the proof she was shot, watch her slump over when shots ring out.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor....new.video.cnn

New information:


Bhutto report: Musharraf planned to fix elections

NAUDERO, Pakistan — The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.

Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.

Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.

"It was compiled from sources within the (intelligence) services who were working directly with Benazir Bhutto," Lashari said, speaking Monday at Bhutto's house in her ancestral village of Naudero, where her husband and children continued to mourn her death.

The ISI had no official comment. However, an agency official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the subject, dismissed the allegations as "a lot of talk but not much substance."

Musharraf has been highly critical of those who allege that his regime is involved in electoral manipulation. "Now when they lose, they'll have a good rationale: that it is all rigged, it is all fraud," he said in November. "In Pakistan, the loser always cries."

According to Lashari, the document includes information on a "safe house" allegedly being run by the ISI in a central neighborhood of Islamabad, the alleged headquarters of the rigging operation.

It names as the head of the unit a brigadier general recently retired from the ISI, who was secretly assigned to run the rigging operation, Lashari said. It charges that he was working in tandem with the head of a civilian intelligence agency. Before her return to Pakistan, Bhutto, in a letter to Musharraf, had named the intelligence official as one of the men she accused of plotting to kill her.

Lashari said the report claimed that U.S. aid money was being used to fix the elections. Ballots stamped in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, which supports Musharraf, were to be produced by the intelligence agencies in about 100 parliamentary constituencies.

"They diverted money from aid activities. We had evidence of where they were spending the money," Lashari said.

Lashari, who formerly taught environmental economics at Britain's Cranfield University, said the effort was directed at constituencies where the result was likely to be decided by a small margin, so it wouldn't be obvious.

Bhutto was due to meet Specter and Kennedy after dinner last Thursday. She was shot as she left an election rally in Rawalpindi early that evening. Pakistan's government claims instead that she was thrown against the lever of her car's sunroof, fracturing her skull.

I'd believe that report more if it actually got in the hands of Specter and Biden in the US Congress. That place is so full of BS it is hard to pull the fact from the fiction IMO.

Welcome to Pakistan politics. Where one would kill his/her own husband/wife/sister/brother/parents for power.

I am ashamed to be remotely affiliated with them.

So where to put the weight of foreign policy in the USA in 2008....Iran or Pakistan?

Pakistan = nuclear weapons now
Iran = nuclear weapons in 5 years

I've had enough.

Time to cut EVERYONE'S FOREIGN AID.

that should be prime directive number one. reduce the deficit and stop 'funding' the world.

let the UN member nations pay equally for its upkeep.

I am tired of paying for everyone else to prosper, at our expense.

There is one presidential candidate that has made that priority #1 in his campaign. As far as I know, no other candidates have said they are in favor of that.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

He's not my choice, but I think he's 10 times better than any other Republican candidate.

The Bin Laden comment around 2:15...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

Notice it's omitted in this BBC clip...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...75843&bbcws=2#

Interesting how the interviewer follows up on her other comments but fails to follow-up on such a puzzling yet major comment...

She misspoke. Omar Sheik is the guy who was convicted of murdering Daniel Pearl. He is also the guy who had wired $100k to Mohammed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks and provided that embarassing link to Pakistan's ISI and proof of their involvement in the attacks. Musharraf claimed those running the ISI were acting on their own, and the head of the ISI, General Ahmed, conveniently decided to "retire" the week that this information was exposed. The 9/11 commission conveniently did not investigate any of the ISI links and failed to mention it in their report, and so most Americans do not recognize the name of this rather famous individual. But in Pakistan, he is better known that Osama bin Laden.

Most in Britain would be aware of him as well as there were rumors he had worked for MI6, so that is why she probably mentioned his name in the BBC interview, and probably why they edited it out. Bringing up Omar Sheik in Britain is like bringing up Sibel Edmonds here in the US. The network TV station simply does not want to deal with controversy.

What would happen if this became a reality????? Hmmmmm

One can't help but wonder how a Harvard/Oxford educated diplomat can mispeak such a difference. You would think she could distinguish the difference between an American name (Daniel Pearl) vs an Arabic name (Osama Bin Laden)...However you raise a valid point and the networks obviously want to avoid any type of controversy.

Why not support the US paying its debt off to the UN? If the US paid dues as other countries do then they would have the moral right to criticize the UN efforts.

I realize that you used the phrase 'pay equally'. However, if you don't like the funding formula then work to change it, instead of simply withholding dues.

How about other countries pay off their debts from WWII to the US?

I thought Britain just did, to both Canada and the US. Only took them 50 years. Didn't the US forgive most of the others, at the time of Truman and Roosevelt?

I think I read somewhere that it took the US over a century to repay loans to France after the War of Independence.

All that aside, I am not sure how that justifies withholding dues from the UN.

Because all that BS is just that BS, no country has every paid on time accept for a very few and they are not the big countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

And since the US supplies, IMO, the bulk of the forces for the UN...bodies are payment enough. I'm bias though as I see the UN as a useless collaboration in stupidity with no goal, force or purpose.

I will save the cut and paste, but here is a link that refutes that payment assumption. I think it comes down to whether you count as peacekeeping all of the non-UN US military activity. The UN doesn't.

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/fpi_peacekeeping.html

Maybe this should be a new thread, as it appears to constitute a hijack.

That is why I said IMO, UN setting up positions and then leaving to call US forces in doesn't count.

The UN does a ton more than "peace-keeping" military actions. There are millions of children who don't starve to death each year because of the UN. Look up UNICEF which is a division of the UN: http://www.unicef.org/

Thanks UNICEF has been around since I was in 1st grade...I'm aware of it. You could also watch Joe Dirt :rofl:

My personal opinion is that the UN should not be involved in anything military unless they are to be given some kind of real authority by the members. If the member countries were to sign a treaty saying that the UN military forces have authority over their own, then it would work. But otherwise, it is of no use. Combine that with the 5-perminant security council members having veto-power over any military action, and you have all the ingredients for complete failure.

So for now, I think the UN's responsibilities should be limited to non-military actions. There is still plenty of good they can do in the world.