Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Okay.

As I was saying: the Bhutto assassination draws into sharp relief the problem of the United States' continued support of Pervez Musharraf. Since 9/11, the US has financially supported Musharraf directly, to the tune of $10 billion since 2001.

Most of this money is completely unaudited and untraceable, sent through various cash transfers. It's literally "no strings attached" money. Ostensibly this is money to be used for antiterrorism efforts (hunting Bin Laden, border security, etc.). But it's plainly obvious that this money supports Musharraf's dictatorship, and allows him to stay in power.

Now I don't want to jump the gun here, but I think it's pretty likely that Musharraf is behind the assassination. Isn't it time we stopped handing him planeloads of cash to do as he pleases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday in the original thread

Benazir Bhutto

Day One - Benazir was born.
Age 14 - father founds liberal Pakistan Peoples Party with the creed "Islam is our faith; democracy is our politics; socialism is our economy; all power to the people."
Age 20 - father becomes 10th Prime Minister of Pakistan
Age 24 - father arrested in coup
Age 25 - father executed

Age 35 - in the first open election in more than a decade, becomes 12th Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Age 37 - dismissed following charges of corruption, for which she never was tried.
Age 40 - becomes 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Age 43 - dismissed again amid various corruption scandals by then president Farooq Leghari, who used the Eighth Amendment discretionary powers to dissolve the government.
Age 45 - goes into self-imposed exile.
Age 54 - returnes to Pakistan, after reaching an understanding with General Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn, and seeks election.
Two Months Later - She's shot dead.





source

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Okay.

As I was saying: the Bhutto assassination draws into sharp relief the problem of the United States' continued support of Pervez Musharraf. Since 9/11, the US has financially supported Musharraf directly, to the tune of $10 billion since 2001.

Most of this money is completely unaudited and untraceable, sent through various cash transfers. It's literally "no strings attached" money. Ostensibly this is money to be used for antiterrorism efforts (hunting Bin Laden, border security, etc.). But it's plainly obvious that this money supports Musharraf's dictatorship, and allows him to stay in power.

Now I don't want to jump the gun here, but I think it's pretty likely that Musharraf is behind the assassination. Isn't it time we stopped handing him planeloads of cash to do as he pleases?

---

I agree, if I were to choose it's either Musharraf or Iran, whom no doubt benefits from this death as much as anyone.

That article only proves how they recieve the money, not what they do with it. Get back to me when we have solid evidence on what Musharrif is doing with the money.

I'm-a go do some reading up on this, I'll catch up with the thread tomorrow.
Let's try to get informed here.

Yeah, because we Americans don't cover up our expenses at all.....We'll never know where that money went.

Goddammit Sleeve. The average TNL reader doesn't know who the fuck Bhutto is or what Pakistan means to us. If you're going to kill my thread will you at least quote the first post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

Goddammit Sleeve. The average TNL reader doesn't know who the fuck Bhutto is or what Pakistan means to us. If you're going to kill my thread will you at least quote the first post?

---

I agree, this is pretty bad news all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

That article only proves how they recieve the money, not what they do with it. Get back to me when we have solid evidence on what Musharrif is doing with the money.

---

He just told Newsweek that he used it all for Christmas puppies and candy canes for the kids. Phew, crisis averted. He's one of the good guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaCrappa

He just told Newsweek that he used it all for Christmas puppies and candy canes for the kids. Phew, crisis averted. He's one of the good guys.

---

That's code for AK47's and landmines.

DOH!

Gotta get them started early!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaCrappa

He just told Newsweek that he used it all for Christmas puppies and candy canes for the kids. Phew, crisis averted. He's one of the good guys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Ostensibly this is money to be used for antiterrorism efforts (hunting Bin Laden, border security, etc.). But it's plainly obvious that this money supports Musharraf's dictatorship, and allows him to stay in power.

---

Read the article again, it just speculates what he does with the money. There's no hard evidence. I'll concede if actual proof of what he does with the money is given, but I'm trying to be as unbias as I can be. This is just alot of tinfoil hat theory.

I'm not saying that he wouldn't do it, I'm only saying there's no proof that he did it.

Why is this two threads?

Because we took the other one off topic, I agree with Sleeve, lets keep in on topic here.

