Benazir Bhutto Is Dead - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 12-28-2007, 08:26 AM

Regardless of what she really stood for the best thing for Pakistan to do is use this assassination for the betterment of the country. If they turn her into a martyr for democracy then there is a good chance that much of Pakistan will reform because the people of Pakistan will be behind the reforms. My hope is that Musharaff will use this to the advantage of the people and not to his own.

host · 12-28-2007, 10:14 AM

It is not going to go smoothly, I fear.

Quote:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062175.php

Getting Weirder
12.28.07 -- 11:34AM
By Josh Marshall

Initial reports from Pakistani government officials ascribed the death of Benazir Bhutto to a gunshot wound fired by the assailant before he detonated his suicide bomb. Subsequent reports today say that it was not a bullet wound but rather shrapnel from the bomb.

A fired bullet can be badly disfigured. So probably only an expert can reliably distinguish one from the other. And thus that confusion is not surprising.

Yet now the Pakistani Interior Ministry is reporting that Bhutto died neither from a gunshot wound or shrapnel but rather from a blow to the head (causing a fractured skull) she suffered while ducking down into the car she was riding in to escape the gunfire.

Early reports of chaotic events are often garbled and inaccurate. But my strong impression is that to a competently trained physician a skull fracture looks very different than bullet wound to the neck. And the credibility or at least reliability of this latest explanation is undermined by the fact that there was apparently no post-mortem conducted on the body.

I don't know what it means or what purpose the shifting explanations might serve. Perhaps, as I said, they are simply progressively more accurate accounts provided as the chaos of the initial moments fades and more details can be ascertained. But I think at this point it's worth making a public note that this is starting to sound fishy and probably deserves more scrutiny.

(ed.note: I would be interested to hear from any doctors, EMTs or forensic examiners who might be able to shed more light on this. What the government accounts seem to discount is what I would imagine would be a more plausible explanation, that the force of the explosion led to a fatal head injury.)

loquitur · 12-28-2007, 10:17 AM

does Islam prohibit autopsies? That would be the easiest way to get a clear answer, but if the body is already in the ground and can't be taken out, we won't have that answer.

highthief · 12-28-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

does Islam prohibit autopsies? That would be the easiest way to get a clear answer, but if the body is already in the ground and can't be taken out, we won't have that answer.

As far as I recall, bodies must be interred without delay and should be as whole as possible. I think some X-Rays were taken and shown to the media and/or family and government officials.

roachboy · 12-28-2007, 10:37 AM

what if we think about this ritual of moving around/redefining the fatal wound as a political action?
what could be at stake in it?
if bhutto is understood as having been killed by fracturing her skull while trying to get out of the way of an assailant's gunfire and/or bomb, what changes situationally?
what does it mean politically if she is understood as having been assissinated directly?
does the skull fracture hypothesis mean that there was no assassination?
or is it a theory designed to save face for the government, a slight displacement of the center of gravity from the actions of the assailant to accident (caused by the actions of the assailant, but not identical with them)?

i dont know, am just thinking about what i've read this morning....

Strange Famous · 12-28-2007, 10:39 AM

I dont know enough detail to have a firm opinion of the corruption accusations against Bhutto and her husband.

She has always claimed that they were politically motivated, but is the informed opinion that they were not groundless?

hiredgun · 12-28-2007, 11:20 AM

Well, it would be extremely difficult to kill yourself while ducking into your car of your own power. My impression was that the skull fracture came from the blast wave of the explosion knocking her head back onto the sunroof. In fact, assuming the bomb went off while she was still exposed from the top of the car (and this much I've heard repeatedly on independent Pakistani television starting only a few hours after the incident), it isn't possible for her to have escaped the blast wave at that range.

So from a technical perspective, the skull fracture story adds up. It is also confirmed by numerous eyewitnesses that shots were fired before the explosion. Whether or not Benazir was hit by these shots remains an open question (from what I read, the attacker was up to 50m away, and the suspected gun [shown on Pak television] is a handgun, so I would actually be surprised if he managed to hit her).

I haven't yet seen any evidence that the information about her cause of death is politically motivated.

As for an autopsy, it is not forbidden in Islam, although it might be looked upon kind of strangely. The larger point is that I don't think her supporters would allow her body to be 'desecrated' in that way, and last I heard the body had already arrived at the family mausoleum to be buried, so that's probably the end of that.

