Asp Forum - Who Killed Benazir Bhutto ? Washington Post Comments

cancel@moslems.shit

1/6/2008 8:26:00 AM

How CIA or Al-CIA-DAH killed Bhutto ?

Only two yanks were the field operatives for the operation.

One sniper was chosen that looks like a pakistani. He was far away.

One nearby remote controlled bomb operator, fluent in Urdu and handler
of the third patsy.

One pakistani hired to be a patsi sacrificial lamb, who was hired
possibly as a reporter. The reporter was possibly given a tape
recorder with very strong and small bomb of hexogen or other
explosive.

1/ The sniper took a shot.
2/ The bomb operator observed it and triggered the bomb sacrificing
his cannon fodder and make it look like bomb assasination attempt.

This operation has the standard hall-marks of Al-CIA, which is too
cowardly to come in open and uses patsies who carry bombs not knowing
what they carry in the gadgets they are given as employees.

Posted by: AL-CIA-DAH | January 6, 2008 03:05 AM

Al-Qaida = Al-Caida = Al-CIA = The CIA

CIA KILLED BENAZIR, after getting her into Pakistan, to put blame on
Musharraf and then to use that as an excuse to get into Pakistan and
get its nuclear weapons.

AMERICA WANTS TO STEAL THE OIL OF THE WORLD OF ISLAM IN THE MIDDLE
EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA.

The pakistani nuclear weapons are a threat to the THEIF.

It is a conflict of civilization to the YANK.

Every Buddhist and CONFUCIAN country EXCEPT China is under occupation
by the YANKs. Japan and Korea are prostitutes. Thailand is to bang
cock. China is a slave labor colony for cheap goods.

Only Moslem is independent.

India is small and can be dealt at the end also.

Remember, the country to be raped most and first was the indo-chinese
country of Vietnam. So they are OSTENSIBLY at peace with India because
they think too low of India just as indian derived indo-china.

The vietnamese were treated worse than animals and in the yank
mentality deserved to be agent-oranged, napalmed and run naked to save
their skin, which is exactly what happened.

Posted by: REALITY | January 6, 2008 02:43 AM

Musharaf is no angel, and I am not his fan, my critique is directed
specifically at one point: your silly conjecture that Musharaf is
planning to cut a deal to give control of Pakistan to Islamists, and
in turn jeopardizing the security of pakistan's nuclear arsenals. On
numerous times, I have been critical of the fawning of this
administration over Musharaf in light of his misdeeds. But i don't
convict him of Bhutto's murder without evidence(for all I know he may
have done it), i don't convict him of being an islamist contrary to
the tide of opinion on this figure and his background, and I don't
charge him with being the principal person who has failed to bring in
Osama or destroy AQ.

Would I trust Pervez Musharaf with running my country? No I don't. Nor
do i think it is a bright idea to send any American troops into that
country UNDER THE CURRENT TIMING. Please refrain from spinning my
positions into straw men that you can attack. I made a specific
criticism of your suggestions that the US needs to actively pressure
Musharaf to let us send our troops into Pakistan. I have effectively
shown how there are many pitfalls in this strategy, and you have
failed to answer how we would answer any of these eventualities. The
smaller Bush's footprint is in Pakistan right now the better, i don't
know why that suggestion seems so radical?

Posted by: Farzad | January 1, 2008 10:00 PM

Dear William,

Please go to youtube and watch Benezir Bhutto in an interview with
David Frost name a man she believed wanted her dead as the man who
murdered Osama Bin Laden!

Benezir said he was murdered by Omar Sheikh, that interview took place
two months ago, how can a dead man commit murder?

Even my seven year old nephew laughed on seeing Osama with his new
beard on the news, he screamed 'thats fake, you can't grow younger!'
at the screen.
He was proven right by British experts who said it was an obvious fake
but seriously how could anybody believe it to be real.

This is getting beyond ridiculous now. If your going to promote fake
bogeymen at least have the decency to make it sound convincing, the
media is the joke now.