I wonder if our active agents in Pakistan have any idea this was happening? I mean it's been no secret she's been targeted for the last few months in a serious manner. Specific threats, etc.

I don't know, but I wish the OP would have news articles explaining the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Because we took the other one off topic, I agree with Sleeve, lets keep in on topic here.

I wonder if our active agents in Pakistan have any idea this was happening? I mean it's been no secret she's been targeted for the last few months in a serious manner. Specific threats, etc.

---

But didn't she go against the advice of others who knew her life was in danger? Apparently she didn't give a shit and wanted everyone to know that she was there to stay. She wasn't exactly a hard target to hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

But didn't she go against the advice of others who knew her life was in danger? Apparently she didn't give a shit and wanted everyone to know that she was there to stay. She wasn't exactly a hard target to hit.

---

Yes, she had been warned according to various stories, but I don't think she is the martyr yourself kind of person.

I'm being unbiased when I say that we have a crook from a crooked family with a crooked cabinet in office. This crook, his crooked family and his crooked cabinet have all been sighted hanging around and doing business with the crookedest crooks on the international crook set.

So, foil hat or no, I don't believe it when I hear that the crook who has been getting crooked money from a crook says he's been using the money to make sure that a bunch of really great deeds get done. Or anything really outside of greedy murderous scumbaggery.

I'm not trying to say that, I just think she didn't take the threats seriously. She may have been in a state of mind where everyone in Pakistan was happy that she was back and willing to run for Prime Minister again ignoring the fact that she has always had groups upset that she's a woman in power. It's been reported that Muslim Extremists groups never liked her in power because of some religious thing where women should know there place or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaCrappa

I'm being unbiased when I say that we have a crook from a crooked family with a crooked cabinet in office. This crook, his crooked family and his crooked cabinet have all been sighted hanging around and doing business with the crookedest crooks on the international crook set.

So, foil hat or no, I don't believe it when I hear that the crook who has been getting crooked money from a crook says he's been using the money to make sure that a bunch of really great deeds get done. Or anything really outside of greedy murderous scumbaggery.

---

That's exactly what I said, you just worded it better, thanks!

BTW Ramon, you do know that Pakistan is not 100% muslim, correct?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

That's exactly what I said, you just worded it better, thanks!

---

At some point somebody has to start doing some math and let the sums speak for themselves. Unbiased is one thing, foolhardy is quite another.

Agreed, however it won't happen until Bush is out of office, he will pigpile congress in the meantime, just like Clinton did.

It's all the same. We need a big shakeup because it will remain crooked business as usual until the end of time if we keep on going this way.

I haven't read up fully on all of this so I'm not going to go crazy in depth like some others can and will do, because I'm sure they can do a much better job of it than me. All I really want to say is that I think this is just another shinning example of what's wrong with that part of the world today, that shit like suicide bombing and assassination is still considered the effective way of supporting your side. Maybe I'm totally wrong in feeling that way, and maybe I just haven't read up enough on it, but it just seems to me from the news articles and the events that happen, that this is the case. It just seems like a waste of time to try and bring "democracy" to that overall area, if this is how people still respond. It seems to me that what needs to be done is educating the people that blowing others up is not how things are handled in a modern civilized nation.

I don't know like I said I could be wrong and feel free to correct me, when I saw this news this was just the first thing that occurred to me and I felt like sharing. It just seems like an all too often occurrence in that part of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

shinning.

---

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1198786300

Quote:

---

It just seems like a waste of time to try and bring "democracy" to that overall area, if this is how people still respond. It seems to me that what needs to be done is educating the people that blowing others up is not how things are handled in a modern civilized nation.

---

Cute idea, but that's not really the way it works.

Evil exists, and it can't be educated away. You can create republics when you eliminate the evil standing in the way. Creating democracies is stupid, because a large percentage of the people everywhere are stupid.

Yoshi, there is a very big difference between stupid (IE 99% of the state of North Carolina) and uneducated (the middle east) please stop being a self serving prick about this. You can't force the concept of democracy on someone who has a 3rd grade education, it's impossible, you might as well throw that money and time into a fire.

And you can't educate until you eliminate evil that will sabotage it. Once educated, a large percentage of the population anywhere is still stupid, including the entire city of Cleveland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

And you can't educate until you eliminate evil that will sabotage it. Once educated, a large percentage of the population anywhere is still stupid, including the entire city of Cleveland.

