New Footage of Bhutto's death

Even though the Shiite/Sunni issues go back hundreds of years, its the whole the enemy of my enemy thing. They would truth their own instead of the Great Satan. And I don't trust the UN to do the right thing - between scandals (such as oil for food) and inept leadership, it would be easier to have no autopsy. Since this is a conspiracy site, I will go with body swap or paid off doc's doing the autopsy if they exhume her. An autopsy would only be useful if they think it wasn't a head bump or shooting. The video posted above is pretty convincing that it was a shooting.

Just my .02.

reply to post by harddrive21


But that has not played itself out in Iraq with Sheite and Sunnis, killing themselves in addition to the US.

How this for a fringe theory: The Pakistan secret service did a deal with Bhuttos husband?

[edit on 12/30/07 by FredT]

Yeah, not sure who's buying the "bumped her head" story...
Why though? Why the "coverup??"

I can't see it being her husband in honesty, Fred. He already had control of the party and I just can't see what he would gain from it.

The gunman and the bomber seem to me to be two separate threads. One in a suit and shades, the other in traditional dress. One calm and collected as he shoots, the other setting his bomb off in panic when he sees what's happened(?).

I will buy that theory. He paid them off with the money she embezzled. He still has a ton of stolen cash and will be elected into a leadership position again. FredT I like the way you think.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I can't see it being her husband in honesty, Fred. He already had control of the party and I just can't see what he would gain from it.

But she was the public face and despite her troubled history far more electable than he would have even been minus this tragedy. With her martyred, the grieving Husband steps in and assumes the role his wife would have taken despite the risk to him and his family.

You have to admit he would have had easy access to her inner circle and known her security detail down to the letter.

[edit on 12/30/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT
With her martyred, the grieving Husband steps in and assumes the role his wife would have taken despite the risk to him and his family.

You have to admit he would have had easy access to her inner circle and known her security detail down to the letter.

[edit on 12/30/07 by FredT]

But the role he has now is exactly the role he had before. In actual fact he has come out of this with slightly less power as he now only has a young boy representing the party. The fact he hasn't stepped into that role and has instead left it to his son who won't be able to take office for many years speaks volumes.

Unless he's playing a very long game I don't think he's in the frame.

reply to post by Chris McGee


Ill tell you one thing for sure. We are lucky if we have even 5% of the story here. There are alot of nefarious forces at work here.

Its also possible that two separate org. had ops planned for the event as well.

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by Chris McGee

 

Ill tell you one thing for sure. We are lucky if we have even 5% of the story here. There are alot of nefarious forces at work here.

On that I agree completely. This isn't a one line post by the way.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Little bit out there but what if it was two separate attempts? One sent a bomber, the other sent a gunman....

Or, pehaps, one hand being Washed by the other... unwittingly.

Unknown to and independent of each other, guided thru and or by higher powers than either they nor their superiors were aware of, both intent on accomplishing their "misson".

[shooter] "Get as close as possible..."

[bomber] "When you hear gunshots..."

*bang*
*bang*
*bang*
+/-

*BOOM*

Mission accomplished, to include janitorial [cleanup] services. (?)

Hose down the scene and bury the body.

Plausible... (?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

shot
not shot
shrapnel
no shrapnel
sunroof lever
video upon video... supportive and otherwise.

In my opinion, wheels are turning and we are tasked with discerning the cogs they're conjoined with.

? thoughts ?



 

I've edited the OP to include links to other related discussions, the subject lines alone are quite telling.

This story has had some interesting twists and turns.

Who had the greatest motive here?

If I am not mistaken Al-Qaeda does not because of their Islamic faith target any woman for assassination, while women are casualties of 'jihad' or victims of Islamic laws, they cannot nor will ever openly target a woman.

So forget the Al-Qaeda connection if the above is true... I agree that Musharraf had the motive. Did he act on it, and if so, did he have help?

The problem is the nuclear weapons... This could quickly become a very dangerous situation.. On one hand one can say that it's clear that Musharraf is a madman and evil dictator willing to do anything to retain power over Pakistan, in fact... For him it could literally be a matter of life and death as well. If he falls from power ... The next regime will likely have strong ties to the radical Islamic organizations in Pakistan... So... The US also has cause and reason to ensure that Musharraf remains in power .. for now.

Could the CIA have been involved in the assassination?

Ultimately, we may never know.

Perhaps by design.


[edit on 30-12-2007 by UM_Gazz]

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Good thoughts.

Is the changing story significant? Why does it matter how she was killed? If one group sent a gunner and it was proven a gun killed her could they be held responsible? A bomb is much easier to dismiss as terrorists?

Who gains? That depends on what happens next. Will the US go in? I don't think so. Will Mush fall? I also think not. If the status quo is maintained, who benefits and to what end? The Taliban / Al Qaeda benefit as the tribal lands will still be theirs and the government is a little more unstable. The ISI benefit from the status quo as Mush is in their palms and he knows it.

What would have happened had she lived? Mush would be out of power and with him the military. Could the military have been behind one of the assassins? What kind of explosive was it?

What about the shootings of the opposition the same day (night before?)? Were they significant? I can't see how they're not. Was the other opposition leader directly endangered in these shootings?

Too many questions and not enough answers.

