Yeah, I usually assume that Americans getting stories wrong isn't so much the fault of individual ignorance, but more US network news not yet having realised that there are other countries.
I feel compelled to ask, and in all seriousness, do you blame JFK for his death? Do you believe that Bobby was responsible for his? Or Dr. King?
Only if they knew they were putting themselves into clear, unnecessary, danger.
If a guy is sleeping on some railroad tracks when he knows very well that trains often come by, it is not the train driver's fault when he get's run over, it's his own.
That's comparable to standing on a firing range, not doing something that draws the ire of political hardliners.
I feel compelled to ask, and in all seriousness, do you blame JFK for his death? Do you believe that Bobby was responsible for his? Or Dr. King?
Only if they knew they were putting themselves into clear, unnecessary, danger.
If a guy is sleeping on some railroad tracks when he knows very well that trains often come by, it is not the train driver's fault when he get's run over, it's his own.
If a guy is sleeping on some railroad tracks when he knows very well that trains often come by, it is not the train driver's fault when he get's run over, it's his own.
Sure, but if Benazir Bhutto is having a political rally and some bloke shoots her then blows himself up, that's kind of his fault, not hers. :roll:
If a guy is sleeping on some railroad tracks when he knows very well that trains often come by, it is not the train driver's fault when he get's run over, it's his own.
Sure, but if Benazir Bhutto is having a political rally and some bloke shoots her then blows himself up, that's kind of his fault, not hers. :roll:
She was standing out from a sunroof. This is after huge bombings against her before and repeated threats. She was taking a massive risk from being so exposed in public, and she paid for it.
Its clearly not her "fault", but it was hardly surprising that it happened.
Don't need to read Time, just have a look at this thread.
In which people who quite sensibly scorn those like entropykid in conspiracy theory threads are happy to wander in here a few hours after an assassination, and without any apparent expertise in security, ballistics, explosives, internal Pakistani politics or such, opine about how Musharraf was likely behind it all, examine amateur video for evidence, etc etc.
Hindsight makes scholars of us all, eh?
Meh. I don't see what's wrong in including Musharraf in the list of suspects.
So now there's talk about digging her up again. Plenty of theories about her actually getting hit by bullets and the government sticking her in the dirt real quick to cover it up.
I thought that quick burials were an Islam thing. Maybe not.
Doc on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
So now there's talk about digging her up again. Plenty of theories about her actually getting hit by bullets and the government sticking her in the dirt real quick to cover it up.
I thought that quick burials were an Islam thing. Maybe not.
I'm fairly sure it is.
I remember reading about people in warzones going through hell trying to get people buried before the next dawn.
To those of you who consider that it was her own fault for putting herself in this dangerous situation, you are right, in a way.
It was her choice to enter into a dangerous situation, she could have made the choice to sit out the elections in safe comfort outside the country but that would have not been as helpful as being there in person. But even if she had run this campaign outside of Pakistan, there isn't any way to be absolutely certain that an assassin wouldn't have tried to kill her in Dubai or any other place she it.
Deviant Hands, I understand what you mean when you said that the front lines were no place for a woman but you must consider that there are NO MORE FRONT LINES. If someone wants to kill you, they will be patient and plan carefully and will find ways around your measures of protection.
Whats more, people have the right to choose whether or not to die in service of their country. This was her home, these were her people, for her, abandoning them to the growing chaos was not an option. Bhutto knew her death, like all humans' deaths, was eventual. She knew that her enemies would try to assassinate her and that it was only a matter of time. If she was going to die, she had an obligation to accomplish as much as she could before that time came. By her very existence, she was a threat to several of the political factions in Pakistan and eventually someone would come to punch her ticket, this way, she could die knowing that in someway things will get better.
Of course its going to be a long, hard road running red with the blood of the innocent, but no one tried to challenge the status quo in Pakistan, the alternative would be much worse for everyone.
To anyone else who decries her actions as foolish, what if it was America in that situation and what if it was your family that had died trying to bring about political change?
edit: Oh, and Islam demands that a body be buried within 3 days of death. Muslims and Jews have pretty much the same apprehension of dead people, one quirk of coming from the same religious origins.
