Justus For All

Sad, indeed. But then not entirely unexpected. Bhutto stirred too many enemies both political and religious.

Interesting video clips shown on the news down here.

One, showing the guy firing at least two shots with a handgun and the white scarf that Bhutto was wearing “blowing” away from her face. The large dark patch “could” have been a shadow. Then the screen went white as the bomb went off.

A second, taken from a different angle, also showed the movement in the scarf, but without the “shadow”.

THere was also the report of comments by one of Bhutto’s entourage who reported that staff tried in vain to stem the bloodflow from a very large hole in her neck. He also said that the wound was inflicted prior to the bomb.

Now, just how that might square up with the report issued by Mashariff’s administration that Bhutto “had tried to duck inside the vehicle and and had tragically caught her head on the sunroof frame causing the fatal injuries” is a matter for conjecture. As was stated by a British reporter and eye-witness “The only sure answer would come from a post mortem examination, and the likelihood of a disinterment for that purpose is zero”.

What is certain, there is only one person who will benefit politically, and it is not OBL (very silent was alQaeda), nor Sharif (pulled out of the election), nor Bhutto’s husband who as “Prince Regent” of PPP now has some political power. The Taliban do not have anything other than religious mana to gain and this was a huge blunder if they are behind it.

Most significant - in my mind - is the fact that the gunman looked like a military man, and the bomber was arab rather than Pakistani.

The Saudi connection again?

How sad…

All accounts that I have seen are indeed that Bhutto was shot before the bomb went off. I haven’t seen anything from the Pakistan government saying she hit her head on a sunroof.

I think it unlikely that Musharaf is behind this, as you seem to be implying, and I am not sure what you mean by Al Qaida being silent, since they have reportedly, although I don’t think that this is confirmed, claimed responsibility.

In any event, Sharif (although admittedly almost certainly not involved) has as much to gain as Musharref at least, given that Bhutto was a rival of his for power and their is now a much better chance that he will indeed be allowed to participate in elections. Musharraf had reportedly come to a power sharing agreement with Bhutto, so in many ways he was hurt more then others by the assassination. And of course the Taliban/Al Qaida elements DID have multiple reasons to dislike Bhutto, ranging from her being a symbol of the west and modernized Pakistan to her very strongly stated positions of hunting them down and killing them.

The best explanation I have seen is that most likely it was an Al-Qaida operation aided and abetted by rogue elements of the Pakistan ISI (an organization which is known to be riddled with jihadist sympathy and largely a law unto itself.) Certainly one could expect Saudi connections and money since Al-Qaida is really a Saudi Organization but one must take care to differentiate that is not a Saudi government organization, rather an organization that is in opposition to the Saudi Government.

Mashariff might well not be directly, or indirectly, involved in Bhutto’s assassination as you have said.

Read what I said - “…there is only one person who will benefit politically…”.

What better illustration could Masharriff have gotten of the dangers of loosening his control over the country through the army and police forces?

I have to go back to the position I prefer - that which the British took to terrorism in Ireland.

“It is a criminal act, carried out by criminals.”

Musharref has gained strength internationally as a result of the Bhutto assassination, given that we don’t see anyone better. I don’t think he has gained strength internally though, and his weakness was, and is, his internal strength.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘prefer’ in relation to your last statement. It could mean anything from you think that is what it actually is, to you think regardless of what it actually is to that is the best way of dealing with it, to that is how you wish it was.

It is of course true that the act was criminal, and therefore those who did it were criminals, but whether that is all they are is debatable. One can easily state it was an act of war (albeit outside civilized rules of war) carried out by revolutionaries.

And don’t forget that part of the British solution to the ‘purely criminal’ Irish terrorism was political.

I also don’t know how similar Irish terrorism and internalional Jihadi terrorism really are. Using the same paradigm for different things is typically a bad idea. And of course the ‘nightmare scenario’ of a Jahadi nuke would be ‘criminal’ but it would go well beyond any sort of ordinary crime.

Yes, the “political” answer to the Irish question came some many years after some of the murderers and criminals had been locked in jail for quite long periods.

Some very enlightened Brits (politicians!! no less, led by John Major) saw the opportunity to bypass the likes of the Reverend Ian Paisley and the IRA to talk directly with the Irish government about a joint approach to settling the problem.

In that respect a bit like Bush talking to Iran about what to do with Saddam.

BTW if ever you want to hear real “hate speech” try the Rev Paisley in his hey-day in the 1970’s. GWB rousing the troops against Iraq had nothing on Paisley against the Catholics.

But that was a long time ago, and like most lessons of history it has been long forgotten.