It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Explosion heard at Bhutto rally (Bhutto Killed)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:28 PM
I guess the Australian Cricket Team's tour of Pakistan in March will be off then?

Aside from all that, I was listening to Kevin Rudd talk yesterday on ABC Sports about the situation in Pakistan. It was his understanding that Musharef (spelling...?) was going to delay elections until later next year, not in a months time.

If so, there will be no free elctions. The oppositon party is in tatters.

The puppet regime lives on.

Finally. If it were me, I would have had a strenghtened 'Pope-Mobile'. Not an open-top SUV.

Where now for Pakistan?

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
Like I said before, it's not really relevant who did it or why. What is relevant right now is public opinion. The public opinion, at least in preliminary reports, seems to be that the people of Pakistan feel the military and/or Musharraf was involved in this.

That alone is enough to start an uprising.

Whether it's fact or not remains to be seen. But the public opinion of the assassination is enough to send this situation over the boiling point. There will always be skeptics, and if the skeptics are the majority in Pakistan, then the "official story" won't matter; the country will have already sunken in to chaos and anarchy.

The real story here shouldn't be "who done it?" - it should be "what is going to come of it?". The events to follow are the real story. The riots and chaos in Pakistan, the border with India, the United States' reaction, etc.

It's a stretch right now, but this truly could have regional and global consequences, no matter who did it.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
Where now for Pakistan indeed...

Scary times lay ahead, not just for Pakistan but for the region and the world. None too stable to begin with, this country could sink into a morass like we haven't seen since Lebanon in the late 70's, early 80's, only with nuclear weapon stockpiles to liven up the situation.

Who gains from further instability? Mushariff? Well, he can and probably will declare emergency rule again. Sharif? No one to share opposition leadership with, or be overshadowed by. ISI? The not so hidden power brokers in Pakistan with as many irons in the fire as I've seen in a long time...who knows what they're up to. Al Qaeda? They've declared many of the leaders in the Islamic world apostate, worthy only of death.

Quite a hodgepoge of suspects here, all of whom have much to gain by her death. We will, in all likelihood, never know for sure who was behind it. For all we know, it could have indeed been a small conspirecy. The only thing we know for sure is Pakistan is in trouble. Get out your prayer beads folks, it could get real interesting.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Some pages back, I said the same thing. Let us not forget that WWI started almost the exact same way.

The problem is with governments that the majority of the citizens have no real faith in them being truthful. The US is a good example. Since shortly after JFK was killed, our government has lost the confidence of a large portion of it's citizens. When such an event as this happens, and the government is considered untrustworthy, the questions and doubts can boil over into major problems.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Sanity Lost
A civil war, military coup, a UN or USA takeover, or perhaps nothing to be concerned about.

erm no. Highly unlikely, it's not even related

How does China and Russia fit into the overall picture?

They don't care (strong commercial/military ties with India)

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by groverWith this we move one step closer to an unstable, nuclear country with known ties to extremists sinking into civil war and there is piss poor little we can do about it.

Way to go W.

How would you have handled Pakistan post 9/11 Gover?

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Mr Gunter
Where now for Pakistan?

This event is bad for Pakistan. I don't know much about Bhutto, but judging by the public outrage, and going off of world leaders saying she was 'hope for democracy' in Pakistan, the fact that she was assassinated means there won't be "democracy" or "peace" in Pakistan for a while, at least the next few years.

If she truly was for peace and democracy in Pakistan, or was at least a symbol of it, the fact that she was murdered means that peace, democracy, and stability in Pakistan were killed along with her.

What this means is the status quo in Pakistan will remain the status quo. Any one brave enough to fill her shoes will more than likely suffer the same fate as her. Therefore, military dictatorship rule, emergency power rule, chaos, protests, riots, killings, bombings - these will continue to be the norm in Pakistan for a while.

Unfortunately, when you have that instability, the atmosphere becomes confusing. Eventually it gets to the point of where you don't know who your enemies are. You don't know who could set off a bomb or fire a weapon in a crowd. Finger pointing starts happening and lines are drawn in the sand. That's where the civil war starts.

From civil war, it's only a matter of time before the border with India starts becoming affected. It only escalates from there.

I think this situation definitely deserves attention in the coming weeks. Pakistan has been going downhill for a better part of 2007, and I think this assassination may have been the final event that sends Pakistan in to full chaos.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by NGC2736

Having faith in a gov't. after an event like this is asking the impossible, IMHO.

Every finger in the region is pointed directly at those in power, aka Mushariff and the ISI, whether or not they had anything to do with it or not. I think it highly likely that at least the ISI had it's dirty little fingers in it. Mushariff? It doesn't fit his style, he's more an exile and jail kinda guy. Though god knows I could be badly mistaken, it wouldn't be the first time.