A blast doesn't have to rip you to shreds with shrapnel in order to kill you. The concussive force could well have knocked her into the sun roof which seems a good deal more realistic than her deadly ducking abilities. It'll take a bit to figure out. Especially since they likely aren't going to exume the body so it'll be based on analyzing what they have and not pulling things out of asses.
This. She didn't die because she heard a bomb go off and though it would be a good day to die and slammed her head into the car on purpose. Concussive force is deadly, it kills more of our troops in armored vehicles than the actual IED explosions do. Armor stops the shrapnel and such, but it doesn't stop the concussion, soldiers can survive the explosion just fine thanks to the armor, pass a medic exam, and die over night. Their insides look like one congealed mass of blood.
Seems likely to me the force of the explosion knocked her around inside the car and, sadly, cracked her skull.
Don't need to read Time, just have a look at this thread.
In which people who quite sensibly scorn those like entropykid in conspiracy theory threads are happy to wander in here a few hours after an assassination, and without any apparent expertise in security, ballistics, explosives, internal Pakistani politics or such, opine about how Musharraf was likely behind it all, examine amateur video for evidence, etc etc.
Hindsight makes scholars of us all, eh?
Meh. I don't see what's wrong in including Musharraf in the list of suspects.
Yea, but the Pakistani government totally got an intercept which implicates Al Qaeda. And only 1 day after the event! Conundrum solved.
Goumindong on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Well, the thing about including Musharraf in the suspects is that he did have motive to take her out as a competitor of power, but she had enough other enemies to do it that he wouldn't necessarily have to go out of his way to have her end up assassinated. There are more than enough nutjobs in the area that wanted her dead such that he could just tacitly allow the assassination to happen and not go out of his way to protect her or prevent underlings from conspiring independently against her. He could be somewhat culpable in this situation, but that is rather different from being in the group that pulled the trigger.
Of course, he could have had a more active role in it, but it seems like the default position without contrary evidence would be something like above.
Of course, when everyone benefits, the other question you should be asking is 'who has the most to lose', either from the assassination, or being discovered / suspected to be part of it. Musharraf has a fair amount to lose from the latter (whereas, for example, warlords and such don't give a toss) and as Savant says, he didn't need to be personally involved for it to happen anyway.
I also think some people here are probably conflating Musharraf and 'the government' or 'the army'. Pakistani political figures are extremely factional, and it is quite possible for the Army, government factions, or even people very close to Musharraf to have done this without him being aware.
Most of all, if he had personally been involved, do you really think he would have picked his home town, the major Army base in the country, and his political power-base, as the place to do it? It was bound to start conspiracy theories and a popular perception in Pakistan that he was behind it, which does him no good whatsoever.
The latest news is that Bhutto's 19 year old son has assumed joint leadership of the party with his father. Democracy shall triumph (so long as its in the family?)!
The latest news is that Bhutto's 19 year old son has assumed joint leadership of the party with his father. Democracy shall triumph (so long as its in the family?)!
Over there lineage pretty important, and it's particularly important here, because Bhutto herself took over leadership from her executed father when she wasn't that much older than her son.
Also it saves on writing new names on the ballots.
And honestly, it's pretty important in the West, too. Would George W. Bush have even had a shot at the presidency if he weren't the progeny of one of the premier American aristocratic families?
Dracomicron on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
The latest news is that Bhutto's 19 year old son has assumed joint leadership of the party with his father. Democracy shall triumph (so long as its in the family?)!
Over there lineage pretty important, and it's particularly important here, because Bhutto herself took over leadership from her executed father when she wasn't that much older than her son.
Also it saves on writing new names on the ballots.
And honestly, it's pretty important in the West, too. Would George W. Bush have even had a shot at the presidency if he weren't the progeny of one of the premier American aristocratic families?
Coretta Scott King took over when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed.
Bobby Kennedy tried to win the Presidency after JFK was killed.
And back in 2000 when John Ashcroft was running for Senator of Missouri and his opponent died a few weeks before the election, he lost to said dead guy and dead guy's wife got the Senate seat in his stead.
So yeah, Bhutto's son taking over for his mom isn't something that is rare in democratic circles.
edit: Sonny Bono's wife took over for him when he died as well.
of Missouri and his opponent died a few weeks before the election, he lost to said dead guy and dead guy's wife got the Senate seat in his stead.