Strange Famous · 12-28-2007, 12:09 PM

I have to say and agree with hiredgun, that while I dont pretend to believe that Musharraf is incapable of ordering violent action, I dont think that this kind of crime is his style, or in his interests.

He may be no democrat, and he may have repressed some freedoms - but I do believe he has acted on a genuine belief that tough action was required to maintain security and peace. I am also not certain that this belief if in any way shown to be incorrect.

joshbaumgartner · 12-28-2007, 12:24 PM

I also agree that it is not so much that he'd never do such a thing as it is just not a smart thing to do for him, not to mention not his style. Afterall, if he wanted to be hard line, he could just arrest her again or something else to make it hard for her to campaign, and he can always postpone the election a bit longer if he really wanted it that badly. Even not being guilty, many are going to believe he is, and many more are going to hold him accountable even if not the one who was behind the attack. Afterall, it is the incumbant government's responsibility to provide for the election and that includes security for the candidates. There were a lot of complaints prior to the attack, in the wake of the first one when she got into the country, that the government was not doing enough to secure her safety as she campaigned. The election may now be a non-starter, and he may have a little longer in office, but the damage far outweighs the gain, I would think.

hiredgun · 12-28-2007, 02:21 PM

Some new information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/...re_as/pakistan

Quote:

Pakistan's government announced it had evidence that an al-Qaida operative was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who was laid to rest Friday as the army tried to quell a frenzy of rioting that left 27 people dead less than two weeks before national elections.

The government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, also said Bhutto was not killed by gunshots or shrapnel as originally claimed. Instead, it said her skull was shattered by the force of a suicide bomb blast that slammed her against a lever in her car's sunroof.

...

The government said it would hunt down those responsible for her death in the lawless tribal areas along the Afghan border where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders are thought to be hiding.

...

The government released a transcript Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud and another militant.

"It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her," Mehsud said, according to the transcript. The government did not release an audiotape.

Cheema described Mehsud as an al-Qaida leader who was also behind most other recent terror attacks in Pakistan, including the Karachi bomb blast in October against Bhutto that killed more than 140 people.

Mehsud is thought to be the commander of pro-Taliban forces in the tribal region of South Waziristan, where al-Qaida fighters are also active.

In the transcript, Mehsud gives his location as Makin, a town in South Waziristan.

This fall, he was quoted in a Pakistani newspaper as saying that he would welcome Bhutto's return from exile with suicide bombers. Mehsud later denied that in statements to local television and newspaper reporters.

Cheema announced the formation of two inquiries into Bhutto's death, one to be carried out by a high court judge and another by security forces. Bhutto was assassinated Thursday evening after a rally in the garrison city of Rawalpindi near Islamabad. Twenty other people also died in the attack.

On Thursday, authorities had said Bhutto died from bullet wounds fired by a young man who then blew himself up. A surgeon who treated her, however, said Friday she died from the impact of shrapnel on her skull.

But later Friday, Cheema said those two accounts were mistaken. He said all three shots missed her as she greeted supporters through the sunroof of her vehicle, which was bulletproof and bombproof.

He also denied that shrapnel caused her death, saying Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and that the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull. The government released a photograph showing blood on the lever.

Denying charges the government failed to give her adequate security protection, Cheema said it was Bhutto who made herself vulnerable and pointed out that the other passengers inside Bhutto's bombproof vehicle were fine.

"I wish she had not come out of the rooftop of her vehicle," he said.

I'll come back in a bit with comments.

host · 12-28-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Some new information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/...re_as/pakistan

I'll come back in a bit with comments.

how does Cheema know that Bhutto died from a skull fracture, with no autopsy performed?

Quote:

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14582076
Benazir died of head injuries: Doctors
Friday, 28 December , 2007, 23:00

...The doctors at Rawalpindi General Hospital who tried to save Benazir's life said on Friday that she had been hit in the head by shrapnel from the suicide bomb attack and that there were no bullet wounds on her body.

Pakistan People�s Party leaders said on Thursday that she had been hit by shots fired by the suicide attacker while she was waving to her supporters from the sun-roof of her vehicle.

Mussed Khan, the surgical specialist of the hospital, told a press conference that no heartbeat or pulse was recordable when Benazir was brought to the hospital and she had shown no signs of life.