---

Nice try Yoshi, you are making no sense. If you are telling me your milky white ass could go to Pakistan and point out the "evil" people, you're being stupid (see North Carolina). People who do "evil" things may not even know what they are doing, as they can't grasp any concept that does not directly involve their own life.

Education and hope defeat evil intentions, not cramming some 18 year old into a country he does not belong for a "police action", or blowing up a political figure.

I love how Yoshi preaches military but would not do the deed himself. It's easy to chuck hand grenades from the peanut gallery.

I never had you pegged for a rehabilitation liberal. That's incredibly disappointing. There are the uneducated drones, but the people giving out orders and making plans are not uneducated or stupid. That is the evil that needs to be killed, along with any of the drones that get in the way.

If I'm wrong, explain why a fairly educated Germany elected and supported the Nazis. I guess we should have dropped text books on them too, right? You kill evil to enable good. You don't fucking use hooked on phonics. You do that after the evil is gone to help rebuild and empower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I never had you pegged for a rehabilitation liberal. That's incredibly disappointing. There are the uneducated drones, but the people giving out orders and making plans are not uneducated or stupid. That is the evil that needs to be killed, along with any of the drones that get in the way.

---

I'm not a liberal, I'm a real conservative who thinks we should stay the fuck out of this and let the idiots kill each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

If I'm wrong, explain why a fairly educated Germany elected and supported the Nazis. I guess we should have dropped text books on them too, right?

---

LOL noob, the Nazi's were not elected, go Purdue. You're thinking of the German Workers Party (ie the foundation)

Also

Hitler declared himself Führer, combining the offices of President and Chancellor into one using the power vested in him by the Enabling Act, and remained in the position of Führer until his eventual suicide in 1945.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

I'm not a liberal, I'm a real conservative who thinks we should stay the fuck out of this and let the idiots kill each other.

---

I never said we should be the ones killing anyone. I said evil needs to be killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I never said we should be the ones killing anyone. I said evil needs to be killed.

---

Evil needs to be killed confirmed, but I say we just sit back and let the assholes kill each other. Eventually Iran will tip it's hand and then we will know where to strike and hit them where it hurts. I have little doubt that Iran is behind this idiocy in Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

LOL noob, the Nazi's were not elected, go Purdue.

---

The dictatorship was established after he was in office, not before. Too bad the boosters didn't give the baseball team the pay offs that the football and basketball teams got or the education everyone else got at Michigan.

Although if you took world history in college, you were a liberal arts idiot anyway, so there wasn't much hope.

edit for Biff's edit: And the Republic elected Palpatine under the guise of democracy too. That doesn't mean they didn't put the Empire in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

your milky white ass

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

The dictatorship was established after he was in office, not before. Too bad the boosters didn't give the baseball team the pay offs that the football and basketball teams got or the education everyone else got at Michigan.

Although if you took world history in college, you were a liberal arts idiot anyway, so there wasn't much hope.

---

Nah, I read history on my own time. The Nazi's were never elected under the Nazi party. They were elected under alias of the German Workers Party then the socialist party, their power came from the beer halls and assassinations of people who stood in their way. When the "elections" in 1932 came about, 70% ran unopposed and since the foundation of the SS was controlling the voting of the citizens, I hardly call that a fair election.

So technically, Yoshi, you again fail at history.

We are off topic, let's get back to the idiotic state of the middle east at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Evil needs to be killed confirmed, but I say we just sit back and let the assholes kill each other. Eventually Iran will tip it's hand and then we will know where to strike and hit them where it hurts. I have little doubt that Iran is behind this idiocy in Pakistan.

---

Agreed. It's impossible to wage a war on one country in the middle east, because they all help each other. Christ, Syria probably still is hiding Iraq's WMDs, but we'll sure as hell never find them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Nah, I read history on my own time. The Nazi's were never elected under the Nazi party. They were elected under alias of the German Workers Party, their power came from the beer halls and assassinations of people who stood in their way.

So technically, Yoshi, you again fail at history.

---

It was a trojan horse to be sure, but the people still handed them the gun.

This I can agree with, I love the fact that Nazi Germany had so many "Hitler" haters the minute after he died. Asshole Germans.


