It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Who engineered Bhutto's killing?--MUST READ

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Great article by one of Pakistan's most respected journalists Ardeshir Cowasjee


AS long as Pakistan chooses to remain a serf state, a vassal of the powers that sustain it, both from West and East, it will be a nation of ‘subcontinental monkeys’ who have yet to lose their tails and climb down from the high trees.

How long will this country remain subservient to those who can reason and think?

Who engineered the killing of Benazir Bhutto? Apart from her own quest for power, it can safely and with emphasis be said that it was the rulers of the western world, the governments of George W. Bush of the USA, and of firstly Tony Blair and then of Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom. It was their global policies conjured up to suit their present-day needs and desires, their policy of having ‘no permanent friends’, that dispatched Benazir back to Pakistan and to her doom. This is the unified opinion of their own press and media.

It is perhaps set out most clearly in a Washington Post report of Dec 28 under the heading ‘US brokered Bhutto’s return to Pakistan’. Clear and simple — as it says it. “For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy . . .” Rice, reportedly, was only engaged in the final stages of the famous ‘deal’. Her call was made to Benazir in Dubai. “A week later, on October 18, Bhutto returned. Ten weeks later she was dead.”

www.dawn.com...


seems to me that the anglos and americans are trying to destabilise Pakistan , could this be a possibility




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I'm sorry to say this is the silliest notion I've seen on ATS apart from alleged anti-gravity drive onboard the Shuttle.

It is in the BEST INTEREST of the West to keep Pakistan stable. From loose nukes to AQ resurgence, the West will face all sort of [snip] storm in Pakistan if it's destabilized.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Gools]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
thats the biggest load of -snip- ive herd on this forum yet,

and a twisted version of the real truth, its was clearly islamic millitants and the reason is very clear to everybody, lol


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Gools]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
A stable Pakistan is in the best interest of the West. The proposal that they wish to destabilize it is bordering on absurd. A Pakistan in chaos is one of the worst possible scenarios imaginable, in fact, the US orchestration of Bhutto's return was an attempt to introduce a stabilizing measure to the embattled Musharraf regime.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm sorry to say this is the silliest notion I've seen on ATS apart from alleged anti-gravity drive onboard the Shuttle.

It is in the BEST INTEREST of the West to keep Pakistan stable. From loose nukes to AQ resurgence, the West will face all sort of sh!t storm in Pakistan if it's destabilized.



Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
thats the biggest load of c**p ive herd on this forum yet,

and a twisted version of the real truth, its was clearly islamic millitants and the reason is very clear to everybody, lol


First and foremost,it would be really nice if this was a discussion. You both seem violently opposed to this notion put forth by the OP. Could you please explain why? Your harsh attacks do nothing to dismiss the idea, only assault it.

In the last 15 years of my life I have learned about a lot of things my country has done that make no sense. It has been in terms of power and war that actions often seem to make the least sense of all. I have wondered myself what could possibly have been gained by the west to see Pakistan crumble. If I am too far out there correct me. But please do it with logic and ideas and not reactionary insults.


Originally posted by Reality Hurts
A stable Pakistan is in the best interest of the West. The proposal that they wish to destabilize it is bordering on absurd. A Pakistan in chaos is one of the worst possible scenarios imaginable, in fact, the US orchestration of Bhutto's return was an attempt to introduce a stabilizing measure to the embattled Musharraf regime.


Why would a detribalized Pakistan be the worst possible senerio? Do you really full heartedly believe that the west would stand to gain nothing with the fall of another Muslim nation? No offense but our government does seem pretty anti-muslim at the moment. Could Pakistan just be another part of the puzzle in the effort to subdue the middle east to the whims of the west (oil)?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
Your harsh attacks do nothing to dismiss the idea, only assault it.


I'll have to quote myself to drive my argument home:

From loose nukes to AQ resurgence, the West will face all sort of sh!t storm in Pakistan if it's destabilized.


It's a simple argument, really. It makes about as much sense that you shoot yourself in the foot right in the middle of a 100 yard dash.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Why would the U.S. want her death since they engineered her return to Pakistan in the first place in hopes of putting her in power since Musharraf is not doing a good job against the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Somebody who wants to put a wall on that American interest.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
seems to me that the anglos and americans are trying to destabilise Pakistan , could this be a possibility


Pakistan does not need anyones help being destabilized, one brief look at its history will reveal that the simplistic "blame Anglo's/America" theories cannot hold.

Heres a good start for your research.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Why would a detribalized Pakistan be the worst possible senerio? Do you really full heartedly believe that the west would stand to gain nothing with the fall of another Muslim nation? No offense but our government does seem pretty anti-muslim at the moment. Could Pakistan just be another part of the puzzle in the effort to subdue the middle east to the whims of the west (oil)?