These conditions showed there was some severe injury that stopped the supply of blood to her head.

"The injury over Bhutto's right ear had irregular edges. If there were any bullet injuries, it would have been a little opening and wide exit, but the cardiac arrest was due to brain injury," the doctor said.

An X-ray also showed no signs of bullet injuries. Doctors tried to resuscitate Benazir and performed an open heart massage before declaring her dead.

Quote:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124733
Israel, US, Britain Ignored Bhutto Appeals for Protection

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) The Al-Qaeda international terrorist organization claimed responsibility Thursday night for the assassination of popular Pakistani opposition leader Benzair Bhutto a few hours earlier.

Appeals by the popular Pakistani politician to the U.S., Israel and Britain for protection by their security agencies weeks earlier had gone unanswered....

Strange Famous · 12-28-2007, 03:18 PM

And how exactly is it proposed that Israeli security forces are to protect a Pakistani politican in Pakistan?

Anyway... lets hope than Usama Bin Laden finds that openly declaring war on Musharaff is a different matter to hiding in the mountains and calling on people to fly planes into civilian buildings. He cant run to Afghanistan anymore, or the British or Americans will kill him, if he really wants to confrornt the Army in Pakistan hopefully he will be killed soon.

roachboy · 12-28-2007, 03:48 PM

you know, if there were nukes in the equation, which escalates the problems that accompany political instability, this would be kinda interesting political theater. since there was no autopsy, the cause of death can be moved around. if it is being moved around by spokesmodels at the hospital to which bhutto was brought, then that defines one set of possibilities as to meanings; if this is coming from the state, there's another.

i'm just curious about this, why it's happening.
maybe it's perfectly banal and the medical folk on site don't really know.
but it is a strange situation, for now.

dlish · 12-28-2007, 03:59 PM

i know a little about autopsies in islam.. but if anyone needs more info, i know a few people that are well versed in islamic law that could answer some questions...

as far as autopsies go.. westerners may find it strange, but it actually quite common to bury someone the same day that they died. so i wouldnt consider it a conspiracy as such just because someone was buried rather hurridly.

my grandmother died a few years back in the morning. by noon she was buried. granted, the doctors knew what she died of, so there was no autopsy performed.

Bhutto died in the late afternoon/ early evening, so it would have been too late to bury her that day. she would have been prepared for burial the next day. but as a general rule, the sun shouldnt set twice on the deceased before they are buried.

autopsies are not forbidden in islam, though if it is not necesary, then it is regarded as desecration of the sacred. deceased are considered sacred, as they are 'returning back to God'. theres an islamic saying "ina lillah wa ina ilayhi raji'oon" which basically translates into "we are from god, and to god we shall return" hence the sacredness of the dead body.

as for the autopsies itself.. they arent forbidden, and would even be encouraged under certain situations.

for example: under islamic law, inheritance is is already prescribed, so you dont get the squabbling over who gets what later. however, if say someone killed their parents, then the child isnt entitled to recieve any inheritance.

so if there is doubt as to whether someone was murdered for example, and there was suspicion that the son did it, then an autopsy wouldnt be out of the ordinary in order to pinpoint the cause of death. this would also be the same with leadership and so forth.

in Bhuttos case, if it was obvisous that she had died from bullet wounds then an autopsy wouldnt be performed.

no conspiracy here. though it would work to musharrafs advantage that her burial be dealt with quickly if he wanted something hidden up.

Elphaba · 12-28-2007, 04:17 PM

hiredgun, thank you so much for providing your insight on this.

ps: It's good to see you again.

pai mei · 12-29-2007, 01:46 AM

What Benazir Bhutto said :
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Minute 2:10 : "..he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden

The reporter does not care, he does not ask her anything about Bin Laden's death . Why ?

I think Musharaff is Bush's friend even if Bush tries to hide it- so to not cause more hate against Musharaff from those who hate USA. Bush wants him in power to keep the nuclear weapons secured. CIA killed Bhutto, they would not want her to expose more about Bin Laden. The islamic militants are against Musharaff, they would not kill his opponent.

host · 12-29-2007, 05:37 AM

IMO, Bhutto misspoke...she meant to say Omar murdered Daniel Pearl, or that Omar murdered "for" Osama Bin Laden.