Where do you think this is going in Pakistan Yoshi? Are we seeing a cival war as the conception?

This is like watching two derelicts argue over whether to smother a fire with paper or extinguish it with gas.

The problem is religion, and we're not going to destroy it (see: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, etc.) and letting them fight it out isn't going to solve anything either (see: the middle east for the last thousand years). And to say that we need to wait until Iran "tips its hand" so we know where to strike is beyond idiotic. To what end? This is a religious issue and will continue to be a religious issue no matter how many bombs we drop. Our problem isn't that it exists, it's that we, as a country, get in the middle of it.

The fire is going to burn and keep going, and I sincerely fucking hope that whatever this next election brings, it's someone with more sense than either of you on foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Where do you think this is going in Pakistan Yoshi? Are we seeing a cival war as the conception?

---

I think "we" will insure that it ends that way. I just wish I knew who "we" exactly are in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone

This is like watching two derelicts argue over whether to smother a fire with paper or extinguish it with gas.

The problem is religion, and we're not going to destroy it (see: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, etc.) and letting them fight it out isn't going to solve anything either (see: the middle east for the last thousand years). And to say that we need to wait until Iran "tips its hand" so we know where to strike is beyond idiotic. To what end? This is a religious issue and will continue to be a religious issue no matter how many bombs we drop. Our problem isn't that it exists, it's that we, as a country, get in the middle of it.

The fire is going to burn and keep going, and I sincerely fucking hope that whatever this next election brings, it's someone with more sense than either of you on foreign policy.

---

It's muslims killing other muslims. By saying that the problem is religion, you're saying that muslims are, by belief, violent. While I don't totally disagree, that's a fairly powerful statement to be making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone

This is like watching two derelicts argue over whether to smother a fire with paper or extinguish it with gas.

The problem is religion, and we're not going to destroy it (see: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, etc.) and letting them fight it out isn't going to solve anything either (see: the middle east for the last thousand years). And to say that we need to wait until Iran "tips its hand" so we know where to strike is beyond idiotic. To what end? This is a religious issue and will continue to be a religious issue no matter how many bombs we drop. Our problem isn't that it exists, it's that we, as a country, get in the middle of it.

The fire is going to burn and keep going, and I sincerely fucking hope that whatever this next election brings, it's someone with more sense than either of you on foreign policy.

---

Coming from somebody who lives in Iowa, I'll keep this in mind.

Religion is the fulcrum used by those in power to control the people of the middle east. You sound like a redneck right now "it's all religion man, they are zealots!!". No, Kano, it's oil and power, money and control, just like it has always been. People hide behind god, remember that. Much like Constantine created the catholic religion to control his empire, the money in the middle east uses it to control their masses.

I know you are smart enough to knock the dust off the book before writing a report right?

And as for the muslim issue, try 2000 years Kano, they have been problems since the Hittites, but far be it for me to argue your awesome point of view. Don't forget the crusades were not about "god" either, it was about money and land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It's muslims killing other muslims. By saying that the problem is religion, you're saying that muslims are, by belief, violent. While I don't totally disagree, that's a fairly powerful statement to be making.

---

Where do Jews fit into this? Because, you know, they're there too.

Not in Pakistan. Within Pakistan, it's about power and money, just like everywhere else on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

Where do Jews fit into this? Because, you know, they're there too.

---

Well considering the United States and the UK placed them there, I'd say they are doing as best as they can.

The only way I can compare what happened post world war 2 is to say that we take you from new york and place you in the middle of Alabama and Mississippi with a shirt on that says "Confederates are loser faggots"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It's muslims killing other muslims. By saying that the problem is religion, you're saying that muslims are, by belief, violent. While I don't totally disagree, that's a fairly powerful statement to be making.

---

It's no different than Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa, which has been going on for a long time too. It doesn't mean that Muslims are prone to violence, or at least that it's limited to Islam. All of the major monotheistic religions are a haven for the violent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone

It's no different than Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa, which has been going on for a long time too. It doesn't mean that Muslims are prone to violence, or at least that it's limited to Islam. All of the major monotheistic religions are a haven for the violent.

---

More people have died in the names of their "gods" than any disease or disaster in the history of the world.

Religion 1

The masses 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Not in Pakistan. Within Pakistan, it's about power and money, just like everywhere else on earth.