Why don't you explain to us how it could possibly benefit the West to create a country the same as Aghanistan was, pre 911 with 7-8 times the population ?

The killing of Bhutto was anti-democracy therefore anti-West and pro oppression and extremism. The only question there is, is was it extremiest muslims acting solely alone or what sort of hand did Musharraf have or the ISI have in it.

Implicatin the West is jsut a way pf apssing on the blame of what happened. It's the same as the Paki governemnt saying Bhutto died because she hit her head trying to shield herslef, despite mnay contradictory accouns of her being shot. This was done simply so that she wouldn't becaome a matyr by dying by her own hand.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
MUsharraf didn't benefit from her death. He had enough instability to deal with already. Riots and questionable legitimacy of the vote are not in his interest at all, and Bhutto wouldn't have been able to really challenge him in the election, despite the maverick factor.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


and i suggest you should research that CIA and pakistan trained Osama and his terrorist buddies against USSR
---
anyways seems to me USa to establish permament presence in pakistan in the pretext of fighting terror , is part of the strategy of PNAC to secure the foothold around central asia and to threaten Iran as well



[edit on 3-1-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm sorry to say this is the silliest notion I've seen on ATS apart from alleged anti-gravity drive onboard the Shuttle.

It is in the BEST INTEREST of the West to keep Pakistan stable. From loose nukes to AQ resurgence, the West will face all sort of sh!t storm in Pakistan if it's destabilized.



Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
thats the biggest load of c**p ive herd on this forum yet,

and a twisted version of the real truth, its was clearly islamic millitants and the reason is very clear to everybody, lol


First and foremost,it would be really nice if this was a discussion. You both seem violently opposed to this notion put forth by the OP. Could you please explain why? Your harsh attacks do nothing to dismiss the idea, only assault it.

In the last 15 years of my life I have learned about a lot of things my country has done that make no sense. It has been in terms of power and war that actions often seem to make the least sense of all. I have wondered myself what could possibly have been gained by the west to see Pakistan crumble. If I am too far out there correct me. But please do it with logic and ideas and not reactionary insults.


Originally posted by Reality Hurts
A stable Pakistan is in the best interest of the West. The proposal that they wish to destabilize it is bordering on absurd. A Pakistan in chaos is one of the worst possible scenarios imaginable, in fact, the US orchestration of Bhutto's return was an attempt to introduce a stabilizing measure to the embattled Musharraf regime.


Why would a detribalized Pakistan be the worst possible senerio? Do you really full heartedly believe that the west would stand to gain nothing with the fall of another Muslim nation? No offense but our government does seem pretty anti-muslim at the moment. Could Pakistan just be another part of the puzzle in the effort to subdue the middle east to the whims of the west (oil)?



sure.....


ok where do i start,


first of all bhutto was more than likely... well she was talking to western powers before she went back, and probly breiffed on the dangers that face her home country and she was going home to run for president and to try and sort out all the coruption and extreamist i.e terroists, that also killed her dad & brother.

northern pakistan if your not aware of this or not is pritty much run buy the taliban and there are countless terroist training camps on the northern border this is there last strong hold to organise and where thay are regrouping & recruiting all the time not afghan or iraq you dont regroup on front lines,

bhuttoo if she ever got in power would have stamped down on these camps very hard and would have more than likely aloud a small nato/un/allied opperation to help tackle them, (she spoke of this herself this was her plan) who is this going to affect, it would of been a huge victory against the terroists/extreamists probly affecting them and weaking there affectiveness as much as 60-80% the only place thay would have to hide is on the battlefeild,

well this was never going to happen in there eyes she was a huge threat to them and that took her out plan and simple, think about wot would of happend if she pulled it of, a cooperative and helpfull and allied pakistan closes the net and tightens the losse on al-quaida..... that was clearly the plan,

why on earth would we risk an even more unstable pakistan with nukes and buy the way all pakistans nukes are in northern pakistan and would be a god send to terroist who want to destroy everything we stand for, great move ay,






posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
thats the biggest load of c**p ive herd on this forum yet,

and a twisted version of the real truth, its was clearly islamic millitants and the reason is very clear to everybody, lol


i beg to differ with you and ask you follow this link www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Why would the U.S. want her death since they engineered her return to Pakistan in the first place in hopes of putting her in power since Musharraf is not doing a good job against the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Somebody who wants to put a wall on that American interest.