Posted by: emmy | January 1, 2008 06:03 PM

///I am not picking on you for the sake of damaging your ego or just
to be a jerk. YOUR METHOD OF POSTULATING FANCIFUL NEW THREATS BASED ON
NOTHING BUT PARANOIA IS THE CRITICAL NEOCON ERROR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
ALL OF SUDDEN A BUNCH OF WHITE GUYS ARE EXPERTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY,
HISTORY, AND POLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THEY START PUTTING
TOGETHER ALL THESE SPECULATIVE TERRIFYING SITUATIONS CONCOCTED IN
THEIR OWN MINDS. THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHAT ALLOWED THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION TO MANIPULATE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL FEARS SO THAT THEY
CAN EXECUTE THEIR POWER GRABBING AGENDA.///

Well, I'm a least glad that you figured out the part that said it was
a theory. But I can also see that you got the rest of it wrong. Well,
it's a start.

You are wrong about me being a neocon, wanting to send troops into
Pakistan, wanting to control their people, you are wrong about the
paranoia. And more importantly, you are wrong about Musharaff. I hope
I am wrong about Musharaff. Does this surprise you? Here's the point:
What Mush is doing isn't exactly inspiring confidence in what he is
doing. Especially, how he is going about it. He leaves but no choice
but to wonder. He has been a do-nothing while Pakistan is falling
apart. And now he has a wild-eyed Imam captured from the Red Mosque.
Gee, maybe he will have to make a deal wuth him - too! What next? Good
question...

There are sooo many uncertanties of what happens in Pakistan, and for
them to have nukes - on top of whatever else takes place - is more
than a major concern to every country in the world. Let me know when
you figure that part out. Or maybe you like the situation the way it
is? Either way, I don't care. I do care about the quality of the
Pakistani leadership. He has too much power to change the landscape of
the world and exerts too little in power to keep it safe. Let me know
when you figure that out - too! And - go change your underwear - it
sounds like you have soiled it again....

Posted by: Plainfacto | January 1, 2008 03:49 PM

Do you know - in particular - the people that were killed in this
raid? Sure, he said they were the enemy, once someone is dead he is
free to claim they are anyone that he wants them to be.)Plainfacto

HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR THEORY, THEY SHOWED THE SIEGE AND RAID
IN THE RED MOSQUE OF PAKISTAN ON VIDEO. IN FACT, EVERYONE IN PAKISTAN
AND THE WORLD KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED BECAUSE SECURITY FORCES
SURROUNDED THE MOSQUE AND DEMANDED FOR MANY DAYS THAT THE RADICAL IMAM
BE TURNED OVER. SO YES THERE IS FILM OF IT, AND THERE WAS A LENGTHY
SIEGE THAT WAS ALSO TELEVISED. KIND OF HARD TO FAKE THAT ONE.

Second of all your theory, has no chance of being right, therefore it
isn't a theory but wild speculation. I don't trust Musharaf either,
but the person who betrayed us by not seriously hunting Al Quaeda is
not Pervez Musharaf, he has no duty to protect us and hunt down Bin
laden, the person who failed to adequately prioritize hunting Bin
Laden is George Bush.

As to your theory about the assassination attempts, ie Musharaf has
had dozen assassination attempts and Bhutto just two, how come the
attempts on her life where successful. Well maybe because Musharaf is
not an idiot who just weeks after one assassination attempt, sticks
his head out of sun roof surrounded by a crowd of people who have not
passed security clearance?

Maybe Musharaf killed her I don't know for sure, Maybe AQ? But your
wild theory on Musharaf a secular military dictator deciding to hand
over power to the mullahs is completely contradicted by history and
the facts. Why would a general want to turn a military dictatorship
into an Islamic one, by definition he has to share power with Islamic
clergy and he has to impose Islamic law, in short he has to give up
power. Something that Musharaf has not been to keen on, and not just
that he has to give up power to the one group that has tried to kill
him, and who we have taped evidence of him trying to kill them.

Maybe the reason Musharaf doesn't push too hard is because he thinks
he will unleash civil war. This is not a betrayal of America, he is
the president of pakistan, he has no duty to protect America, that is
George Bush's job. If he wanted bin laden so bad maybe he should have
tried sending the 101st Airborne into Tora Bora, as opposed to relying
on some mercenary cut throats who obviously don't have the same
motivation to run up a mountain and get their face blow off by
suicidal jihadists with RPGs in the dead of winter. Maybe if Bush
cared more about rooting out AQ on the Pakistan and Afghan border then
about securing Iraq's energy resources we wouldn't be wondering where
Osama is right now? Bush should have done in 2003 what you are
demanding a foreign president to do for us today. Calling Bush and
Cheney criminals is an insult to the good honest criminals everywhere,
and continuing to find Muslim and foreign scapegoats for Bush's
failings is not productive and may lead to further damage to our
foreign policy.

