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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


USA has no underground cities ,it is russia that has 27 underground cities , the largest being yamantau and Uragan defence




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 
I can see our government approving the murder,since the ISI is close to the CIA,Bhutto was placed in danger in order to further their goals in the region now let's see what has happend thus far:Musharriff at first refused to have any outside investigations into the assasination,then changes his mind and has Scotland Yard brought in,eventhough there are reports of missing evidence and the crime scene has been cleaned.There is going to be some half-harted investigations that will only confrim the Extremeist theroy and clear the Pak government of any involvement.Elections have already been suspended and Mush seems to be in a better position to remain in power.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
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.



´´The dictatorship now somewhat justified to the world due to instabililty in the country. ´´
I too think that the US does profit more from the military regime (in he long term) than from Bhutto.
(and maybe US secre services are playing double game for own porposes)



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:06 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.


Here me out on this and trust me..
NOBODY in Pakistan will be able to controls islamics loonies better than Musharraf. He may not do a whole-hearted job of it, but he can certainly do better than ANYONE else..
No Bhuto, Sharif or anyone other trapeze artist for that matter will be able to do squat except undermine the sovereignity of the country by allowing foreign forces in..

and the day western forces enter Pakistan it will be just a few months away from an Iraq or Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Follow who standed to gain most from instability in Pakistan.

Does the US gain from an unstable, nuclear armed Pakistan? Not really. In fact the US was trying to work with the Bhutto camp precisely to stabilize the situation. The US never would gain from a very unstable nuclear armed country.

Does Musharraf gain. Yes he gains but also loses by destabilizing Pakistan. The reward was not worth the risk for him, especially since the real power in Pakistan, the military, was already on his side. The military still would have been the major power in Pakistan regardless if Bhutto was elected or not, so they did not gain by her death.

Did A.Q. or it's allies gain? Let's examine that. In Bhutto, we had a secular, pro Western women politician in the one real stronghold of a country that still has many A.Q. sympathizers. Having Bhutto elected by the people of Pakistan would have been one of the worst things possible for AQ. AQ stands to gain more by her death more than anyone. They kill the only option for a stable transfer of power in Pakistan, kill a secular women politician and on top of that, the current government of Pakistan gets most of the blame for it further destabilizing Pakistan.

Now granted parts of the Pakistani govt. primarily some in the ISI, have sympathy for the AQ and the Taliban since the ISI basically created the Taliban. They (ISI) might have had some part in this but that doesn't mean the govt. of Pakistan wanted it. It has been long known that elements in the ISI were still friendly towards the Taliban and AQ.

Overall it is more in AQ interest to see Pakistan unstable than the US or the govt. of Pakistan. Just think about it..... Bhutto gets killed and who ends up currently catching the heat for it; Pakistan's Govt., the US or AQ?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
USA has no underground cities ,it is russia that has 27 underground cities , the largest being yamantau and Uragan defence


That's right. And the USA invaded Iraq to stabilise the region. George Bush won his presidencies fair and square. NASA put a man on the moon and on and on and on....

It really does depend on what you want to believe.

There are many sites dedictated to exposing the DUMBS:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Just a few examples but enough for me to not make the mistake of immediately believing that the USA has no underground bases/cities.

In fact, if Russia has them , what makes you think the USA does not have them.

An underground base/city is the most effective, or least ineffective, form of defense against a nuclear attack.

It provides you with the highest chance of survival. I think the US governement have know that for a long time and have indeed acted upon that knowledge.

Many thanks for the heads up on the Russian underground cities though. I will check them out



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Does the US gain from an unstable, nuclear armed Pakistan? Not really. In fact the US was trying to work with the Bhutto camp precisely to stabilize the situation. The US never would gain from a very unstable nuclear armed country.

Unfortunatley the US has lots to gain. Primarily multi-billion dollar arms sales to Pakistans neighbour, India.


NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- India will be able to buy more sophisticated fighter aircraft and other high-tech arms from the United States as part of a closer defense relationship between the two nations, the United States Department of Defense has said.


full text here



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThEsEnTiNeL
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.


The same reason Bu$hco wanted a destabilized Iraq yo!



