Why is that strange? Not all of the bad guys in the world belong to Al-qaida you know.

Pakistan is a barely stable mid-eastnooclear power. Al-qaeda is afraid of them.

Ah, that wacky filter...,

Al-qeada is afraid of unstable middle eastern countries with established nuclear weapons programs. They are not afraid of stable western or European countries with nuclear weapons.

Listen to this interview, with the now deceased Benazir Bhutto.

Approx 6:15 minutes into this interview from Nov 2, 2007, Benazir Bhutto answers british interviewer Sir David Frost about who she thinks was behind the previous attempt to assasinate her.

She quite clearly says names 3 suspects, one of whom she descibes as being the "person who murdered Osama Bin Laden"

Osama is dead. I can only think that if she knew it, that the state dept has known it for ages, that is why they are no longer looking for him. Bin Laden is too useful as a scare tactic for them to admit it. Listen to this interview, approx 6:15 into it. It is a dead woman saying Bin Laden is already dead.

Link (new window)

Alacritous: Why is that strange? Not all of the bad guys in the world belong to Al-qaida you know.

Not in our world. Anyone who's not with us is with al-Qaida. Didn't you get the programmi...er, memo?

fishrockcarving: Pakistan is a barely stable mid-eastnooclear power. Al-qaeda is afraid of them.

Huh? No, India's afraid of them. But, then again, India's a somewhat more stable Middle Eastnooclear power, so a little agitation doesn't hurt. For all we know, what you just saw was a little "work" from India. Or from us, for that matter. Musharraf hasn't been our bestest friend lately, and we really want a reason to enter the country so we can claim to search for our pal Osama. A little agitation, and voila! Pretext. Heck, we've been claiming that Musharraf was planning on having her offed all along, hence the "house arrest" bit and the "personal safety" bit - too much security, and she claims repression. Now, Bhutto's camp is claiming Musharraf didn't provide her enough security. I mean, what the hell?

Who knows? It could've been just one freak with a handgun and some dynamite. We know exactly squat about what happened, and I doubt we'll get much more than we have now. It's a bit early to claim conspiracy just yet, and it'll be interesting to watch how the U.S. responds - a couple months of rumbling, combined with "instability" as a pretext, and we'll be in northern Pakistan before you can say "hot pursuit." Or, we could do nothing, because after all, Musharraf is our boy. Heck, Saddam was ours, too, until he misbehaved once too often.

India is afraid oh who what wha?

Are we deliberately not trying to spell Al-Qaeda correctly, or what? Send me a memo, or something.

FormlessOne:

I think the last thing India wants is a deeply unstable Pakistan. Mostly because I doubt they want an extremist faction taking over the country, who will be much more likely to pull a Slim Pickens over Kolkata.

NewportBarGuy: Are we deliberately not trying to spell Al-Qaeda correctly, or what? Send me a memo, or something.

I don't know if there's been a formal convention on the matter, but it's pretty hard to get a definitive "correct spelling" of a name/phrase in Arabic. See also Muammar Khaddafi.

Cui bonum?

Definitely not the Pakistani government, if you ask me.

/but bear in mind the overall perspective of the blog

Don't you see?????

Don't you understand????

It was a CIA black-ops sponsored by Haliburton so Bush and his cronies can seize a valuable oil pipe-line.

Am I the only one who can recognise the truth!!!

Why would they kill her anyhow? Her competition had a reason to kill her. Al-Qaida would have more reason to go after Musharraf since he's the one supposed to be cracking down on Muslim militants.

Swampthing in Korea: It was a CIA black-ops sponsored by Haliburton so Bush and his cronies can seize a valuable oil pipe-line.

Am I the only one who can recognise the truth!!!

You forgot that they were acting under the mandate of reverse vampires.

/It's ALWAYS those damn reverse vampires ruining everything for us.

They may not have done it. There are plenty more enemies of liberty out there. But the concept of AQ condemning a killing is just stupid. Maybe now they can condemn 9/11....

justafarkingchef: They may not have done it. There are plenty more enemies of liberty out there. But the concept of AQ condemning a killing is just stupid. Maybe now they can condemn 9/11....