I am not picking on you for the sake of damaging your ego or just to
be a jerk. YOUR METHOD OF POSTULATING FANCIFUL NEW THREATS BASED ON
NOTHING BUT PARANOIA IS THE CRITICAL NEOCON ERROR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
ALL OF SUDDEN A BUNCH OF WHITE GUYS ARE EXPERTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY,
HISTORY, AND POLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THEY START PUTTING
TOGETHER ALL THESE SPECULATIVE TERRIFYING SITUATIONS CONCOCTED IN
THEIR OWN MINDS. THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHAT ALLOWED THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION TO MANIPULATE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL FEARS SO THAT THEY
CAN EXECUTE THEIR POWER GRABBING AGENDA.

I am sorry i don't accept your analysis as being anything but
speculative, and in fact your method of coming up with a conclusion
and then looking for facts to support your said conclusion is
precisely the error that our political class seems to keep making in
the middle east. I don't want to fight wars based on the paranoid
rantings of neocons and Zionists who always see an Islamic boogeyman
around every corner and seem to always think that the best solution is
to bomb them and ask questions later.

Posted by: Farzad | January 1, 2008 12:59 PM

///What facts may disprove your analysis? There are plenty, first off,
Musharaf doesn't have any religious credentials, kind of hard to
establish an Islamic theocracy and to lead an Islamic theocracy if you
aren't a theocrat. Secondly, why would he turn to religious parties
that have been and currently are fighting his government? If he was
planning to turn Pakistan into a "breakway" Islamic government, why
would he just finish a bloody raid into a Pakistani months killing
dozens of jihadis? In fact there are no facts to back your wild
completely made up analysis and only a world of facts to refute
it.///

Mush doesn't need to be anything more than what he is- A general and a
Muslim. If he were to go back and run the military - that is something
that he would rather do anyway - he would hand off the leadership role
to some Muslim Ayatolla, Mullah, or Cleric. He is a military man -
they are well-versed in Machiavellian coups and what they require. Do
you know - in particular - the people that were killed in this raid?
Sure, he said they were the enemy, once someone is dead he is free to
claim they are anyone that he wants them to be. They cannot speak
anymore to defend themselves. Keep in mind, that what I wrote was
based upon evidence that has not had its best chance in the news. All
I did was piece together the many loose ends. To do any kind of real
investigation, I would yet require more info and question many people
before I have claimed to be the truth. Don't get so excited; does this
possibillity scare you or upset you? It is nothing more than a theory
right now. Relax..

///What exactly would be Musharaf's motivation to give nukes to
Islamists who have tried to assasinate him? Musharaf is no angel, but
your tall tales are completely unlikely and actually contradicted by
all the empirical evidence. I think you should be successful in
convincing every republican primary voter of your suspicions, it is
right up their alley, a theory based in sheer supposition fed by
paranoia and without any facts at all to back it up.///

Did you read everything that I wrote? I pointed out that Bhutto had
only two attempts on her life and the second attempt was successful.
Mush had about a dozen or so attempts on his life - and amazingly - he
is still alive! Why is that? A coincidence? Luck? Has it occured to
you that it may be a ploy, in order to hide any suspicious activity on
his part? Is it possible that AQ had staged all of it to make him
appear to be an enemy - when in reality - he isn't? You know - a
charade? That is also a very Machiavellian concept - too! The agent
that was interviewed on CNN claims that he knew that Mush has no
interest in pursuing AQ/Taliban at all. Furthermore, he claimed that
Mush has many liasons with AQ and the Taliban and many other jihadist
groups in Pakistan. Isn't he supposed to be capturing and fighting
them - instead of shaking their hands and breaking bread with them?
When do we really consider what we have hooked ourselves up to? I
don't know about you; but I have some severe doubts of Mush's
motives...