Could the military have done this without Mush's knowledge? Military / ISI op?

reply to post by Chris McGee


Id lean towards the ISI before the military. He is supposed to have a pretty good grip on that. But the ISI is and has been a loose cannon in Pakistan since the days of the Soviet Afgan invasion. And they have never been shy about this kind of thing. Ill bet former General Zia could say a few things to that effect

they just HAD to be working together, both in on it.

out of all those people jam packed in that area they both arrived together from the same direction and stayed together as they entered the crowd. Then they seperated as they approached their target.

a two pronged attack is a lot more likely to get the target than just 1, and it takes care of the gunman at the same time.

it also makes for great backup plan incase one is nabbed pulling his gun or misses his target which is followed up by the detonation.

gunman is there to take her life but knows he will never escape once he fires.
bomber takes care of gunman AND is a secondary attack on bhutto's car at the same time.

it seems the most logical answer to me, i find it impossible to believe they didnt have previous knowledge of the others plan especially when they arrive together.

Sound weapon. laser? From Video on cnn

An article, posted today, implicating the possible complicity of Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan’s ISI, the Inter Services Intelligence, in the murder of her own brother Murtaza, reveals:

Source | ZNet | They Don’t Blame Al-Qa’ida. They Blame Musharraf.

Towards the end of this report, Tariq Ali dwelt at length on the subsequent murder of Murtaza Bhutto by police close to his home at a time when Benazir was prime minister - and at a time when Benazir was enraged at Murtaza for demanding a return to PPP values and for condemning Benazir’s appointment of her own husband as minister for industry, a highly lucrative post.

In a passage which may yet be applied to the aftermath of Benazir’s murder, the report continues: “The fatal bullet had been fired at close range. The trap had been carefully laid, but, as is the way in Pakistan, the crudeness of the operation - false entries in police log-books, lost evidence, witnesses arrested and intimidated - a policeman killed who they feared might talk - made it obvious that the decision to execute the prime minister’s brother had been taken at a very high level.”

Ultimately, what will be most important, is who the people of Pakistan believe is behind this.


Source | ZNet | They Don’t Blame Al-Qa’ida. They Blame Musharraf.



[edit on 30-12-2007 by goosdawg]


Mod Edit: Removed excessive copy/paste external source material. "If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject."

[edit on 30-12-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Yeah, not sure who's buying the "bumped her head" story...
Why though? Why the "coverup??"

Not I- I knew she didn't bump her head on the sunroof doors because they were on both sides of her. Now if they were put in different then yes it would have been possible that she would hit her head as she fell.

Its clear that the Pakastan government is corrupted and will say anything to fool people.

I actually work personally as a security guard and have done so for many years. Most people regard security guards as low and inconsequential people who interfere with the happiness of others in ways that are often heavy handed and stupid. There is some justification for this view.

We in the industry see a more complex picture, but leaving that aside for the moment, what I wanted to say is that after many years in the rule enforcement community one developes something akin to the sort of intuition developed by our cousins, the members of the law enforcement community. One developes a nose for crime, which leads me to the following.

Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf, had two main opponents in the political system, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Call me a dumb flatfoot, but didn't Nawaz Sharif have the most to gain from the disappearance of Benazir Bhutto?

Again, call me a low life security guard but didn't the political conditions in Pakistan present the ideal opportunity for someone who was not the reviled Musharraf or the ever industrious Al Quaeda to slip in and commit a murder, undetected? Food for thought.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by ipsedixit]

History has shown that the ropes of all assassinations of super-high-profile individuals have been pulled by equally high or higher offices or officers. And almost without exception, all assassins have been eliminated soon after their deed. (One exception that comes to mind is Agca, who shot the pope in 1981)

But this one may be the quickest elimination process that there ever was. Especially if you really believe the gunman had no idea what was to ensue. Where would he have gone? Run through a crowd of her supporters? The last hi-level public assassination where the assasins walked away must have been Julius Caesar's.

I would argue that the gunman, just like the bomber, is very likely to be on a suicide mission. No shortage of brainwashed people who'd be willing to do this. The failure to take her out in their first attempt with only a bomb, must have pushed the planners to devise a full proof strategy where a gunman guarantees death at point blank range, and a bomber removes all evidence or a possible confession.

These suicide attacks, in their planning, timing and execution are highly sophisticated military operations. Not unlike a mission successfully carried out by soldiers but ends with two casualties. The only difference is that suicide attackers can decide, in advance, who and how many their own casualties will be...

Many conspiracy theories will probably stem out of this killing (as it should) but by the time the smoke screen that they are building as we speak thins out, and history suggests the whos and whys of it, their bigger goal will have been already achieved... Right under our noses...And, in all likeliness, as a result, we will get buried deeper in to the the global poop that we are in.

The tone for the first half of this century has been set. It really annoys me that I WILL BE DEAD by then.

In all his genius, Orwell f'd up big time by naming his book 1984. Like idiots, we took our eyes off the ball, as soon as the dreaded calendar year was over. Wish he had named it 2034 or something. Maybe then, we would have been watching the people who took this book as a GUIDE instead of a WARNING.

Let us not forget the 20+ Me's and You's that also died that day for supporting democracy.

They never get mentioned.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by IvanZana]