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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You might want to read this news update on what the secretary of state is doing in China
www.bsnews.org...

Seems to me Ms Bhutto was a cultural threat against Islam




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
india and pakistan was seperated by the british in 1947. i suspect the
reasons for all political problems are best answered by the west.
another colonialistic expected result..



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
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...


I fail to see what the extremists had to do with her father's trial and execution. It was the military, if anyone who engineered Zulfikar Bhutto's indictment and conviction.

I do not know the ins and outs of Bhutto's trial but it was conducted within the legal restraints of the country and I can see little connection to extremism. Could you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I only read the first page, but it looks as if I'm alone in my understanding of the article. To me, it read as if Bush and America was to be held accountable — NOT that they deliberately killed Bhutto, or hired someone to.

Am I the only one that got that from the read?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Stuff like this amazes me and I mostly watch from the sideline but I just can't believe most of you don't get it. What is this 'it' I speak of? It's the supergovernmental supernational influences that have incredible power and sway on a worldly scale. I speak of the central banks and the federal reserve. You know, the privately owned (by international interests) corporation that coins our currency? The one that is not really controlled by the US? I speak of the Bilderberg group and all it's cronies, think tanks and 'steering committees'. The list is a bit longer but you get the idea. Anyone with half a pea brain and some sense to go and research would be able to quantify this 'influence' and trust me when I tell you.. NOTHING the good ole' US of A does will EVER make sense to you until you understand the international power behind the curtain that's pulling it's strings. If you don't get this then what can I say? Hopefully most of you will get your head around this... eventually.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Why would our government of all goverments want pakistans last chance at democracy dead? We want them to have democracy she said herself that she was going to be assinated.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I think it looks like the Chinese Kommunist party operation .








posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Whoever did is specifically is hard to tell but it was for sure an nwo plan. Nothing of significance happens without their help so it will take some time to see the full outcome or "who benefits" angle.

Every country should just stay out of another country including America. Puppet governments never work and Pakistan is one. Interesting to see what happens over next few months then we will be clearer on what the "real" objective is. Right now we are getting the same old NWO tactic to muddle the info with hundreds of theories to fracture the suspicious people.

New World Order professional hit job thats for sure it was not a random act.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Beefcake]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
..
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.


this were exactly my thoughts. It just must be considered tactically, the key-roles here are of course the connections between the islamisic orientated military regime and bushs Iran plans.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by anti72]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
if usa " invades " pakistan , iran and russia would switch to chinese side and usa forces would be circled an destroyed in afghan - pakistan lands .

India would really say no to all this and side with usa.

Bhutto could have no discernable effect in pakistan politics , she was married to an alleged thief who had her brother killed ( allegedly ) !!!

In her reign , billions of dollars from pakistan was " diverted " to her husbands commercial interesets .

she embodied the feminisation of rationale thought process .

deep down she must of known that she had no chance to implement anything at all .

may allah give her soul the rest she deserved far too long .



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:23 PM
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)?


There is very little oil in Pakistan, you should probably research things before you make statements like that. If U.S has a plan to subdue the middle east it wouldn't destabilize a country with nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremist muslims is a very high priority, especially if the U.S wants to control the Middle East.

I'm just saying that from a strategic standpoint, the U.S isn't going to secretly destabilize Pakistan and then invade Pakistan. It makes no sense. If the U.S invades Pakistan and an extremist group gets their hands on nuclear weapons, it would make things even more difficult. We already have a puppet government set up in Pakistan, why would we shake things up on purpous. Why not destabilize Saudi Arabia and start a Civil War? That makes much more sense to me.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Clan in da front]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clan in da front

There is very little oil in Pakistan, you should probably research things before you make statements like that. If U.S has a plan to subdue the middle east it wouldn't destabilize a country with nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremist muslims is a very high priority, especially if the U.S wants to control the Middle East.

I'm just saying that from a strategic standpoint, the U.S isn't going to secretly destabilize Pakistan and then invade Pakistan. It makes no sense. If the U.S invades Pakistan and an extremist group gets their hands on nuclear weapons, it would make things even more difficult. We already have a puppet government set up in Pakistan, why would we shake things up on purpous. Why not destabilize Saudi Arabia and start a Civil War? That makes much more sense to me.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Clan in da front]


Excuse me, i should have been more clear. I don't think we are after Pakistani oil. What I think we MAY be after is control of the region at large. Pakistan just being another piece of a larger puzzle. Thanks for highlighting this lack in clarity.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:46 PM
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?


How can someone that really hates the US Govt that much also expect it to protect the leaders of other nations 24-7?

Perhaps because you look for its involvement in any way whatsoever to keep that finger pointed.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro

How can someone that really hates the US Govt that much also expect it to protect the leaders of other nations 24-7?

Perhaps because you look for its involvement in any way whatsoever to keep that finger pointed.


Perhaps you should try reading the conversation in its entirety and then commenting. That way the accusations you level will at the very least be context.