Posted by: Plainfacto | January 1, 2008 12:46 AM

What facts may disprove your analysis? There are plenty, first off,
Musharaf doesn't have any religious credentials, kind of hard to
establish an Islamic theocracy and to lead an Islamic theocracy if you
aren't a theocrat. Secondly, why would he turn to religious parties
that have been and currently are fighting his government? If he was
planning to turn Pakistan into a "breakway" Islamic government, why
would he just finish a bloody raid into a Pakistani months killing
dozens of jihadis? In fact there are no facts to back your wild
completely made up analysis and only a world of facts to refute it.

What exactly would be Musharaf's motivation to give nukes to Islamists
who have tried to assasinate him? Musharaf is no angel, but your tall
tales are completely unlikely and actually contradicted by all the
empirical evidence. I think you should be successful in convincing
every republican primary voter of your suspicions, it is right up
their alley, a theory based in sheer supposition fed by paranoia and
without any facts at all to back it up.

Please, your post is filled with drivel like an Islamic hegemony, have
you been reading the papers the only country or block that has been
trying to establish hegemony the last oh 20 years has been the good
ole USA. (see project for a New American Century)I forgot it is the
white, western, capitalist, and zionist nations' duty to rule the
world, they own it, the rest of us are just renting. Just last month
these neocons were saying the same thing about Iran, now Musharaf is
new Hitler, last month it was Ahmadinejad. "EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT
WAR WITH EASTASIA".

Posted by: Farzad | December 31, 2007 10:53 PM

The assassination of Bhutto followed 2 months of urgent pleas to the
State Department by her representatives for better protection. The
U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing
assurance that Pakistani President Musharraf would not let anything
happen to her!

The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in
Washington, set up Bhutto's execution, to advance their scheme to
break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region.

Posted by: nwo666.com | December 31, 2007 05:45 PM

I am no fan of Musharaf and unelected dictators, however I feel some
contexts needed to be added here to this discussion, Musharaf is
probably one of the best dictators the US works with. He is secular,
and much more tolerant of dissent than most of our bought and paid for
childselling sheiks and military strongmen. In fact, one of the main
reasons people hate in his own country is that he is seen as our
client. The Saudis are way worse than Musharaf as is the filthy emir
of Kuwait and the various illegitmate leaders we have supported in the
middle east. Saudi Arabia has always been the heartland of Wahabism
and Sunni fundamentalism, and most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are
Saudi by a 2 to 1 margin. This is not a matter of Musharaf, or the
Saudis betraying America. America has put itself in the position of
being so unpopular and hated in the middle east that to work to
closely with us is the kiss of death.

Certain people on this site believe Musharaf betrayed America. Let us
remember that George Bush has never had more than 30,000 troops in
Afghanistan looking for Bin laden. Meanwhile he has 160,000 troops in
Iraq securing Halliburton and Exxon's contracts there. Last time I
checked, Bush was America's president and if anyone betrayed us by not
seriously hunting down Bin Laden it was George Bush. He promised
everyone that he would get the perpetrators. Instead he used the
attacks of 9-11 as an excuse to aggrandize the oilmen in America and
to bring the massive oil reserves of Iraq under their control.

At this point, I believe foreign troops in Pakistan would be a
disaster. George Bush should have done this in 2003, and sometimes
when an opportunity passes it passes. As I have said, both Musharaf
and Bush are weaker than in 2003. THE EVENTS OF THE PAST FEW YEARS
PROVE THAT THOSE OF US WHO CLAIMED THAT IRAQ WAR WOULD DESTROY OUR
ABILITY TO RESPOND TO OTHER CONFLICTS ARE VINDICATED, BUSH SHOULD HAVE
FOCUSED HIS ATTENTIONS ON AFGHAN-PAK BORDER IN 2003. AND UNLIKE THE
LSAT GEORGE BUSH CAN'T TAKE THIS EXAM AGAIN, CERTAIN TESTS IN YOUR
LIFE ARE ONE SHOT DEALS, AND AS USUAL BUSH DOESN'T DO TO WELL ON
TESTS.

And the answer to our problems now isn't just blindly sending in US
troops. This is the same knee jerk response of conservatives. If you
can't think your way out of a problem shoot your way out of a
problem.

Posted by: Farzad | December 31, 2007 11:14 AM

Bin Laden was killed. Bhutto even said so in an interview on Nov 2nd
2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U...