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Consider this:


Pakistan would seem to me to be another strategic place for a base of operations for 'The Plan'.

[edit on 1/4/2008 by QuasiShaman]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by manson_322
USA has no underground cities ,it is russia that has 27 underground cities , the largest being yamantau and Uragan defence


That's right. And the USA invaded Iraq to stabilise the region. George Bush won his presidencies fair and square. NASA put a man on the moon and on and on and on....

It really does depend on what you want to believe.

There are many sites dedictated to exposing the DUMBS:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Just a few examples but enough for me to not make the mistake of immediately believing that the USA has no underground bases/cities.

In fact, if Russia has them , what makes you think the USA does not have them.

An underground base/city is the most effective, or least ineffective, form of defense against a nuclear attack.

It provides you with the highest chance of survival. I think the US governement have know that for a long time and have indeed acted upon that knowledge.

Many thanks for the heads up on the Russian underground cities though. I will check them out







Just a few examples but enough for me to not make the mistake of immediately believing that the USA has no underground bases/cities.

from what i know , USA has a underground base known as Mount Weather and cheyennee mountian command center,but both are not cpable of surviving a 20 megaton warhead of the SS-18 Satan superhard target destroyer ICBM , known as voyeoda missile by russian miltary




In fact, if Russia has them , what makes you think the USA does not have them.

except the fact that russia has 200 nuclear bases and 27 massive underground cities and yamantau is larger than Washington D.C
The underground complex is estimated at 400 square miles, the size of the Washington area inside the Beltway. Yamantau is all under ground thats what is really interesting to me


Today, Russia may be conducting nuclear deception on a far vaster scale beneath Yamantau Mountain, where it has dug out a gigantic underground military complex designed to withstand a sustained nuclear assault. A U.S. intelligence source was quoted as saying that the Yamantau complex is BUT ONE OF SOME 200 SECRET DEEP UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR-WAR FIGHTING SITES IN RUSSIA, many of which have been significantly upgraded over the past six years at a cost of billions of dollars.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. intelligence sources believe the Russian government has pumped more than $6 billion into Yamantau alone, to construct a sprawling underground complex that spans some 400 square miles! In 1998, in a rare public comment, then-Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Gen. Eugene Habiner, called Yamantau: "A very large complex – we estimate that it has millions of square feet available for underground facilities. We don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing there."
www.worldnetdaily.com...
www.yahwehsnewkingdom.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dissembler
 



That was preceding along without the added instability of Pakistan at the moment.

You are seriously trying to tell me that it is in the US best interest to have nuclear weapons in Pakistan possibly fall into radical Islamist hands are you? The one major thing the US desires with the India/Pakistan situation is stability. The greatest potential nuclear conflict in the world is a nuclear exchange between the two countries. A full exchange of their nuclear weapons will leave millions dead on both sides. No one wants that.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Here in the UK no media believes the western governments played any part in this. This is a bitterly paranoid story and is the same bull crap tales that are told around the mosques over here. This should be treated with contempt it deserves.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesexynortherner
Here in the UK no media believes the western governments played any part in this. This is a bitterly paranoid story and is the same bull crap tales that are told around the mosques over here. This should be treated with contempt it deserves.



That is a pretty sweeping statement. Remember we do not have, per se, freedom of the press. Our government is able to block any story that they deem contrary to the country's 'best interests'. Ask the Guardian why they are not allowed to publish the results of their investigation in Saudi Arabia. What the British Press believe and what they actually write are sometimes entirely different things.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
A 'D' notice can be issued to the media but only by a judge. And then on grounds of national security. The Saudi thing was a little dodgy but it is generally accepted that to do business in some markets incentives need to be given and I guess the major test is; was the money from the slush fund significantly less than the money generated from the on going arms deal?

Do you really believe we would try and assinate Bhutto who was seen by our foriegn office as a massive step forward towards a more stable Pakistan.

This story is bull!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesexynortherner

Do you really believe we would try and assinate Bhutto who was seen by our foriegn office as a massive step forward towards a more stable Pakistan.

This story is bull!


