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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
O yeah, the worse thing was allowing Bhutto to stick her head and torso out of the car where snipers can easily kill her, didn't they learn anything from JFK assassination?




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Still the intelligence we passed to her "was not actionable information". I do understand your point, and trust me it has me thinking I am not disregarding it, still I am left unconvinced.

Like they guys says in the article you posted:


It is simply untrue and I simply do not understand why anyone, anywhere would assert that the United States did not have concerns, minimized those concerns, or was not very active in trying to ensure that she was provided with whatever kind of security support she required," deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.


Ther was no suport right? No one, other than this guy, have claimed that the US was there with support in the form of actual security.

Again, I see your point, ut I feel it is a bit off topic from mine and the OP. Even if there were Us troops there, or what ever it was we were giving her in terms of 'support' who is to say that that dismisses the idea that this was a set up?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
she lost her dad and brother to these extreamists, she was a very brave woman who only wanted the best for the future of her country, and a true worrior for freedom & democracy maybe one day her dream will come true is all i can say...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
O yeah, the worse thing was allowing Bhutto to stick her head and torso out of the car where snipers can easily kill her, didn't they learn anything from JFK assassination?


This I 150% agree with you on. Is this not just the strangest thing you have ever herd? A woman, who knows that people are out to kill her riding down packed streets of huge cities with her body OUT SIDE of the car...

Sounds like she was not taking the US's warning s of potential killers too seriously, that or she was one stubborn woman.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by deltaboy
O yeah, the worse thing was allowing Bhutto to stick her head and torso out of the car where snipers can easily kill her, didn't they learn anything from JFK assassination?


This I 150% agree with you on. Is this not just the strangest thing you have ever herd? A woman, who knows that people are out to kill her riding down packed streets of huge cities with her body OUT SIDE of the car...

Sounds like she was not taking the US's warning s of potential killers too seriously, that or she was one stubborn woman.


i realy belive the women was past caring, someone who values there life would not have acted like this or been abit more carefull, but sometimes you have to Sacrifice yourself for a better day maybe thats why she was so careless i dont know but she never looked botherd about threats and the previous atempts on her life, or she was incredibly brave,



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
This I 150% agree with you on. Is this not just the strangest thing you have ever herd? A woman, who knows that people are out to kill her riding down packed streets of huge cities with her body OUT SIDE of the car...

Sounds like she was not taking the US's warning s of potential killers too seriously, that or she was one stubborn woman.


(shrugs) Shes the kind of woman who wants to interact with people, defying terror threats to her by those who wants her dead. Hence why she felt like going outside to interact with ordinary people and not something like a President with Secret Service. It tends to make an impression on ordinary people that the elite want to separate themselves.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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?


Ah,
I see you enjoy creating an discussion based on putting words in other peoples mouth despite the fact that they didn't say it, and that it has nothing to do with the post


Despite this childish tactic, adults will easily see that the link has nothing to do with pointing out poor behaviour, nor that Pak is part of the islamic world.

Rather it is a tiny first step in reviewing the history of the country, and the internal strife that was and is causing destablization of the country. Written by a muslim who previously helped to re-stabilize the area, long before U.S. intervention.

His important insights on both the historical and current destabilization serve to point out that these problems have occured in the past, and will continue to occur despite, not because of, U.S., E.U., U.N., Saudi, Iranian, Indian, UAE, Syrian, Taliban, AQ, or any other intervention.

He shows too that it is not because Pak is Islamic, but rather because of the ancient tribal systems that continue to influence the daily lives of everyday people in the area. He also helps us to see that the destabilization is a recurring theme in the tribal systems, and he points out that instead of trying to change them, there are ways to democratically re-stabilize them by working within their own system, instead of singlemindedly attempting military rule.





posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I agree w/ the OP!

I do not think the 'West' per se wants a destabilized ME.

As for Bu$hco and their defense and construction 'no bid' contractors, they would benefit just like they have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We all have read the stories on the criminal War Profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan....this is no secret. We have troops in the area, the permanent bases are being/have been erected. We are in the ME for the long haul people. That is unless RP is elected. Perhaps Edwards?

Are people really that dense? This is all part of a plan!

Do really think an honest and just administration would place all there chips (w/ no Plan B) on Prez Musharraf and Bhutto in an attempt to bring democracy to Pakistan?

This is a snuff film of 'brown skins' in slow motion.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by QuasiShaman]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by makeitso
 


and i suggest you should research that CIA and pakistan trained Osama and his terrorist buddies against USSR


I would suggest that if you read the link you would begin to understand this was happening long before that.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


I read you link, and that is how i Took it. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from throwing out insults in the future. If you don't like what I say fine please tell me all about it, but please do it without the name calling.

I do believe that at least SOME of what was in that link was a critique pf the culture. That is how I took it and I stand by that.

I also would have to say posting information printed by a Conservative Think Tank as unbiased is questionable at best.

The Claremont Institute



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


tehn go read on the relationship b/w USA and saudi regime that funds terror



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by makeitso
 

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from throwing out insults in the future. If you don't like what I say fine please tell me all about it, but please do it without the name calling.