Posted by: huh? | December 29, 2007 10:03 PM

How come no one is citing this invterview from a month ago, where
Bhutto asserts that Omar Sheikh killed Osama Bin Laden.

It's at 2:15 into the interview

Its the al-cia-duh

MOST STORIES HAVE COMMENTS DISABLED GET THIS INFO OUT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U...

Posted by: scott | December 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Want to know why she was assasinated? Here it is. http://www.dailypaul.com/...
If you still think the war on terror is legitimate, you need to have
your head checked!
Nobody is allowed to let the West know that Bin Laden is dead. It is
now time for the cowardly mainstream media to start asking questions
and demanding answers about 9/11.

Posted by: Brent | December 28, 2007 07:42 PM

On 911 the yanks killed 3000 of their own people.

Zia was killed by CIA along with the American Ambassador.

Kennedy was killed by the yank elite itself.

Lincoln was similarly killed by the yanks.

The real terrorism is the european and yank terrir against their own.

The zionists conspired with hitler to kill their own jews.

DISPASSIONATE ANALYST
ON WHO KILLED BENAZIR ?

Taliban would not be motivated to kill Benazir.

Musharraf is their bigger enemy who assisted the americans against
them with tremendous logistical support.

Her brother was killed in Karachi by the MQM. They are the most
callous, irreligious, and secular hardened killers, with no
compassion
just like Musharraf. For example, who killed the registrar of the
supreme court, Hamid Raza execution style ?

They are bonded to Musharraf by the Mohajir blood.

Musharraf is a stooge of America. His ONLY son in there and so are
his brothers. He trusts them. He is being tutored personally by
Negroponte. CIA provides free consulting to him and Negroponte
personally tutors him. Ponte went there to tutor Musharraf on how to
handle the JUDICIARY in a machiavellian fashion, by inflicting a
mortal disabling wound , and that is exactly what Mush did.

The zionists and hindu are quietly watching because Mush and MQM
is doing their job and you maintain pin-drop silence when your enemy
is destroying itself.

According to the brainy NEOCONS, from the Ashkenazi or KHAZAR tribe
of
Central Asia, the wise and learned authors of the protocols of the
learned elders of zion, the loyal servants of the King and Banker
Rothschild, one of whom Mikhail Khodorkovsky who looted the biggest
of
Russian oil and was nabbed like a rat by Honorable Vladimir Putin of
Motherland Russia and the Fatherland, and also the master
conspirators
of the Russian revolution and the establishment of the state of
Israel
(An Illustrious Resume of ACHIEVEMENTS):

This is the way to handle an islamic nuclear country by making it
crumble from inside by putting a militant minority of biharis (who
were the back-stabbers to their very neighbors and muslim brothers,
the bengalis in 1971 on the basis of language and ethnicity) like the
Kallu Mush, on top of the majority in the country. Being cornered,
they will heartily and mightily fight and destroy each other with
wanton and abandon.

Being cornered, they will heartily and mightily fight and destroy
each
other with wanton and abandon, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, SRI-LANKA is a
proven case of SAVAGE TAMIL HINDU TERROR trained by none other than
the Israeli Mossad and the Indian RAW. Biharis are BECOMING
temperamentally very much like that.

We must stop the transmogrification of the Biharis by reaching out to
them by love and dialogue. Only that could work.

Musharraf and MQM believes that it is their historic opportunity
to setup a Mohajir Caliphate - forever.

The goal of CIA, Mossad, RAW is to create Tamil-Sinhalese
intensity and style hatred in Pakistan, and MQM is the perfect tool.
We must guard against it and resuscitate a hero like Dr A.Q.Khan to
serve as the bridge. It will kill many birds with one stone.

It will kill many birds with one stone.

It will kill many birds with one stone.

Musharraf and MQM dream has no feasibility, but their belief in it
will indeed make the CIA/Mossad/RAW plan not only feasible but
successful.

please visit my favorite sites

www.nkusa.org
911blogger.com
letsroll911.org
infowars.com
prisonplanet.org
countercurrents.org
counterpunch.org

Posted by: DISPASSIONATE ANALYST | December 28, 2007 02:54 PM

comp.lang.python

Who Killed Benazir Bhutto ? Washington Post Comments

cancel@moslems.shit

x Login to ForumsZone