Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated

[Yvl]

[Luceit]

I said the following in an MSN conversation: Pakistan was screwed before this. Now it's got a new screw.

More seriously, surely everyone expected this to happen soon enough considering that Bhutto was almost assassinated days after her return. I'm guessing that the January 8 elections will have to be postponed as well because the situation got a lot more hectic. I also think it's very likely that Pakistan is going to go into emergency rule again and that the US might be pressured into doing something.
As a side note, I love how the people running for president in the United States are trying to use this to gain popularity. Hilarious.
Finally, I'd say it's a very sad thing that she died. She was an admirable and very brave lady in my opinion.

(Does anyone here suspect Musharraf of doing it?)
_________________

[Yvl]

Musharraf indeed seems suspicious. He already showed he had too much attachment to his position when threatening to cancel the elections, so I wouldn't put something like this past him.
_________________

[eXistence of Fly]

[Sniper_Zegai]

A sad day for Pakistan, a leader such as Bhutto would have opened the flood gates for more women's rights and her time spent in Britian would have gone well to bridge the gap between western and eastern culture. Pakistan really needed this woman to help bring the country out of the dark age and its clear someone did'nt want that to happen.

Who knows who is behind this but western powers have been urging Pakistan not to cancel the election. Who knows what will happen from here.
_________________

[Bub]

Democracy and equal rights in Pakistan has just been blown out of the water for another large amount of years due to this, I'd imagine, though Bhutto herself basically knew it was a matter of time before this was going to happen to her.

I do mostly suspect Musharraf. Mostly because Bhutto asked for a certain amount of security, and was promised it. When she showed up, it wasn't there. Furthermore, like Fly said, extremists have little to gain from this other than harsher conflicts between them and Pakistan. And hell, extremists have been targetting Musharraf as well (or someone has, as shown in the failed attempt to bomb the hell out of the guy, instead killing 40 some odd people).

I heard a story about extremists trying to use a baby with a bomb strapped to it to assassinate Bhutto before. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/FOR EIGN/112140015/1001). It's just sick how far people go to follow their fanatic ways. How can people place a death of a child over their religious or political views?

This is why, in my opinon, Church and State should be seperated in every country. It would be if I had my say. Would it make much of a difference in the Middle East? Probably not right away...but in time I think it would.
_________________
Kooluk's Resident Drunkard.

[Tullaryx]

It's unfortunate and will most likely contribute in the destabilization of the one nation in the region which could ill-afford it. Pretty much every Western nation leader who has expressed condemnation towards the assassination and subsequent suicide bombing have also stressed in some form or another the concern in regards to the security of Pakistan's nuclear assets. It's easy to forget that even when things were pretty stable in Pakistan nuclear weapon's technology was being smuggled out from the country by some of its top nuclear scientists to be sold to Iran and North Korea. India is one nation who will be watching the events unfolding in Pakistan very closely.

As for who may orchestrated the assassination it could very well be someone in Musharraf's regime. Does this mean it is him? I don't believe so. There's always been a splinter group within Musharraf's government who have sided with the extremists within its borders and who have been accused of assisting Al-Qaeda with intelligence and safe havens within the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. To be more specific there's commanders within the interior security (intelligence apparatus) department of Musharraf's government have been known in the past to be major allies with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban pre-9/11.

Yes, Musharraf is the most likely suspect and the fact everyone thinks so when before this event they wouldn't have known where Pakistan was when pushed shows that the media has grabbed hold of the more juicy bit of news. Musharraf has nothing to gain by assassinating Benazir Bhutto and all the more to lose. He knows that support from the US and its Western allies has been very tenuous at best. The fact that the United States had begun hedging its bet and approved of the return of Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan for its general elections shows that Musharraf's influence in keeping the U.S. as a major supporter has begun to wane. If Musharraf has any fault in Bhutto's assassination it would be not taking seriously the danger posed to her well-being upon her return. The fact that Musharraf himself has been the target of recent assassination attempts by extremist groups within Pakistan has rarely been reported since Benzair Bhutto's death shows that he has become the easy suspect to be scrutinized.

While I don't think Al-Qaeda or even the Taliban are the main culprits for the assassination I do believe that they either assisted those responsible or will take advantage of the chaos its begun. These two groups have the most to gain from a destabilized Pakistan. One, it makes their stay in the country much safer as Musharraf's security department switches from rooting out these two groups from the tribal areas of the country to restoring law and order in the cities. Two, it gives them an opening to help foment civil war between the extremists and the secular groups in Pakistan which in the end would be a major blow to the United States in the one major ally they have against fighting terrorism in the region. Three, a destabilized Pakistan would mean it's security measures in keeping its nuclear assets safe would have been lessened. It's this final scenario which pretty much scares everyone in the region and the main reason why Musharraf has been supported by the United States and its allies despite the near authoritarian rule by his regime.

I really do not think we'll ever find out who was/were ultimately responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination. There will be people who will see Musharraf as being responsible even if facts came out that he wasn't just because he's Musharraf. There'll be those who will see Al-Qaeda's fingerprints in the whole thing even if they're not the triggermen. If there's a more likely scenario it will be a little of both from either side with factions not loyal to Musharraf in his own government assisting extremists with Al-Qaeda ties in planning and going through with the assassination.
_________________

[Leb]

They didn't know what the hell she died from, apparently. Now the story is "skull fracture".

I doubt Musharraf had much involvement in this, if any. He'd know well enough that her assassination would be considered a scheme of his (as people are assuming now), and concluded that trying to bide time was the best chance he had. I mean, that's all he's been doing lately, so suddenly having her whacked makes no sense. I'm sure he found this death to be terrible news-- just because he knows what kind of repercussions might be in store for him.

If only he could get some tips from Putin. Now there's a guy who knows how to keep his hands clean, officially.