Omar Sheik had been in Pakistani custody since 2002, and two months ago, Bhutto made these totally contradictory statements to what she says on the video:

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...nst_bin_laden/
The Boston Globe
Bhutto would take US aid against bin Laden
Says she would cooperate in targeting leader

By Associated Press | October 2, 2007

NEW YORK - Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister, said in an interview that she would cooperate with the American military in targeting Osama bin Laden.

Bhutto told BBC America, in an interview scheduled to air last night, that she would accept US assistance in the event they discovered the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader, but that she would prefer to have the Pakistani military execute the strike.

"If there is overwhelming evidence, I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans," Bhutto last week during the taping. "But if I couldn't do it, of course we are fighting this war together and would seek their cooperation in eliminating him."

The United States has counted Pakistan as a close ally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and has often been accused of overlooking the abuses of President Pervez Musharraf's government in exchange for a strong partner on the border of Afghanistan.

Bhutto's comments go farther than the current government's position, which has long held such incursions to be a threat to its sovereignty. Islamabad protested loudly when Senator Barack Obama, Democratic presidential candidate, pledged to grant US forces the authority to unilaterally penetrate Pakistan in the hunt for terrorist leaders.

Bhutto has said Musharraf's undemocratic rule makes the country more unstable, and that the United States is wrong to support him. She has advocated that a return to democracy will make it easier to counter the Islamic militants who operate along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

"I'm a threat to extremists," Bhutto said in the interview. "While there may be people who oppose my return, I know that there are many more millions of Pakistanis that are just waiting for me to come back to see the forces of moderation and freedom strengthened in my country."

Bhutto plans to return to Pakistan this month to challenge Musharraf after eight years of self-imposed exile. In response to opposition pressure, Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, has said he will give up his post as army chief if he wins an Oct. 6 election. He also says he will restore civilian rule in a country that has lurched between unstable elected governments and military regimes during its 60-year history.

hiredgun · 12-30-2007, 12:11 AM

Regarding the cause of death, it is sort of an odd little controversy.

There is now a brief and blurry video out there that shows the shooter (sorry, I saw it elsewhere and don't have the link on this comp) at nearly point-blank range, so now the official story - that all three bullets missed - seems slightly unlikely. But I don't really see it. What would the government gain from telling other than the truth about this matter? Whether or not the shooter was able to shoot her is really irrelevant to how you interpret the effectiveness of the army in protecting Bhutto - that is, whether or not the state was negligent has nothing to do with whether or not the shots that were fired hit their target, especially because the end result was the same.

Perhaps the PPP is sensitive to the symbolism of her death and maintains the shooting story because it somehow seems to have more glory in it than blunt force trauma (and is therefore more conducive to the concept of martyrdom). Or perhaps they are willing to seize on any issue that helps them portray the government as deceptive and conspiratorial. Most likely, it just seems to me to be a technical misunderstanding exacerbated by distrust and distress.

Elphaba · 12-30-2007, 01:19 AM

hiredgun, this may be the video that you are referring to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGOI2ztguww&feature=related
What I find odd about this is that the "shooter" is much closer than reported previously and better able to fire and hit his target. The "backup" suicide detonation is not something that I have seen reported before in any other "radical" killing. The changes in the official cause of death are equally perplexing.

I would like to persue who had the most to gain from the assassination of Bhutto.

hiredgun · 12-30-2007, 11:04 AM

Ho ho ho, now this is interesting.

Benazir's son Bilawal (19) takes over leadership of PPP along with her husband Asif Ali Zardari. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...29995920071230)

Sigh. They're going for the name thing. To be honest, as much as I dislike the PPP, they had a half dozen other candidates who might really have been useful people to have on the political stage in Pakistan. Aitzaz Ahsan comes to mind - he was a key figure in the judiciary revolt earlier this year, and is at least motivated by a keen understanding of checks on executive power.

Elphaba:
What I find confusing about this line of thinking is that I don't see how oddities in the tactics used in an assassination are connected to oddities of motive or guilt. Why does a small degree of confusion over the cause of death imply a conspiracy? I don't see that an assassination sponsored by the government, army, a rival, or any other political player would somehow be more likely to result in novel tactics or an ambiguous cause of death.

My take on the matter is this: initial changes in the cause of death, and in reported tactics (how far away the shooter was, etc) are simply a product of the honest confusion that immediately follows an incident such as this one, in which scattered and conflicting reporting creates a distorted picture of the event, which is eventually corrected and narrowed down as the facts come in. The politicization is something being added on after the fact by a number of parties desperate to ensure that Pakistan moves in a certain direction from this key juncture.