It also makes perfect sense for Al Qaeda to blame the Pakistani government even if AQ assassinated her. It would help destabilize the country and open it up to take over by the Islamists. Of course, it makes sense for the government to blame AQ if the government took her out. So really, who knows?

Well that's good enough for me.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can't believe what an Al Qaeda terrorist tells you.

karendotcom
Osama is dead.

C'mon dude, Tupac didn't release that much "posthumous" material.

Spanky_McFarksalot:
Well that's good enough for me.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can't believe what an Al Qaeda terrorist tells you.

Well, traditionally one expects terrorists to claim responsibility for things they do, the whole point being to emphasize their power and make people fear them. There are, of course, more subtle strategies, one of which is to pit your enemies against each other.

WorldCitizen: It also makes perfect sense for Al Qaeda to blame the Pakistani government even if AQ assassinated her. It would help destabilize the country and open it up to take over by the Islamists. Of course, it makes sense for the government to blame AQ if the government took her out. So really, who knows?

Why don't we all just agree not to take the suspects' word for what they may or may have not done, OK?

The problem here is that it is hard to figure out who to exclude from that list.

I don't know how Bhutto's killing is going to play out, but this jumped out at me FTA: "I strongly deny it. Tribal people have their own customs. We don't strike women," Mehsud's spokesman Maulvi Omar said

O RLY?

Only corrupt people oppose dictators¹ (Pakistan, Venezuela, Russia etc).
Then corrupt people who oppose dictators are killed, said dictators are last to know about it and second to condemn it.
¹ wanna-be or full-blown

Does anybody know how she was supposed to be killed today?

The government version says that a shrapnel hit her she bumped her head. And that it was her own damn fault for exposing herself through the roof of her car.

And anybody who's seen the body says they saw 2 shotgun wounds, one in the head and one in the chest. And that the government is trying to cover-up the way she died.

There were like 10 words before they asked you to click to the next page.

karendotcom: Approx 6:15 minutes into this interview from Nov 2, 2007, Benazir Bhutto answers british interviewer Sir David Frost about who she thinks was behind the previous attempt to assasinate her.

It actually starts about 5 minutes in. Still scary if true.

Wanted for questioning.

Once again, Al Qaida pulls the strings and the world goes all Pinocchio.

Terrorism: Serving millions of pussies worldwide

Seriously, if it was al-Qaeda that murdered Bhutto, then I'm george w. bush.

Why are we cozying up to that asshole Musharraf again?

How in the world does anyone not notice Musharraf calling off the police officers protecting her that day? Or the fact that she called out Musharraf in the last assassination attempt? Or that, aw, you know what, people are just going to italicize my post and put up the tinfoil hat man pic, so forget it.

TDUsGamer: How in the world does anyone not notice Musharraf calling off the police officers protecting her that day?

Musharraf: We need to blowd up Bhutto.
Guy: OK. But we can't do anything to draw attention to us.
Musharraf: OK, but let's pull all the police away from her. They seem like nice guys and I don't want anything to happen to them.
Guy: Gee, that's kinda noticable, don't ya think?
Musharraf: Nah, the only people who pay attention are farkers
Guy: Oh that reminds me, my totalfark account is due.

Musharraf had Bhutto assasinated. Obviously.

He did it to maintain power. Obviously.

The power that Musharraf siezed in a military coup against an elected government. Obviously.

Musharraf plans to use the "state of emergency" caused by the assasination of his only political rival who he has even ALLOWED back into the country from exile, to further consolidate his own power and stifle all democratic dissent. Obviously.

Once Musharraf has stiffled all dissent from the secular and democratically-inclined middle-class in Pakistan, then the only impediment to his Presidency-for-life, will be the religious parties. Obviously.

The United States will continue to pour money into Musharraf's pockets, in order to prop up an unpopular dictator... citing "the need for stability" as the reason. Obviously.