I loved that story... though the death is eerie in retrospect. Democratic candidates, such as my own state's beloved Paul Wellstone, tend to die in small airplane accidents. It leads my normally sane mind into conspiracy theory crazy land.
The latest news is that Bhutto's 19 year old son has assumed joint leadership of the party with his father. Democracy shall triumph (so long as its in the family?)!
Over there lineage pretty important, and it's particularly important here, because Bhutto herself took over leadership from her executed father when she wasn't that much older than her son.
Also it saves on writing new names on the ballots.
And honestly, it's pretty important in the West, too. Would George W. Bush have even had a shot at the presidency if he weren't the progeny of one of the premier American aristocratic families?
Of course you are right, we do indulge in nepotism in the West as well. I just find a 19 year old becoming leader of the party more blatent than most.
Who knows. All I really know is that it didn't have to be this way. This was incredibly irresponsible on Bhutto's part, brave or not.
Wow, is there anything you'd stand up against or would you be too worried about being hurt to fight for what you believe in?
Standing up for what you believe in doesn't have to be a suicide mission. That's what I'm getting at.
How was THIS a suicide mission? Because there were hostile elements in the country? Well fuck there was hostile elements on Rosa Park's bus I guess she should have just shut up and given her seat up I mean what an irresponsible moron.
Of course, when everyone benefits, the other question you should be asking is 'who has the most to lose', either from the assassination, or being discovered / suspected to be part of it. Musharraf has a fair amount to lose from the latter (whereas, for example, warlords and such don't give a toss) and as Savant says, he didn't need to be personally involved for it to happen anyway.
I also think some people here are probably conflating Musharraf and 'the government' or 'the army'. Pakistani political figures are extremely factional, and it is quite possible for the Army, government factions, or even people very close to Musharraf to have done this without him being aware.
Most of all, if he had personally been involved, do you really think he would have picked his home town, the major Army base in the country, and his political power-base, as the place to do it? It was bound to start conspiracy theories and a popular perception in Pakistan that he was behind it, which does him no good whatsoever.
People miscalculate (see Syria). And I haven't spotted much conspiracy in this thread. I did spot people saying it couldn't have been him, and people arguing about how it could be him.
That's a pretty massive miscalculation compared to the much easier alternative of not killing her in an Army garrison town that Musharraf happens to be based in. Especially since this plot has clearly been devised in a limited period of time (ie since Bhutto returned), for all of which the writing has been on the wall for the popular perception of Musharraf.
He would have to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of yes-men telling him that everything is hunky-dory and killing her in a symbolic place would cow the population to his will, which simply doesn't fit with either what we know (quite a lot) about his political circle, or the man himself.
People do miscalculate, but working out what happened in these situations is always a matter of probabilities, and it is very improbable that he made that particular miscalculation.
@ Deviant Hands, since he hasn't responded: I know a bloke who worked CP details in Pakistan, seconded from the RMP to train their bodyguards & such. He left the Army because he was tired of teaching good principles, and then a month down the line after he left seeing them completely ignored in place of the slapdash approach to security that is evident in this case, and seeing protectees killed as a result. My impression is that accusing Bhutto of ignoring her own security to attend political rallies is a like accusing a Congressman in DC of walking on concrete. It's inevitable, because to achieve those political ends in that country, you have to take certain risks.
The location of isn't so significant as to dismiss him as a possibility. There's nothing especially suspicious about garrison towns. It's not like the military and security forces don't have a presence in near damn any place she'll go.
The location of isn't so significant as to dismiss him as a possibility. There's nothing especially suspicious about garrison towns. It's not like the military and security forces don't have a presence in near damn any place she'll go.
No, the location is extremely significant. It's not just a garrison town. It's de facto Army headquarters, it's where Musharraf lives, where his family lives, it's his political power-base within the Army...it's Musharraftown.
It's like Hilary Clinton being assassinated on the Bush ranch. It's pretty significant.
The location of isn't so significant as to dismiss him as a possibility. There's nothing especially suspicious about garrison towns. It's not like the military and security forces don't have a presence in near damn any place she'll go.