---

I meant more as a whole in the entire region because that's what I thought you were telling Kano. There are only about 2,500 Jews in Pakistan so they are a very small minority.

Let's not forget there are different types of Muslims, though. That has something to do with the turmoil not only in Pakistan, where Sunnis and Shi'as exist and are pretty segregrated from what I can tell, but most other Muslim states (Iraq) where there aren't enough Jews to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

But didn't she go against the advice of others who knew her life was in danger? Apparently she didn't give a shit and wanted everyone to know that she was there to stay. She wasn't exactly a hard target to hit.

---

She was trying to give herself and her people a free society to live in without fear of having to hide in other countries or face the consequences. It was a brave move to make and she ultimately paid for her freedom. But I don't see how her being an easy target makes this slaying any more significant. She died for what she believed in and I couldn't think of a better way for it to happen at this point in time. I respect that.

I agree with you that there's more going on here than meets the eye and all angles should be explored thoroughly. But as it stands now this looks pretty bad.

She should have at least considered setting up a visible 'second-in-command' or understudy of some sort. She's gone, and now her party is completely up in the air.

That's really poor planning, especially considering how 'out in the open' she was while campaigning. She had to know the risks, and should have had a contingency plan in the very likely event she would be assassinated.

She has a lot of followers. I'm sure there are those close to her that will keep her like-minded goals alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Now I don't want to jump the gun here, but I think it's pretty likely that Musharraf is behind the assassination. Isn't it time we stopped handing him planeloads of cash to do as he pleases?

---

You're jumping the gun. The guy himself is a target of assassinations, has little to no control or influence over the tribal regions, and was himself essentially acquitted by Bhutto herself after recent October assasssination attempt. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there were a great number of people who wanted to see Bhutto dead. Now, Musharraf may passively have facilitated the assassination by failing to diligently protect Bhutto and her followers (as evidenced by unusual police requests, and even Pakistan's refusal to accept US and UN aid in investigating today's assassination) but to say he actively orchestrated it is going too far. In fact, in a twisted way, Musharraf may try to claim that the state of emergency he recently placed Pakistan under the guise of safety concerns would have prevented today's assassination.

Also, if someone wanted to put additional pressure on Musharraf to step down, alluding that he may have been involved in today's assassination would be a good way to put the focus back on him, which is why I think Sharif is already talking about boycotting the Jan. 8 elections in response to today's events.

Any of you hear about the email she sent a friend to be released upon her death.

She blames Musharef for what happened.

Nope, that is a new one. And very suspicious, anybody could have sent that shit.

I have yet to hear that, as apparently have many national and international news sites. I'll believe it when I see it.

I heard it on NPR earlier while I was driving home. The source of the email was her long time friend that was working on a book with her about her return to Pakistan. They spoke to the dude. I'm not really surprised it hasn't been widely circulated yet though since it was rather damning. What happened is: She sent him an email after the first attempt on her life and said for him to release it only if she is killed.

Here's a link to the story. The second thing down that says "# Listen: Bhutto's friend and consultant Mark Siegel on All Things Considered"

That's quite odd because this is a direct quote from Bhutto:

Quote:

---

The sham investigation of the October 19 massacre and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalize on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Musharraf.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...tto/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It's muslims killing other muslims. By saying that the problem is religion, you're saying that muslims are, by belief, violent. While I don't totally disagree, that's a fairly powerful statement to be making.

---

Religion is only as good as the person it's a vessel for; in the disenfranchised, poor, evil and stupid it can be used to justify doing very bad things to others. It's the strongest tool of influence.

I think you're missing the most important point Kano made; there's no way these religious or idelogical disputes are ever going to stop. It's not like one side can ever prove the other wrong, the only way to "prove" the other wrong is to spill their blood. So America (and the Western World) should just stay the fuck away, live in our happy little melting pots; and quit wasting lives and money on an unanswerable question.

I mean, give them "some" aid if they need it and some minor peackeeping, but full scale wars, fuck no. And no more "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" bullshit, pls.