Have you read the original article? That is not what the OP was implying, the discussion may be bull but the article actually raises some very interesting points. I do not believe that the British government ordered or arranged the assassination of Bhutto. I do though believe that there are rogue factions within the British establishment that MAY have wanted Bhutto silenced.

Whether we like it or not, there are links between the extremists and the British SIS. Obviously, this being Britain, those links are far more concealed than the US connections, but lets not let them take all the credit just because of a lack of clear proof. We know that our SIS has been at it longer than the US, we helped start OSS - they learned how to operate from us. No one plays harder and dirtier than our intelligence communities. "Nobody does it better"....as Carly Simon put it for the Spy who loved me.

That said I personally believe that we have lost much of the control that we had over these factions - they are not necessarily fulfilling our agenda - but that does not mean that we do not shoulder some of the responsibility for creating this situation in the first place.

The British SIS have been stirring the waters in the region since the East India Company first set up shop, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that British trading interests are supreme over all others, the US included. There is no honour here, only money and control.

All fingers are pointing at the US, which leads me to the conclusion that the British contingent may be more involved than anyone is saying. The assumption is that we are always on the side of the US. That is a very naive assumption.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
It is my opinion, after having seen two video's of the actual assassination, as well as reading statements of the many witnesses, including those of the Doctors who tried to save Benazir Bhutto's life that her death was the result of a conspiracy. And it is not al-Qaida, despite what Musharraf was saying. Even he has been forced to admit now that what he said origionally about how Bhutto died was wrong.
Having said that, one must ask the obvious question: Who benefits most from her death. One need only to look at Musharraf for the answer to that question. Benazir Bhutto was too much of a threat to him in the elections that were origionally scheduled for January. Without her in the way, he was then able to push the elections into February. And even though Benazir Bhutto has certainly been no angel herself, she didn't deserve to die the way she did. She deserved another chance to serve her people. And I seriously think that she would have won the elections had she survived the assassination attempt this time.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Given the fact that the Neo-cons have been discredited about Iran's possession of nuclear weapons and thus have been thwarted in their attempt to invade Iran, doesn't it make sense that a destabilized Pakistan might be a reason for US troops to go in and "save" the nukes from terrorists? A destabilized Pakistan looks like part of the CIA's vision for the middle east. How else can we explain what is happening there? Almost nothing having to do with destabilization goes on in any part of the world without the participation of the CIA.

Example: We gave the Taliban and Bin Laden over $3 billion to fight the Russians in Afganistan. Then we discovered a huge reserve of oil in a small country just to the north of Afganistan. Our oil companies wanted to build a pipeline through Afganistan to get the oil to the gulf, but the Taliban wanted way too much money (and who knows what else) to go along with the project. All of a sudden, the Taliban has to be wiped out because of their terrorist connections. Guess what. The new government of Afganistan has OKed the pipeline deal.

What could the possible routes for the pipeline be when it raches the southern border of Afganistan? It has to be either Iran or Pakistan. Check your world Atlas. Maybe the route will now be Pakistan since our plans for invading Iran have been, at least temporarily, vanquished.

I think the US government is covering all of its bases. People are expendable. Nations are expendable. The grab for natural resources is at the top of the priority list for America.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Do you seriously believe that there are no islamic extremist who are not controlled by the CIA?

Could it just be that they are brain washed retards, who have fook all to live for and quite fancy the idea of 52 virgins, plus giving the 'honour' of martydom for their families?

The mujhaddin had to be used to try and stop the soviet threat, and yeah it's not worked out in the best possible way, but the soviet threat was on in a different league to the terrorist one.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeaniebob
 


absolutely. It is important to see´official´politics apart from tactics of the secret services to see whats goin on.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The USA is responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs too. We invented a time machine, and killed them all.

Seems like the USA is responsible for all killing everywhere and everytime.

Seems closed minded and simplistic to think that. Just like the "butler" always killed people in those old murder mystery movies.


We should just call it the "American Butler Move".

America does lots of bad stuff, but everyone else does too.

I guess it is like when you are famous and the paparazzi takes 1000's of photos, to get the one that you look like an ass....So they can show the world you are the ass. Well, look in the mirror paparzzi you are just the same. Take a self portarait, it ain't pretty.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join