Who had the most to gain?
* Not anyone in the party. Her husband knows he is a political dead fish with or without her (corruption and graft have earned him the nickname Mr 10 Percent), and in any case he has been quite obviously distraught in television appearances over the last few days. No one in the party has emerged boldly to take her leadership position - it seems that instead, the party has urged 19-year-old Bilawal to step forward, and I think it vanishingly unlikely that he was involved.

* Not Musharraf. This is important: while painful, Bhutto's presence actually held the key to legitimating the current regime. Remember, she was not running directly against him - she was aiming for the premiership, while he had already safely been elected to the Presidency, a position that he himself had (extra-?)constitutionally strengthened. An eventual power-sharing agreement would have been difficult but would have greatly stabilized the power configuration by expanding the ruling coalition and giving it a much larger popular base. His real battle was with the judiciary, and it's not at all clear that Bhutto would have sided in the end with irreconcilably anti-Musharraf forces; I think the opposite is more likely the case.

Nawaz? I guess it's a theoretical possibility. By eliminating Bhutto, he now forces Musharraf to deal directly with him - and while the general dislikes Bhutto, he loathes Nawaz Sharif (and the feeling is quite mutual, I'm sure). But I don't see Nawaz doing any of the posturing that would allow him to actually gain from the event. All he has done is announce an ineffectual boycott of the upcoming elections, throwing a wrench into the government's plans but doing little else to help himself.

In terms of exploiting existing political cleavages and bringing wrenching instability to the country, I still think that extreme anti-government forces - rather than establishment forces - are the most likely culprits. Al Qaeda and/or Pakistani Taliban sympathizers seem to me the prime candidates here.

Strange Famous · 12-31-2007, 07:46 AM

Looks like Bhutto is on her way to being canonized.

To my mind the only good that come of this is if leads to a real backlash at grassroots level against the Taleban

allaboutmusic · 12-31-2007, 08:42 AM

I don't have anything to add other than that as always, the insight from posts in this thread has been awesome.

Elphaba · 12-31-2007, 08:42 PM

I don't place any confidence in the following article because the US mainstream media is not my preferred choice of information. And, the US media is something to observe and contemplate. The exact cause of death continues to be an issue.

NYTimes ***

Quote:

New Questions Arise in Killing of Ex-Premier
By Jane Perlez
The New York Times

Monday 31 December 2007

Lahore, Pakistan - New details of Benazir Bhutto's final moments, including indications that her doctors felt pressured to conform to government accounts of her death, fueled the arguments over her assassination on Sunday and added to the pressure on Pakistan's leaders to accept an international inquiry.

Athar Minallah, a board member of the hospital where Ms. Bhutto was treated, released her medical report along with an open letter showing that her doctors wanted to distance themselves from the government theory that Ms. Bhutto had died by hitting her head on a lever of her car's sunroof during the attack.

In his letter, Mr. Minallah, who is also a prominent lawyer, said the doctors believed that an autopsy was needed to provide the answers to how she actually died. Their request for one last Thursday was denied by the local police chief.

Pakistani and Western security experts said the government's insistence that Ms. Bhutto, a former prime minister, was not killed by a bullet was intended to deflect attention from the lack of government security around her. On Sunday, Pakistani newspapers covered their front pages with photographs showing a man apparently pointing a gun at her from just yards away.

Her vehicle came under attack by a gunman and suicide bomber as she left a political rally in Rawalpindi, where the Pakistani Army keeps its headquarters, and where the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency has a strong presence.

The government's explanation, that Ms. Bhutto died after hitting her head as she ducked from the gunfire or was tossed by the force of the suicide blast, has been greeted with disbelief by her supporters, ordinary Pakistanis and medical experts. While some of the mystery could be cleared up by exhuming the body, it is not clear whether Ms. Bhutto's family would give permission, such is their distrust of the government.

Mr. Minallah distributed the medical report with his open letter to the Pakistani news media and The New York Times. He said the doctor who wrote the report, Mohammad Mussadiq Khan, the principal professor of surgery at the Rawalpindi General Hospital, told him on the night of Ms. Bhutto's death that she had died of a bullet wound.