Breakin' out the prayer beads.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by darkbluesky
How would you have handled Pakistan post 9/11?

By not backing a military dictatorship after it overthrew a democratically elected government, which then failed to deal with the Taliban and terrorism in the region before 9/11.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Gools

I hope this doesn't turn into an "Archduke Ferdinand" type of moment in world history.

Wow Gools, that's a pretty scary thought. It could be plausible. This could easily set up a nice civil war scenario. Several parties have already said they will not participate in the upcoming Jan 8 elections. Granted there are 49 parties in the election but a few of the bigger ones have already boycotted. Say an election happens (I cannot see how one will, emergency rule will be extended IMHO); you get several of the larger parties crying foul and erupting in violence. This could spiral out of control without much problem. The US cannot help in this since we were [I an in the US] banking on Bhutto to offset the unrest. This was not a CIA or MI6 job, unless you are of the NWO/Illuminati ilk, which I am not. The MI6 and CIA like to control their assets, not let them run amok.

Obs out

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:54 PM
I'm pretty sure Russia and China will care. The stability of India is in their interest and that requires Pakistan to not go off the deep end. Not to mention their interest in Afghanistan's long-term future, which also is connected to Pakistan. And last but not least, the last thing they will want is Pakistani nukes going missing, which might be used as a pretext for US action against Iran.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:57 PM
I'm not aware of any recent pre-election polls in Pakistan.

If there were any, I'd love to know what the tracking was.

I'll commence a search after my next cup of coffee.

Does this actually leave Mushariff in a weaker position? Obviously, it's speculation, but if blood isn't on his hands, there might appear to be splatters of blood on the back of his shirt.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736
Let us not forget that WWI started almost the exact same way.

Exactly, which is why it should be watched closely. Assassinations are big deals, but on a global scale, by the public at least, they aren't really taken seriously in terms of global repercussions.

Events like these can easily get out of control. I think the fact that Pakistan has been in this condition for a while now only adds fuel to the fire. The people of Pakistan must be sick of this, so this could be what sends them in to a rage and starts a revolution.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by Jgruh4e

i dont mean to be rude---but the lady was not just killed---she was murdered--we get killed by accident or because we deserve it because of our own crimes--i dont think she deserved to die--i would say she was murdered by muslim extremists---normal people do not murder themselves in order to murder those they disagree with.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:04 PM
Bhutto's assassination is a bad omen. The WINDS OF WAR are blowing at full gale now across the Mid-East and all over the World.

I shudder to think what's up next on the horizon. Need to check out what the implications are now about this assassination and the subject of Iran. Lord help us but we all knew it was coming, right? I'm sure she knew too.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
There were subtle differences in WWI.

For one, Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination wasn't a purely domestic affair, and he wasn't just a political candidate- he was the nephew of an emperor and the heir to a throne.

Also there was a myriad of alliances built upon decades of ill-will. And even with all that, WWI probably wouldn't if everybody had come forward and said what they were thinking. Everyone assumed that everyone else was going to let it slide, so they honored their alliances, and were shocked when everyone else did as well... and so the dominoes fell.

I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever what everyone is thinking, and what everyone is willing to do about it, in this situation.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Lord help us but we all knew it was coming, right? I'm sure she knew too.

It should have been expected after the failed attempt on her life a couple months ago.

People keep mentioning Iran; is there a direct tie in with Iran in this situation? Does this benefit Iran? Does it somehow hurt Iran? I'm not aware of a connection, so if someone could fill me in, I would appreciate it.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:13 PM
Bhutto Killed=Pakistan Chaos=Nuke Hunt=Iran War

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:13 PM
If I understand correctly, India and Iran generally agree on the need to keep Pakistan stable, and Iran has problems in its East spilling over from Pakistani Baluchistan.
This could mean some Iranian meddling.

Beyond that, if Pakistan's nukes go missing, America could use it as an excuse to go looking for them in Iran.
Thread on Pakistan Mess Turning into Iran War

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

It'll be interesting to see who attempts to control this revolt, should it happen. My primary concern is the safety and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile, some estimates say as many as one hundred. In the hands of the wrong folk? Bad times lay ahead.

The Duke Ferdinand analogy could be more accurate than we fear. Too many countries, this one included, have interests in the region, not to want a say in who steps into power in the event of a revolt against Mushariff. A world war, don't think so; but a regional conflict to complicate an already complicated situation?

Too early to tell yet. But the odds do make it seem likely.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in