AS I said in that conversation I fear my government, I hate very little and the government is not one of those things. I also said that I am not saying that "we", the people of the US represented by the US government, were responsible for this atrocity, only that dismissing it would be foolish.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuhail
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. Pakistan would set them that much closer, eh?

Cuhail



That would be the plan if her majesty clinton could have kept Bhutto safe from bullets and bombs. Since they let Bhutto down they have to come up with another ploy. No matter now, they will find there opening and put sanctions on pakistan for entry to, as you pointed out, the scheme to surround iran and make spin WMDs moved from pakistan to iran for the grand invasion.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by Clan in da front

There is very little oil in Pakistan, you should probably research things before you make statements like that. If U.S has a plan to subdue the middle east it wouldn't destabilize a country with nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremist muslims is a very high priority, especially if the U.S wants to control the Middle East.

I'm just saying that from a strategic standpoint, the U.S isn't going to secretly destabilize Pakistan and then invade Pakistan. It makes no sense. If the U.S invades Pakistan and an extremist group gets their hands on nuclear weapons, it would make things even more difficult. We already have a puppet government set up in Pakistan, why would we shake things up on purpous. Why not destabilize Saudi Arabia and start a Civil War? That makes much more sense to me.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Clan in da front]


Excuse me, i should have been more clear. I don't think we are after Pakistani oil. What I think we MAY be after is control of the region at large. Pakistan just being another piece of a larger puzzle. Thanks for highlighting this lack in clarity.


If it's a piece of the puzzle, then why now and not some other weaker country?

U.S hands are tied in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. U.S Troops are on both sides of Iran right now. If the U.S is going to invade Iran, wouldn't it be wise to keep Pakistan's puppet gov't stable? If Pakistan breaks out in a civil war, where's the nukes going to end up? Wouldn't it be realistic for Iran to send some people in trying to get their hands on some, not to mention Al-Qaeda.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by Clan in da front

There is very little oil in Pakistan, you should probably research things before you make statements like that. If U.S has a plan to subdue the middle east it wouldn't destabilize a country with nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremist muslims is a very high priority, especially if the U.S wants to control the Middle East.

I'm just saying that from a strategic standpoint, the U.S isn't going to secretly destabilize Pakistan and then invade Pakistan. It makes no sense. If the U.S invades Pakistan and an extremist group gets their hands on nuclear weapons, it would make things even more difficult. We already have a puppet government set up in Pakistan, why would we shake things up on purpous. Why not destabilize Saudi Arabia and start a Civil War? That makes much more sense to me.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Clan in da front]


Excuse me, i should have been more clear. I don't think we are after Pakistani oil. What I think we MAY be after is control of the region at large. Pakistan just being another piece of a larger puzzle. Thanks for highlighting this lack in clarity.


If it's a piece of the puzzle, then why now and not some other weaker country?

U.S hands are tied in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. U.S Troops are on both sides of Iran right now. If the U.S is going to invade Iran, wouldn't it be wise to keep Pakistan's puppet gov't stable? If Pakistan breaks out in a civil war, where's the nukes going to end up? Wouldn't it be realistic for Iran to send some people in trying to get their hands on some, not to mention Al-Qaeda.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Clan in da front
 

I do not believe the US is going to invade Iran, at least not any time soon. Iran would be way too much for the US to handle militarily and there is no good reason for us to once again drastically destabilize the Iranian government to subvert power to our control. I do believe the US government would love to, it just cant.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
It is easy for me to imagine a scenario where Bhutto's assasination is a strategic win for the US. Ofcourse I don't know if there is a conspiracy it is all just speculation.

To me it is clear that Musharaff was losing power in Pakistan. Since Bhutto's murder Pakistan has been destabilized. Now Musharaff will step in to declare martial law and a complete dictatorship. The dictatorship now somewhat justified to the world due to instabililty in the country. Musharaff is a friend to keeping the game going in the ME. Did we ever really want to catch Bin Laden? Wouldn't that have been easily accomplished long ago by Musharaff?

I believe Bhutto was more dangerous to the Neo cons than Musharaff. The solution to keeping Musharaff in power was to create the problem of instability.

Just my 2 cents.



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

Originally posted by manson_322
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


Excuse me sir, but we have lost control of our government and the only americans/anglos trying to do anything besides repair our own infrastructure are the wolves, the power elite, that run the propaganda machine and rig/steal our elections. Our govt has the lowest approval ratings in the history of the United States and it is suppose to derive its power from the people, us. But its not that way anymore, it grants us priviledges, or really is slowing taking them away. So please dont think that we have anything to do with whats going on in the world. Compared to those people I am an isolationist and I think if we had spent 1/10th the money we did on war, on our social infrastructure the US would look like paradise compared to what it is now. We have wasted trillions that have been stolen by large corporations and politicians' friends and borrowed against future generations and now we are broke,tired,angry, and oppressed. Please save us.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by thatblissguy]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join