Dr. Khan declined through Mr. Minallah to speak with a reporter on the grounds that he was an employee of a government hospital and was fearful of government reprisals if he did not support its version of events.

The medical report, prepared with six other doctors, does not specifically mention a bullet because the actual cause of the head wound was to be left to an autopsy, Mr. Minallah said. The doctors had stressed to him that "without an autopsy it is not at all possible to determine as to what had caused the injury," he wrote.

But the chief of police in Rawalpindi, Saud Aziz, "did not agree" to the autopsy request by the doctors, Mr. Minallah said in his letter.

A former senior Pakistani police official, Wajahat Latif, who headed the Federal Investigative Agency in the early 1990s, said that in "any case of a suspected murder an autopsy is mandatory." To waive an autopsy, Mr. Latif said, relatives were required to apply for permission.

At a news conference Sunday, Ms. Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, said he had declined a request for a post-mortem examination. "It was an insult to my wife, an insult to the sister of the nation, an insult to the mother of the nation," he said. "I know their forensic reports are useless. I refuse to give them her last remains."

The question of an autopsy has become central to the circumstances of Ms. Bhutto's death because of conflicting versions put forward by the Pakistani government, which have stirred an already deep well of distrust of the government among Ms. Bhutto's supporters and other Pakistanis.

On the night Ms. Bhutto was assassinated, an unidentified Interior Ministry spokesman was quoted by the official Pakistani news agency as saying that she had died of a "bullet wound in the neck by a suicide bomber."

The next day, Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, the Interior Ministry spokesman, recast that version of events, saying at a news conference that Ms. Bhutto died of a wound sustained when she hit her head on a lever attached to the sun roof of the vehicle as she ducked a bullet and was thrown about by the force of the blast. "Three shots were fired but they missed her," Brigadier Cheema said. "Then there was an explosion."

The new images of the men who appear to have been Ms. Bhutto's assassins showed one dressed in a sleeveless black waistcoat and rimless sunglasses, and holding aloft what appeared to be a gun. He had a short haircut and wore the kind of attire reminiscent of plainclothes intelligence officials, though Al Qaeda and other militants have also been known to dress attackers in Western-style clothing in order to disguise them.

That man is seen standing in front of another whose head is covered in a shawl in the style of Pashtun men from the Pakistan's tribal areas, where Al Qaeda has regrouped in the past year. He is described in the newspaper Dawn as the suicide bomber.

Mr. Minallah, the hospital board member, said Ms. Bhutto's doctors raised the likelihood of a bullet killing her in their report, when they wrote, "Two to three tiny radio-densities underneath fracture segment are observed on both projections."

The report said the doctors tried for 41 minutes to revive her. It said "the patient was pulseless and was not breathing," when she arrived at the hospital. "A wound was present on the right temporoparietal region, through which blood was trickling down and whitish material which looked like brain matter was visible in the wound," it said.

Ms. Bhutto's colleagues who were in the vehicle with her said the interior was covered in blood, and the doctors wrote that "her clothes were soaked with blood."

An account of her death that did not involve a gunshot wound was the optimal explanation for the government, said Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and a former member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. "If there is a gunshot wound, the security was abysmal," Mr. Riedel said. The government did not want to be exposed on its careless approach to security, he said.

On Sunday, Ms. Bhutto's husband, Mr. Zardari, said he received a call from the Punjab home secretary on Thursday evening with a request for his permission for a post-mortem examination. He said he refused because he did not trust the government investigation to prove the cause of her death.

In ordinary circumstances, an autopsy runs counter to Islamic belief that a body should not be tampered with and should be buried as quickly as possible. But several Pakistanis said that in certain classes of Muslim society, particularly the better educated and more urban people, autopsies were not ruled out on religious grounds.

There were also provisions under Pakistani law for the exhumation of a body and a delayed post-mortem, Mr. Latif, the former senior Pakistani police official, said. In those cases, the state or a family can ask a magistrate for exhumation. The magistrate then forms a board of doctors to carry out the procedures, he said.

An international inquiry on Ms. Bhutto's death could not be carried out without an exhumation, a difficult decision in a Muslim country, Mr. Latif said.

In response to a question at a heated news conference Saturday, Brigadier Cheema, the Interior Ministry spokesman, said the government was ready to exhume the body if the family asked.