No, the location is extremely significant. It's not just a garrison town. It's de facto Army headquarters, it's where Musharraf lives, where his family lives, it's his political power-base within the Army...it's Musharraftown.
It's like Hilary Clinton being assassinated on the Bush ranch. It's pretty significant.
No, that would be Islamabad. Rawalpindi is fuck all like DC. It would be somewhere like Rockville or Woodbridge - close by, and where plenty of the capital elite live, but not the same city. Not even the same state.
It is also symbolic as the city where her father was executed (by, ooh! a military dictatorship!), as well as a previous assassination of a PM in the 50's if I remember right.
Anyway, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
I used DC because it's just the random big city the popped into my head. New York would work just as well. She was assassinated in a big city. Could've been Musharraf, could've been security, could've been militants.
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
I'm naive if I assume this wasn't done by someone who wasn't Musharraf and who planned it in a way that the suspicion would fall entirely on him?
I thought this was started because a bunch of us were doing some ridiculous conspiracy theorizing.
Elki on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Can we somehow blame Iran and then start an invasion?
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
I'm naive if I assume this wasn't done by someone who wasn't Musharraf and who planned it in a way that the suspicion would fall entirely on him?
I thought this was started because a bunch of us were doing some ridiculous conspiracy theorizing.
I think it’s hardly a conspiracy theory to assert that an anti-Bhutto faction would attempt to cast blame on Musharraf. That seems, well, smart. Hardly conspiratorial, just more like common sense. And one way to cast blame on Musharraf would be the place of execution.
Honestly I don’t see what’s difficult to follow or in any way outrageous about Sarastro’s theory.
Upon reflection, my batshit conspiracy theory is that it's Nawaz Sharif, the guy Musharraf deposed and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League. The guy who had a plane hijacked rather than let Musharraf back into the country. The guy who wanted to make Pakistan a religious state again. The guy who somehow beat Bhutto's populist party with 90% of the vote, leading to many existing chages of voter fraud. The Pakistan Election Commission banned him from participating in the upcoming elections the day after he met with Bhutto to try and convince her to boycot the elections unless Musharraf re-instated the judges that were fired. Bhutto had said that the new Parliament could debate the fired judges issue after the election. Snap?
All the same, after she was killed, he rushed to the hospital, spoke of Bhutto as his "sister," and has vowed to avenge her death. He is, in fact, insisting that Musharraf was responsible and is calling for him to step down. Man, where was he when the previous president was going after her party on ill-defined corruption charges? Oh wait, he stood to benefit from those.
If I were a man prone to conspiracy theory, I would suggest that, as the party who had most recently been denied what he wanted by Bhutto (boycotting the elections), and the man who had the most to gain from one of the three most important politicians in the country being out of the picture (a Muslim League proxy having potentially a better chance against a PPP proxy than against Bhutto herself) and the other, the sitting president, being disgraced or framed with her murder, that Nawaz Sharif be looked at very closely here.
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
I'm naive if I assume this wasn't done by someone who wasn't Musharraf and who planned it in a way that the suspicion would fall entirely on him?
I thought this was started because a bunch of us were doing some ridiculous conspiracy theorizing.
I think it’s hardly a conspiracy theory to assert that an anti-Bhutto faction would attempt to cast blame on Musharraf. That seems, well, smart. Hardly conspiratorial, just more like common sense. And one way to cast blame on Musharraf would be the place of execution.
Honestly I don’t see what’s difficult to follow or in any way outrageous about Sarastro’s theory.
My point isn't that it's an outrageous theory. It's that it's not such a strong theory as to put all others out of consideration, and make anyone who considers other possibilities naive.
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
I'm naive if I assume this wasn't done by someone who wasn't Musharraf and who planned it in a way that the suspicion would fall entirely on him?
And so i can clearly not drink from the Glass in front of you!
Posts
That's news.
That's comparable to standing on a firing range, not doing something that draws the ire of political hardliners.
God, you are a huge fucking tool.
Sure, but if Benazir Bhutto is having a political rally and some bloke shoots her then blows himself up, that's kind of his fault, not hers. :roll:
She was standing out from a sunroof. This is after huge bombings against her before and repeated threats. She was taking a massive risk from being so exposed in public, and she paid for it.