Support for dictatorship. It's not just an incredibly bad idea... it's the *official policy* of the United States of Freedom.

Why is everyone here talking about AQ and Pakistan's ISI as if they are different entities?

Skleenarsaid:

Why is everyone here talking about AQ and Pakistan's ISI as if they are different entities?

They are different entities... in the same way that the Republican Party and the current White House staff are different entities.

;)

If it smells, looks and squeaks like a duck...

AlQDuh has the most to gain from an unstable Pakistan... and what's the best, cheapest and quickest way to get rioting in the streets? Kill Al Gor-er-ah sorry, that's Benazir Bhutto.

SomeCapn: AlQDuh has the most to gain from an unstable Pakistan

I think this statement is probably correct. But one could always argue that Musharraf may have thought that getting rid of Bhutto would increase stability (or at least his hold on the country) by removing a threat to his power.

Pervez has, it has been reported, a strangely exhalted view of his own position in the world.

And let's not assume that the ISI is as much under Musharraf's thumb as the military.

SomeCapn said:

... and what's the best, cheapest and quickest way to get rioting in the streets? Kill Al Gor-er-ah sorry, that's Benazir Bhutto.

Actually, the best, cheapest, and quickest way to get rioting in the streets was the suspension of the Pakistani constitution, the arrest of the entire Pakistani supreme court, and the illegal arrest and detention without charges of close to ten thousand prominant pro-Democracy Pakistanis.

Musharraf did that last month.

General Zang: Actually, the best, cheapest, and quickest way to get rioting in the streets was the suspension of the Pakistani constitution, the arrest of the entire Pakistani supreme court, and the illegal arrest and detention without charges of close to ten thousand prominant pro-Democracy Pakistanis.

Musharraf did that last month.

Touché

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Why are we cozying up to that asshole Musharraf again?

Because he's OUR asshole.

HowlingFrog: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Why are we cozying up to that asshole Musharraf again?

Because he's OUR asshole.

Then let's send him a C-5 full of these and be done with it:

Skleenar: Then let's send him a C-5 full of these and be done with it:

Na, let's arm him and then blow the shiat out of him.
What a novel idea.

/Bill Hicks quote in 3...2...

karendotcom: She quite clearly says names 3 suspects, one of whom she descibes as being the "person who murdered Osama Bin Laden"

She also names Osama's son as one who would want her dead.
Why not Osama himself?

Did she mis-speak or slip up and blurt confidential info? Your call.

HowlingFrogsaid:

Did she mis-speak or slip up and blurt confidential info? Your call.

I don't think that the fact that Osama is dead is exactly "confidential".

The fact that he was assasinated, and that the name of the assassin is known in certain circles, is news... but not incredibly surprising.

I mean, how else would one kill an elusive figure, hiding in an area where he has broad support, and who also has a cell network to move him quickly from safe-house to safe-house? Well, duh... you send in a double-agent with a gun.

Now, of course, the fact that Osama is dead might be a shock to the folks watching the badly lip-synced videos with incredibly non-Osama-looking actors... in which "Osama" basically keeps saying "a vote against Bush is a vote for me".... but come on, how long can that rediculous bit of theatre really impress anyone with an IQ over room temperature?

Not saying AQ did it, but it's kind of hard to take them seriously when, in a similar manner, they always claim that it is an insult to fight during Ramadan and then procede to launch a "Tet Offensive" every Ramadan.

I think it's very likely that the ISI had a hand in this.

General Zang: I don't think that the fact that Osama is dead is exactly "confidential".

No, I think it's probably common knowledge in intel circles. But I had figured that he died of renal failure in late December of 2001.

... but come on, how long can that rediculous bit of theatre really impress anyone with an IQ over room temperature?

Surprisingly long, apparently.

Location of the next meeting, pass it on.

Biological Ali: I think it's very likely that the ISI had a hand in this.

Probably the ISI/CIA, but almost certainly not al CIAduh.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Location of the next meeting, pass it on.

Come on, all the good kooks know that tinfoil doesn't work. Ya need a Faraday Cage.