But Ms. Bhutto's supporters noted that the family and the party were so furious at President Musharraf, whom many of them blame for her death, that it was unlikely the Bhuttos would trust an exhumation that involved the government.

Pressure came from a number of quarters for an inquiry modeled after one carried out by the United Nations after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in 2005.

Though the Lebanon inquiry has moved very slowly, American and British officials, as well as an increasing number of Pakistanis, said that an investigation under the United Nations or some other international effort would restore confidence in the Pakistani government.

On Sunday a conference of Ms. Bhutto's party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, called for an inquiry led by the United Nations.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi, said Saturday that the Bush administration should condition its future aid to Pakistan on its willingness to undertake an independent international inquiry.

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said Britain was ready to offer whatever help was needed.

Brigadier Cheema made clear, however, that an international inquiry was not in the cards. "At this point in time we are quite confident with the kind of progress that is going on with our inquiries," he said Sunday.

Foreign experts did not have the expertise, he said, to deal with the peculiarities of tribal areas that are the base of the nation's terrorist activities. "This is not just an ordinary criminal case where you only need forensic expert," he said. "We understand the dynamics better."

*** Oh my gawd! Another hosted article from http://www.truthout.org !

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 04:30 PM

Ummm can someone explain the logic in this statement from the above article?

Quote:

An account of her death that did not involve a gunshot wound was the optimal explanation for the government, said Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and a former member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. "If there is a gunshot wound, the security was abysmal," Mr. Riedel said. The government did not want to be exposed on its careless approach to security, he said.

Ok now I could see someone having a gun would be 'bad security' but of course it was an open unsearched crowd, but how would covering up a gunshot wound make the security look better? There was a BOMB that went off, I would think that if a gun = poor security, than someone dressed as a human bomb = really poor security.

So please, obviously I am unqualified to figure it out, being this was said by a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton, so what am I missing here.

Bomb = ok security
Bomb + gun = careless security?

Quote:

On Sunday, Ms. Bhutto's husband, Mr. Zardari, said he received a call from the Punjab home secretary on Thursday evening with a request for his permission for a post-mortem examination. He said he refused because he did not trust the government investigation to prove the cause of her death.

It looks like if anyone wants to maintain the confusion its not the government but the Bhutto's. They seem to want to claim it was all Musharraf's doing, and any sort of wacky conspiracy will give them something to claim wasn't kosher (if you can excuse the use of the term).

roachboy · 01-01-2008, 05:17 PM

that is strange enough a statement that i will try to sort it out too.

maybe security trains for people with guns but not for people who strap bombs to themselves because, well, best i can figure it that there's some chance of intervention regarding someone who has a gun but not a whole lot relative to someone with a bomb strapped to themselves.

so gun=security failure (covered)
bomb=act of god (not covered).
gun+bomb=

um.

i'm not sure.

a bad thing certainly, something that happened without question, a terrible idea definitely, a tragedy arguably, generating of heightened political tensions without a doubt, but a security failure.....

maybe security failure would imply something like the assassination of malcolm x kinda thing.

it's hard to say---i was playing around with the question of why the govt kept moving the fatal wound around earlier---i still dont understand anything, but the theater of the moving fatal wound keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

fastom · 01-01-2008, 07:18 PM

Why do the xrays show a bullet deep in head pointing downward , if she was sticking out of the top of the car how was she shot from above? There is a YouTube video showing somebody shooting upwards from behind the car.

This deal is like another JFK.

host · 01-01-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummm can someone explain the logic in this statement from the above article?

Ok now I could see someone having a gun would be 'bad security' but of course it was an open unsearched crowd, but how would covering up a gunshot wound make the security look better? There was a BOMB that went off, I would think that if a gun = poor security, than someone dressed as a human bomb = really poor security.

<h3>So please, obviously I am unqualified to figure it out, being this was said by a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton</h3>, so what am I missing here.

Bomb = ok security
Bomb + gun = careless security?

It looks like if anyone wants to maintain the confusion its not the government but the Bhutto's. They seem to want to claim it was all Musharraf's doing, and any sort of wacky conspiracy will give them something to claim wasn't kosher (if you can excuse the use of the term).

Ustwo, kindly do the research before posting one of your partisan slurs, if for no other reason than to avoid my having to point out something like this:

Quote:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15133/

Riedel: Bhutto’s Assassination ‘Almost Certainly’ Work of Al-Qaeda

<h3>Interviewee:
Bruce O. Riedel</h3>, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Interviewer:
Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor

December 27, 2007

....When did you first meet Ms. Bhutto?