Its clearly not her "fault", but it was hardly surprising that it happened.
Meh. I don't see what's wrong in including Musharraf in the list of suspects.
I thought that quick burials were an Islam thing. Maybe not.
I remember reading about people in warzones going through hell trying to get people buried before the next dawn.
It was her choice to enter into a dangerous situation, she could have made the choice to sit out the elections in safe comfort outside the country but that would have not been as helpful as being there in person. But even if she had run this campaign outside of Pakistan, there isn't any way to be absolutely certain that an assassin wouldn't have tried to kill her in Dubai or any other place she it.
Deviant Hands, I understand what you mean when you said that the front lines were no place for a woman but you must consider that there are NO MORE FRONT LINES. If someone wants to kill you, they will be patient and plan carefully and will find ways around your measures of protection.
Whats more, people have the right to choose whether or not to die in service of their country. This was her home, these were her people, for her, abandoning them to the growing chaos was not an option. Bhutto knew her death, like all humans' deaths, was eventual. She knew that her enemies would try to assassinate her and that it was only a matter of time. If she was going to die, she had an obligation to accomplish as much as she could before that time came. By her very existence, she was a threat to several of the political factions in Pakistan and eventually someone would come to punch her ticket, this way, she could die knowing that in someway things will get better.
Of course its going to be a long, hard road running red with the blood of the innocent, but no one tried to challenge the status quo in Pakistan, the alternative would be much worse for everyone.
To anyone else who decries her actions as foolish, what if it was America in that situation and what if it was your family that had died trying to bring about political change?
edit: Oh, and Islam demands that a body be buried within 3 days of death. Muslims and Jews have pretty much the same apprehension of dead people, one quirk of coming from the same religious origins.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
This. She didn't die because she heard a bomb go off and though it would be a good day to die and slammed her head into the car on purpose. Concussive force is deadly, it kills more of our troops in armored vehicles than the actual IED explosions do. Armor stops the shrapnel and such, but it doesn't stop the concussion, soldiers can survive the explosion just fine thanks to the armor, pass a medic exam, and die over night. Their insides look like one congealed mass of blood.
Seems likely to me the force of the explosion knocked her around inside the car and, sadly, cracked her skull.
Yea, but the Pakistani government totally got an intercept which implicates Al Qaeda. And only 1 day after the event! Conundrum solved.
Wow, is there anything you'd stand up against or would you be too worried about being hurt to fight for what you believe in?
Of course, he could have had a more active role in it, but it seems like the default position without contrary evidence would be something like above.
Of course, when everyone benefits, the other question you should be asking is 'who has the most to lose', either from the assassination, or being discovered / suspected to be part of it. Musharraf has a fair amount to lose from the latter (whereas, for example, warlords and such don't give a toss) and as Savant says, he didn't need to be personally involved for it to happen anyway.
I also think some people here are probably conflating Musharraf and 'the government' or 'the army'. Pakistani political figures are extremely factional, and it is quite possible for the Army, government factions, or even people very close to Musharraf to have done this without him being aware.
Most of all, if he had personally been involved, do you really think he would have picked his home town, the major Army base in the country, and his political power-base, as the place to do it? It was bound to start conspiracy theories and a popular perception in Pakistan that he was behind it, which does him no good whatsoever.
Over there lineage pretty important, and it's particularly important here, because Bhutto herself took over leadership from her executed father when she wasn't that much older than her son.
Also it saves on writing new names on the ballots.
And honestly, it's pretty important in the West, too. Would George W. Bush have even had a shot at the presidency if he weren't the progeny of one of the premier American aristocratic families?
Coretta Scott King took over when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed.
Bobby Kennedy tried to win the Presidency after JFK was killed.
And back in 2000 when John Ashcroft was running for Senator of Missouri and his opponent died a few weeks before the election, he lost to said dead guy and dead guy's wife got the Senate seat in his stead.
So yeah, Bhutto's son taking over for his mom isn't something that is rare in democratic circles.
edit: Sonny Bono's wife took over for him when he died as well.
I loved that story... though the death is eerie in retrospect. Democratic candidates, such as my own state's beloved Paul Wellstone, tend to die in small airplane accidents. It leads my normally sane mind into conspiracy theory crazy land.