EDIT: And if you complain, we can't do that because it will leave ourselves open for 9/11 like stuff. Think of it this way, how many people die of terrorism in America a year? A Decade? How many people die of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes? Or from heart attacks for being fat? Car crashes? Yes, 911 was major, emotive and a horrible thing to have happened; but we accept that millions of people die in ways that can be prevented without collateral deaths, so why try prevent something that kills much less people a year and can only be prevented by killing more people in a way that leads to no altruistic gain.

The problem is people are sheep; the people over there are beaten into submission sheep. You can try and shave off the wool, but the sheep will still be there in the end and the wool will grow back. Don't worry, I won't be leaving my day job to write metaphors full time.

The real question is: What's going to get blown up first?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...13-952,00.html

Pakistan is so going down...

Why can't we all be friends?

Stupid sunroofs....

So this is the same woman who had her brother assassinated and stole billions of dollars from the Pakastani treasury?

Yes.

Wow! I never knew that. Of course I've only known of this woman since the summer when there were talks of her returning. But since then I've heard/read/seen a lot about her. But never this...

Quote:

---

Assassination of Murtaza Bhutto
On 20 September 1996, Murtaza Bhutto was shot and killed, along with six supporters, in what was later determined to be, an ambush by police.[5][3][2].

On the evening of his assassination there were 70 to 100 police officers placed yards away from his residence (70 Clifton Road, Karachi), including several high-level police officials[6]. Some of the officers were in sniper positions in the nearby trees with the streetlights being shut. As the car carrying Bhutto approached the house, it was stopped by a police contingent. When Bhutto exited the car, the police opened fire. All of the six men accompanying him were fatally shot too. Bhutto was shot several times, but the shot that killed him was fired execution style on his neck [6]. The victims were left to bleed without any medical attention for half-an-hour to 45 minutes. All of the seven men were then taken to different locations, none to emergency hospitals[6]. Bhutto was taken to Mideast Hospital[6]. In the aftermath of this assassination, none of the police officers were arrested, and some were later promoted to higher positions[6]. Benazir Bhutto's government chose to arrest all the survivors and witnesses, two of whom died mysteriously in police custody[6].

A judicial tribunal concluded that the the assassination could not have occurred 'without approval from the highest level of government', thereby implying the involvement of Benazir Bhutto (the prime minister at the time) or her husband Asif Ali Azari (the minister of Industry). [3][6][5]

---

2 3 5 6

Al-Qaida did it, yo.

Shit, and she would have been President if not for those crazy Qaidas!

I don't buy it, it just seems too easy to put the blame there. Maybe it's true but I'd hardly accepted it at face value, as I expect the CIA to lie to us more than the president.

Please take a picture of yourself wearing your official, wacko-issue tinfoil hat. Al-Qaida has everything to gain from further destabilizing the region, so it would make sense at least.

So is this "Al-Qaida in Iraq" or standard vanilla "Al-Qaida"?

They're more caramel or mocha than vanilla but yes.

I've noticed they still exist. Are we cool with them now? Because they're not all dead yet.

Or is that not a priority?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

I agree, if I were to choose it's either Musharraf or Iran, whom no doubt benefits from this death as much as anyone.

---

How does Iran benefit from her death?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

I've noticed they still exist. Are we cool with them now? Because they're not all dead yet.

Or is that not a priority?

---

There's a shit ton of them, and they're not organized like a traditional military, so they're harder to find. We've killed a hell of a lot of them though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Please take a picture of yourself wearing your official, wacko-issue tinfoil hat. Al-Qaida has everything to gain from further destabilizing the region, so it would make sense at least.

---

As does the current leader of their country. I don't doubt Al-Qaida could be taking place, but don't they usually take claim to such acts? It seems weird that they haven't come out and said it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Agreed. It's impossible to wage a war on one country in the middle east, because they all help each other. Christ, Syria probably still is hiding Iraq's WMDs, but we'll sure as hell never find them.

---

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAH HAH HAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUA

When the time-travel-bombs start falling on your third birthday, you'll be sorry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAH HAH HAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUA

---

That's more true now than ever.

Can you back that up with anything that's not an editorial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Agreed. It's impossible to wage a war on one country in the middle east, because they all help each other. Christ, Syria probably still is hiding Iraq's WMDs, but we'll sure as hell never find them.

---

Anyways, for a more serious reply now.
Its hard enough to find two countries that get along well in that region to begin with so once again you have shown yourself to be the uber asshole retard that you are.
It wasnt bad enough that you were WRONG on just about EVERYTHING you attacked me for but here we have you once again spreading the bulshit lies that have been disproven years ago.

