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.
posted by Cuhail
“ . . the violent death of a 54-year-old woman with three children is both tragic and shocking, the attempt to turn Bhutto into a martyr for democracy is preposterous. She was brought back to Pakistan as part of a sordid scheme hatched by the Bush administration to give the military-controlled regime headed by Musharraf a pseudo-democratic facade.
The arrangement was that Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party would not oppose Musharraf’s bid for a third term as president and in return, Musharraf would grant Bhutto immunity from criminal charges related to the rampant corruption that characterized her previous terms as prime minister.
US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher served as the broker in negotiations leading to the deal, flying back and forth between Islamabad and Bhutto’s homes in Dubai and London. According to the Washington Post, it was Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte who finally convinced him. “He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and National Security Council staff member, told the Post. In the end, it was Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who phoned Bhutto in early October, telling her to return to Pakistan to serve essentially as an instrument of US policy and a prop for the Musharraf regime. In doing so, Rice sent Bhutto to her death.”
www.globalresearch.ca...
The foregoing was “lifted” from the following story and source:
Bhutto assassination heightens threat of US intervention in Pakistan
by Bill Van Auken, Global Research, December 30, 2007
Thanks Mr Cuhail, for the many good links to what I regard as authoritative reporting on the confusing conditions existing in 2 of the most important of the -stans. Afghan and Pakistan. The majority of the people of Pakistan mostly want to be left alone to pursue their own goals which does not include holding a proxy war on their territory.
Pakistan was created in 1947, as Britain gave up its Empire on the sub-continent. Out of that came India, West and East Pakistan, the latter morphing into Bangladesh, the former dropping the West part of its name. Let's not forget Kashmir, a source of ill-will between India and Pakistan.
Mostly at the instigation of the US - deep into the Cold War - and the regular payment of large sums of money, Pakistan has held many elections but IT HAS NEVER BEEN A WESTERN-TYPE DEMOCRACY. Pakistanis want HONEST and efficient government with personal security. Like most people in Asia, they don't give a HOOT about Bush43's "Freedoms and Democracy."
Aside: Pakistan is but one of Central Asia’s 7 -stans and 2 failed -stans. Afghanistan. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Tajikistan. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The 2 failed -stans are Balochistan in south-east Iran and Kurdestan in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. These people have often been occupied by foreign powers but they can proudly claim they have never been conquered. From the late 1700s until 1947 the Brits learned that the hard way.
By the bye, like so many wars we fight today, the -stan lines on maps we like to call “borders” were drawn in the 18th century by the British East India Company’s London offices for administrative convenience. Say hello today’s Middle East; say hello old French Indo-China of Vietnam fame. The people who live in those places never thought much about fixed borders, which seem to be more a Western European concept over which we will KILL you!
[edit on 1/3/2008 by donwhite]
All things have come full circle in the mountains of Pakistan. The "great game" has been played-out. The cycle of death which we unleashed upon the world there, bringing the war on terrorism home to us, now draws us inexorably into the vacuum of its violent ending. The convulsions now wracking that country threaten to become a revolutionary explosion capable of bringing down the foundations of the world.
The rapidly building democratic-revolution is now entering the "critical mass" stage. Its expansion is accelerating beyond human control. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a calculated risk, intended to derail democracy in Pakistan because Islamic extremists were making the democratic transition from militias into political parties. For this reason, it is unlikely that she was assassinated by real Islamists, true Taliban. It is more likely that the hit on Bhutto was connected to the Administration's getting the "green light" (the day before the attack), to move large numbers of Special Forces "trainers" into the tribal regions.
Even though Bhutto was allegedly stirring the cauldron, "...demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief," recent revelations by various neocon-men points to a covert US plan to eliminate her.
As messy and ugly as it is currently, the situation is an opportunity for the US and its allies to permanently alter Pakistan, in preparation for its eventual elimination as a failed state. Breaking it up into smaller regional countries that cater to its barbaric people's tribalism would also weaken any threat it poses to India, which is seen as a slightly more civilised country. Despite the Indian secret service being one of the most aggressive enemy agencies in the west, alongside China and Israel.
Originally posted by xpert11
Musharraf gains from Bhutto death if he wants to establish as a Saddam type figure.
Originally posted by xpert11
Musharraf gains from Bhutto death if he wants to establish as a Saddam type figure.
I had never thought about it before, but I think you may be correct. Saddam was a excellent dictator. Saddam kept the peace for his country whose religious differences are apparent in the Shia v Sunni violence that envelopes the country today. Maybe Musharraf had this in mind - if he was complicit in this assassination. There is no apparent religious violence in Pakistan like there is in Iraqi, the same methods can be contrived to control a population. Who know if we'll ever know what truly happened that day, who was responsible, or why.