[Sun's Vicegerent]

I saw this yesterday on the news, and I thought it was really quite sad. I honestly thought Bhutto was quite a good woman and someone who would make the country a better place, but now it looks like Pakistan's lost in the dark again.
_________________

[shikator]

This is very unfortunate,sad and shoking at the same time.Benazir bhuuto are one of those well respected women in the world,Come to think about it she is the only woman that has the kind of status in muslim world.And to think that she would die when the election is just 10 days away......realy sad

As for pervez musharaf.I think he had something to do with it. he is the only one i can think of having the strongest motive to do so.Election is 10 days away, bhuttos the oppoenet and i think we would all agree how desperate he is to keep hold of the position he has now.

[Hawk Thanatos]

Considering Benazir Bhutto was just as corrupt if not more so than Musharaf I doubt this will be the crushing blow to Pakistan that some seem to think it is. Pakistan's current focus on improved security and economy is more important than Bhutto's questionable ideal of democracy was.

[eXistence of Fly]

[Ujitsuna]

Perhaps the US should stop propping up this regime with billions of dollars in foreign aid and allow a different person to be elected into power. Bhutto herself said that it was the aid to the regime and the image that it is a puppet of the USA that has angered most people. Add to that the "state of emergency" and the human rights abuses.

[Tullaryx]

And if foreign aid is stopped and it doesn't stop the rise in violence and extremist militarism of its key government departments then what does that solve? It's easy to say the U.S. foreign aid is the cause of it all but if there's a problem with the aid being given to Pakistan's government it's that it's been given in al almost carte blance manner. There's been no accountability within the Pakistani government of how the aid is being used. For that I blame Bush and his foreign policy people but I don't place blame on the aid going there. Funny how it's not even been a week and already blame is being placed on America instead on the people who actually perpetuated the event.

For one thing Bhutto never was against U.S. foreign aid to the country. She herself received billions in foreign aid from the U.S. during her time as leader of Pakistan. Even in her time as leader of her country the aid sent to her government was being misused which led to corruption charges against her which got her removed from power.

Was she corrupt herself? I don't think so, but like Musharraf there were people within her government who were and who went against what she tried to accomplish. It's easy to blame Musharraf because he's a military man and got into power because of his generalship of the military. Whose to say here that he doesn't have the best interest of his people in mind. I, for one, am not arrogant enough of a Westerner to say that he was bad for his people.

What we have in Pakistan and pretty much in the entire region is another consequence of the West trying to impose its form of governance on a people that culturally seem deadset against democracy in how its practiced in the West. Bhutto and opposition groups ot Musharraf wanted a return to democratic process and ideals but when they were there to begin with the country was rife with corruption. It took a military coup to restore order and bring confidence back to its economic policies. Policies which may not be great to people who grew up in a democracy but which seemed to be fine for those in the country.

The crisis which sprung up that has embattled Musharraf was never about his slowing down the democratic process in Pakistan and more of his decision to help the U.S. against its war on terror. By making the decision to help the U.S. against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda he angered those within his ranks who were sympathetic to these groups and also put him against the tribal leaders of the regions which lined the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. These leaders believe in what the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are doing but doing so made them targets of harrassment from Musharraf's goverment and military.

When extremists began to be more bold in their attempts to assassinate Musharraf and cause unrest through bombings in Pakistan Musharraf did the one thing he as a military man knew how to do and that's crack down. I can't blame the man for doing what he thought was best in the way he knew how. Would a civilian leader have done the same or something different which didn't include the use of the State Police and the military? I can't say they wouldn't have done the same. In the Middle East, even the most democratized state, the power of the person who ran the country --- whether democratically-elected or through force --- knew their power lay with the military and the state police. Bhutto knew that and the same for those who followed her as Prime Minister.

On another note, I do believe the extremists (whether with or without Al-Qaeda assistance) are probably to blame for the assassination. I say this because in Bhutto they would've had a second powerful figure to have to contend with in addition to Musharraf. Bhutto had even complimented and praised Musharraf in how he dealt with the extremists who had taken hold of the Lal Masjid mosque in Islamabad by force to make the government institute and put into power the Islamic judicial system similar to the system used by the Taliban. By allying herself against the extremists Bhutto made herself a target and with Musharraf already a major opponent the extremeists knew that it didn't matter who won the parliamentary elections they would be besieged from both groups.

By removing Bhutto from the picture and putting her PPP group into chaos to find a suitable replacement they remove one of two obstacle in their way. The reaction of the population to this assassination by causing riots and violence in the cities has diminished Musharraf's power when he most needs it. Now he must concentrate in keeping law and order in the major cities and to do so he must use most, if not all, of the Pakistani State Police and military away from the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan which would make it easy for extremists to find safe haven. So with whats been happening now in Pakistan it would seem to be working the plan to destabilize Pakistan.

In the end, what worries me is not whether democracy will return to Pakistan. What worries me is whether the nuclear weapons and material that's beng kept safe will remain so or will it suddenly fall into the wrong hands. And I don't even mean this will be bad for the national security of the United States. If any, the one country who may react strongly to whats going on in Pakistan is India. Like the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War a detente was established between the two rival powers because both knew security of its nuclear weapons kept any accidental events of the nuclear variety from occurring. The same has been going on between the two nuclear powers in South Asia. What's going on in Pakistan and its path to destabilization is a major danger to India's national security and I wouldn't be surprised if they declared a more military footing along its borders with Pakistan in the next few months if things inside Pakistan's borders do not improve.

So, while it's tragic and unfortunate that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated it's now gone beyond just the death of one political figure and could become the catalyst for something much bigger than just people thinkng Musharraf trying to stay in power or extremists just removing another roadblock to their goals.
_________________

[Ujitsuna]