Almaci knows the middle east......

Guess the 7 day war never happened because according to you teamwork is out the window.

Stop posting against Yoshi, you keep digging a bigger hole.

So where exactly on the political spectrum is Almaci?

The ass end.

I guess it was a bit much to expect a serious answer on that.

He's slightly to the left of Karl Marx, and, given that the opposite of right is always wrong, that makes him pretty damn wrong.

I would have responded to his most recent nonsense, but an alert moderator already did I see.

I mean is the party line always correct? I consider myself an independent mainly on the basis that aligning myself with a certain mindset is just something that doesn't happen for me, and I'd rather not represent a party I'm not committed to. But it always seem like you're towing the party line, is it really possible that you agree with everything on the right? or are there actually issues where you will separate from that red ocean?

No, the party line is not always correct, because the Republicans sometimes wander too far left. I never, ever toe the party line. I toe my line, and in the majority of cases the Republicans happen to agree with me. I'm probably to the left of the party platform on the environment, including animal rights. I'm with or to the right of the party on just about everything else. And religion can fuck off.

For instance, I'd like to do away with welfare and pay people who are too lazy to work to be test subjects for drugs and cosmetics, rather than using animals. Three problems solved right there.

Why not just use cats? :chick:

Because cats go in the woodchipper. duh.

Well, save the fresh cat bits in some tupperwear and bring 'em out when you need to spray 'em with acid or whatever. Come on now, this is science. Thrifty science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Almaci knows the middle east......

Guess the 7 day war never happened because according to you teamwork is out the window.

Stop posting against Yoshi, you keep digging a bigger hole.

---

So how does the Bhutto assassination benefit Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief Silver

I mean is the party line always correct? I consider myself an independent mainly on the basis that aligning myself with a certain mindset is just something that doesn't happen for me, and I'd rather not represent a party I'm not committed to. But it always seem like you're towing the party line, is it really possible that you agree with everything on the right? or are there actually issues where you will separate from that red ocean?

---

He is so far gone that he condemns the 9/11 conspiracy theorists while supporting equally retarded shit from the right.
Like Iraq having nuclear weapons and shipping em of to enemy Syria, US media being LIBERAL etcetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

So how does the Bhutto assassination benefit Iran?

---

Are you even fucking serious?

1) It causes more violence in the middle east, violance breeds terrorist, terrorists are how Iran operates, this is no secret

2) It takes away a peaceful person in power and leaves it up to a military dictator, who may or may not support american values. Which is better than an american educated female.

3) Controversy creates unstable governments, unstable governments require US focus. This takes away people in place to monitor iran.

I could go on, but 3 is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

He is so far gone that he condemns the 9/11 conspiracy theorists while supporting equally retarded shit from the right.
Like Iraq having nuclear weapons and shipping em of to enemy Syria, US media being LIBERAL etcetera.

---

The US media is US liberal, not stupid, socialist European liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

Are you even fucking serious?

1) It causes more violence in the middle east, violance breeds terrorist, terrorists are how Iran operates, this is no secret

2) It takes away a peaceful person in power and leaves it up to a military dictator, who may or may not support american values. Which is better than an american educated female.

3) Controversy creates unstable governments, unstable governments require US focus. This takes away people in place to monitor iran.

I could go on, but 3 is enough.

---

1: It is to me considering Iran was the ONLY country fighting the Taliban back when Cheney had meetings with em at their NYc office to chat about a gas pipeline.

2: Strange considering Bhutto had support from the people as well as the Government in Iran.
Iranian Press/Government/People were all up in arms about this.

3: Iran would like nothing more then stability in the region but in the west it has Iraq in US hands and Israel with nukes and on the east it has Afghanistan with foreign forces, Pakistan with nukes AND India with nukes.
How would you feel?

Dont you guys ever get tired of spouting this bullshit?
Iran is a troubled nation for sure but it is also a country in transition and this war of words isnt helping the forces of change within that country.
Back the entire country up against a wall and they will all lash out at those backing em up and support reactionary measures.

Got any more bullshit points then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

The US media is US liberal, not stupid, socialist European liberal.

---

US media is corporate

Nuff said