Well is it entirely impossible that the US sent her back to Pakistan to be killed knowing full well the implications of such a killing? Sending in a 'Trojan horse' so to speak in order to destabilize the country and 'force our hand' due to the country's possession of nuclear weapons?


Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by manson_322
seems to me that the anglos and americans are trying to destabilise Pakistan , could this be a possibility


Pakistan does not need anyones help being destabilized, one brief look at its history will reveal that the simplistic "blame Anglo's/America" theories cannot hold.

Heres a good start for your research.


And does a simplistic the US can't be involved because Pakistan is part of the muslim / islamic world and here look at this link which shows how poorly they behave theory?

I have to say, my personal belief is that the truth is generally not that easy to see when it comes to politics, especially global politics. The fact that the Us played such a large roll in the return of Bhutto raises red flags for me. I am American and I love my country, but i do sadly fear my government. To so quickly dismiss the roll that the west could have played in this tradgedy and for what reasons makes no sense. I am not pointing my finger and saying we did it, I am only saying it should be considered.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
MUsharraf didn't benefit from her death. He had enough instability to deal with already. Riots and questionable legitimacy of the vote are not in his interest at all, and Bhutto wouldn't have been able to really challenge him in the election, despite the maverick factor.


I would have to say he has benefited. He has been going out of his way to retain his rule of Pakistan and now by the looks of it the elections he promised to hold because he was deemed no loner legally able to lead are being postponed. For how long? Who knows.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Well is it entirely impossible that the US sent her back to Pakistan to be killed knowing full well the implications of such a killing? Sending in a 'Trojan horse' so to speak in order to destabilize the country and 'force our hand' due to the country's possession of nuclear weapons?


Bhutto in fact personnally said she knew the risks about going back to Pakistan that could lead to her death, with U.S. support behind her which would be considered by many Muslim extremists as an American puppet and must be killed.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Bhutto in fact personnally said she knew the risks about going back to Pakistan that could lead to her death, with U.S. support behind her which would be considered by many Muslim extremists as an American puppet and must be killed.


Yes but the US didn't seem to be helping too much when people started shooting at her head or blowing up bombs next to her convoy. Neither did Pakistan, did she not complain that Musariff was not giving her adequate security?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Here it is:


Bhutto was slain while campaigning for the crucial Jan. 8 parliamentary elections in which she hoped to return as prime minister of the nuclear-armed country, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. Upon her return from exile in October, she survived an assassination attempt. She had repeatedly complained that the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did not give her adequate security.


link

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by deltaboy


Bhutto in fact personnally said she knew the risks about going back to Pakistan that could lead to her death, with U.S. support behind her which would be considered by many Muslim extremists as an American puppet and must be killed.


Yes but the US didn't seem to be helping too much when people started shooting at her head or blowing up bombs next to her convoy. Neither did Pakistan, did she not complain that Musariff was not giving her adequate security?



that would of mad things even worst imo america helping her etc, it would of looked like democracy was being forced upon them thats not wot democracy is, hopefully now pakistan will see the light and want to put an end to this violence and stand up,

[edit on 3-1-2008 by BRITWARRIOR]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Yes but the US didn't seem to be helping too much when people started shooting at her head or blowing up bombs next to her convoy. Neither did Pakistan, did she not complain that Musariff was not giving her adequate security?


Well we could always call in American troops to surround her car, that should deter anybody from killing her. American troops can cause deterrence, its been known in past history.


But the U.S. has tried to help her before...unless you admit thats just so wrong.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=Al8abqd.9Si_QNR2vLBTuGDzPukA


WASHINGTON - The United States provided a steady stream of intelligence to Benazir Bhutto about threats against her before the former Pakistani prime minister was assassinated and advised her aides on how to boost security, although key suggestions appear to have gone unheeded, U.S. officials said Monday.

Senior U.S. diplomats had multiple conversations, including at least two private face-to-face meetings, with top members of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party to discuss threats on the Pakistani opposition leader's life and review her security arrangements after a suicide bombing marred her initial return to Pakistan from exile in October, the officials told The Associated Press.

The intelligence was also shared with the Pakistani government, the officials said.

Much of what was passed on dealt with general threats from Taliban extremists and al-Qaida sympathizers and "was not actionable information."

The officials said Bhutto and her aides were concerned, particularly after the October attack, but were adamant that in the absence of a specific and credible threat there would be few, if any, changes to her campaign schedule ahead of parliamentary elections.

"She knew people were trying to assassinate her," said an intelligence official. "We don't hold information back on possible attacks on foreign leaders and foreign countries." The official added, however, that while the U.S. could share the information, "it's up to (the recipient) how they want to take action."



new topics




 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join