I didn't call you a name, I said your tactic was childish.



I do believe that at least SOME of what was in that link was a critique pf the culture. That is how I took it and I stand by that.

I also would have to say posting information printed by a Conservative Think Tank as unbiased is questionable at best.
The Claremont Institute


First, the article highlights the opinions of a muslim who has actually lived there and served Pakistan well by helping to re-stabilize the area in the past. It points the reader to his various books over the years on the subject. Ignoring that kind of background information is the same as sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "I can't hear your". It blinds you to the reality on the ground.

Secondly, I have always been of the opinion that valid tidbits of information can be gained from any source. Conservative, Liberal, Muslim, Israeli, Russian, doesn't matter. What is important is that all of them have bits of valid information that can be gleaned from within, despite any bias the source has.

Reading only information that agrees with your point of view is simply cutting yourself off from other possible intelligence that has valid meaning.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


I'm well aware of those links, thanks.

I'm also aware that this was going on long before the U.S.A. existed.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso

Secondly, I have always been of the opinion that valid tidbits of information can be gained from any source. Conservative, Liberal, Muslim, Israeli, Russian, doesn't matter. What is important is that all of them have bits of valid information that can be gleaned from within, despite any bias the source has.

Reading only information that agrees with your point of view is simply cutting yourself off from other possible intelligence that has valid meaning.


I totally agree with you on this, there is always something to be learned.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Sarcasim is intentional...........

Well, Well, Well..................

I think I could have written the article that started this thread.

Yes ATS fans, the big bad United States, the evil George Bush & militant Tony Blair are behind the assasination of Bhutto. Evil Capitalists!!!

PATHETIC !!!!!

What a joke.

Blame Bush, Blame the US, Blame the UK, Blame Capitalism, Blame Democracy, Blame Freedom,

Blame eveything and anyone but yourselves...

Blame anyone but the phsyco- nut job- islamofacists who kill their brothers and countrymen...it can't be "them"

Who is the jerk that wrote this artical? He is one of the're most respected journalists?

What another joke. If Bush is "SO EVIL" how in the world was he elected to a second term. --- oh wait, I almost forgot - he stole the election. sorry, my bad....

Maybe the jerk who wrote the artical did this just to have something to write about.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Y'all need to chill out, honestly. It's a discussion, not a childish slap-fest here.
Read up more, I say. Look into it more.
Start here.

The Destabilization of Pakistan


The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a Nation.
The process of US sponsored "regime change", which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power. But at the same time, the fake elections supported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse.



There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by US officials:
"It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region.

Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military...



C'mon. Read more, argue less. There are many opinions on the matter outside of ATS and us bickering about it does little to shed light on the subject. Look for what's relevant and discuss it.

Do I think that the U.S. had a hand in it? Maybe. We'd never come out and say so, but, it wouldn't be so far-fetched to think so. Global politics is a dirty game with no real-time commentator on the sideline recounting the movements. There are things going on that we lowly people aren't "in on", so, therefore we have to guess and read.
I'm going to read more myself.

Cuhail



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
It all depends on the end game.

One possibility:

Pakistan is destabilised by the US/UK.

Nukes end up in the wrong hands.

Nuclear war.

More than 90% of the world popualtion is destroyed.

The main body of survivors are the US/UK who just so happened to have an vast array of underground cities/bunkers capable of sustaining hundreds of thousands people.

All of the relevant backgrounds are covered: military, scientific, education and other necessary skills.

After a few years underground, these people are able to come out on to the surface and regenerate planet Earth.

A new beginning with new laws, new economies and a new society free of the poverty and hatred that occupies us today.

This is not a coincidence brought about by the random act of terrorists.

This is the cold, calculated act of an unelected, Western under-government that realises that there are too many people and too many problems for things to continue the way they are.

Just a possibility though


[edit on 3/1/2008 by skibtz]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I see it as dual role Bhutto extravaganza, a US Clinton asset deployed out of Dubai to further destabilize Pakistan so the United States could step in when the country fell into civil war over her entrance in order to take control of the nuclear threat made out from the point of the analyst in Washington to initiate further reason for United State marching orders into Iran with marginal support of the UN for Pakistani nukes hidden there by talibans and al quiada trained secret CIA operatives..

They hadn't counted on her really being assassinated but now the grand plan twist with a new heading for US election spin down for clinton since she has now lost her pakistani broker to bullets and bombs.

Just my 2 cents



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WorldShadow
 



I think I see what you're saying...I think. What it comes down to is if the U.S. is called in to stabilize a shaky Pakistan, it effectively surrounds Iran. U.S. Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kind of a pincer movement or tactic around Iran. Can't be ruled out. What also can't be ruled out is China though. There's an awful lot of U.S. Troops that are almost spitting distance from China now. Pakistan would set them that much closer, eh?

Cuhail



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I'm sorry to say that I don't have time to read through the whole thread at the moment, but by the way it started out it looks like there will be a lively discussion on this.

My opinion is this. The US will be invading Pakistan soon, in the interest of "stabilizing" the region and "reducing" the threat of rogue nuclear weapons.

Chaos in Pakistan is just as good for US policy as it is in Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join