Of course you are right, we do indulge in nepotism in the West as well. I just find a 19 year old becoming leader of the party more blatent than most.
Ah but her husband is taking some power too.
Standing up for what you believe in doesn't have to be a suicide mission. That's what I'm getting at.
Explain how?
(Using this situation)
How was THIS a suicide mission? Because there were hostile elements in the country? Well fuck there was hostile elements on Rosa Park's bus I guess she should have just shut up and given her seat up I mean what an irresponsible moron.
People miscalculate (see Syria). And I haven't spotted much conspiracy in this thread. I did spot people saying it couldn't have been him, and people arguing about how it could be him.
He would have to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall of yes-men telling him that everything is hunky-dory and killing her in a symbolic place would cow the population to his will, which simply doesn't fit with either what we know (quite a lot) about his political circle, or the man himself.
People do miscalculate, but working out what happened in these situations is always a matter of probabilities, and it is very improbable that he made that particular miscalculation.
@ Deviant Hands, since he hasn't responded: I know a bloke who worked CP details in Pakistan, seconded from the RMP to train their bodyguards & such. He left the Army because he was tired of teaching good principles, and then a month down the line after he left seeing them completely ignored in place of the slapdash approach to security that is evident in this case, and seeing protectees killed as a result. My impression is that accusing Bhutto of ignoring her own security to attend political rallies is a like accusing a Congressman in DC of walking on concrete. It's inevitable, because to achieve those political ends in that country, you have to take certain risks.
You can't hide forever, if someone wants to kill you, they will try and they will hurt you. Look at Reagan, the Kennedy family, and Dr. MLK Jr..
Since she really believed in a better Pakistan, she had no choice but to go back and hope she got a lot done before they killed her.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
No, the location is extremely significant. It's not just a garrison town. It's de facto Army headquarters, it's where Musharraf lives, where his family lives, it's his political power-base within the Army...it's Musharraftown.
It's like Hilary Clinton being assassinated on the Bush ranch. It's pretty significant.
No, it's more like DC.
It is also symbolic as the city where her father was executed (by, ooh! a military dictatorship!), as well as a previous assassination of a PM in the 50's if I remember right.
Anyway, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
What don't I know?
Just what I've been saying about the city for the last page? Like, in my last post?
Look, don't take my word for it, go read about Rawalpindi from other sources and see the massive concurrence of events, places & personal connections to Musharraf, the army & political executions that it has, then come back here and tell me that it doesn't make any difference. Because I assure you (again, read it elsewhere) it is being seen as almost a fete-a-compli by a lot of people in Pakistan.
The site of the assassination is extremely symbolic, and it's naive to assert that this is totally coincidental.
I'm naive if I assume this wasn't done by someone who wasn't Musharraf and who planned it in a way that the suspicion would fall entirely on him?
I thought this was started because a bunch of us were doing some ridiculous conspiracy theorizing.
Just asking guys.
Love,
GWB
I think it’s hardly a conspiracy theory to assert that an anti-Bhutto faction would attempt to cast blame on Musharraf. That seems, well, smart. Hardly conspiratorial, just more like common sense. And one way to cast blame on Musharraf would be the place of execution.
Honestly I don’t see what’s difficult to follow or in any way outrageous about Sarastro’s theory.
All the same, after she was killed, he rushed to the hospital, spoke of Bhutto as his "sister," and has vowed to avenge her death. He is, in fact, insisting that Musharraf was responsible and is calling for him to step down. Man, where was he when the previous president was going after her party on ill-defined corruption charges? Oh wait, he stood to benefit from those.
If I were a man prone to conspiracy theory, I would suggest that, as the party who had most recently been denied what he wanted by Bhutto (boycotting the elections), and the man who had the most to gain from one of the three most important politicians in the country being out of the picture (a Muslim League proxy having potentially a better chance against a PPP proxy than against Bhutto herself) and the other, the sitting president, being disgraced or framed with her murder, that Nawaz Sharif be looked at very closely here.
My point isn't that it's an outrageous theory. It's that it's not such a strong theory as to put all others out of consideration, and make anyone who considers other possibilities naive.
And so i can clearly not drink from the Glass in front of you!