My first encounter with Ms. Bhutto was in 1991 <h3>when I was working at the White House for President George H.W. Bush as the director for South Asian affairs at the National Security Council....</h3>

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Ustwo, kindly do the research before posting one of your partisan slurs, just to avoid my having to point out something like this:

host don't be a jerk. Apparently this guy worked for both Bush and Clinton, I never heard of him and was only quoting the article.

I figure you just posted your one liner to be confrontational for no reason like you somehow 'got me'. I wonder how many of these gems I've miss buried between quoted stories of yours.

Interesting that guy thinks it is the work of Al-Qaeda and the NYT didn't bother to mention that part. It still doesn't answer why a gun would make it worse security.

host · 01-01-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host don't be a jerk. Apparently this guy worked for both Bush and Clinton, I never heard of him and was only quoting the article.

I figure you just posted your one liner to be confrontational for no reason like you somehow 'got me'. I wonder how many of these gems I've miss buried between quoted stories of yours.

Interesting that guy thinks it is the work of Al-Qaeda and the NYT didn't bother to mention that part. It still doesn't answer why a gun would make it worse security.

Ustwo, I took your <i>"Obviously I'm unqualified to figure it out, being this was said by a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton..."</i> comment, as an unsupported disparaging "take" on "all things Clinton". I think that you can understand how I could interpret your tone in that way. Considering your reaction, I now concede that it is quite possible that you meant nothing more by it than "hey, can anyone translate "Clinton speak", or "I don't think this way, since I was'nt in the "Clinton camp", can anyone who was, decipher this for me"?

Anyway....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I hope you have a clearer understanding of why I reacted to your Clinton reference, the way that I did.

I recalled that I read this a few days ago. It doesn't directly explain Riedel's link to shooting with poor security, but Robinson was also a Clinton era Pakistan observer:

(It matters, immensely how Bhutto died. If the official machinations are an indicator....the government intentionally, after announcing several variations, settled on a version of events which puts Bhutto in the least "martyred" light;
"ducking" from a bomb blast, fatally injuring her own head, vs. killed by assassin's bullets.)

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...ath/index.html
Sat December 29, 2007

How did Pakistan's Bhutto die?

....CNN national security analyst Ken Robinson, who worked in U.S. intelligence in Pakistan during the Clinton administration, said he suspects Bhutto's enemies are attempting to control her legacy by minimizing the attack's role in her demise.

"They're trying to deny her a martyr's death, and in Islam, that's pretty important," Robinson said.

Bhutto, he said, threatens to become more influential in death than she was in life. "Her torch burns bright now forever. She's forever young; she's forever brave, challenging against all odds the party in power and challenging the military and Islamic extremism."

Only if Bhutto's family allows an autopsy, said Robinson, will the world know for certain the medical reasons behind her death. The Associated Press, quoting Cabinet sources, said Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, refused to permit an autopsy before she was laid to rest Friday....

....and, if I'm not prying too much, did you and roachboy follow up on the idea, discussed a while back, of enjoying a beer, or two, together?

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....and, if I'm not prying too much, did you and roachboy follow up on the idea, discussed a while back, of enjoying a beer, or two, together?

No and its my fault, but after much internal debate I've decided to keep my anonymity. It allows me to post freer.

But back to the topic, so on the one hand, if she died by a gun its more of a martyr thing, but on the other hand if they had a gun its horrible security over a bomb. So either it was governments fault if their WAS a gun and the government doesn't want there to be a gun? Still doesn't explain the statement of why a gun would be such bad security, even when everyone KNOWS there was a bomb.

And still the family doesn't want a formal autopsy.

hiredgun · 01-01-2008, 08:54 PM

The other thing that doesn't really make sense is this... there _was_ a gun. The gun was shown on television only a few hours after the event. You can now see it on video. No one, to my knowledge, is denying that someone with a gun managed to get close enough to fire at Bhutto.

So at that point, how does the question of 'cause of death' say anything at all about security? Either a gun was fired and it missed Bhutto, or a gun was fired and it found its mark. This question says nothing about the quality of security, and if it says anything at all, it says a little bit about the marksmanship of the attacker.

This is separate from the fact that - wait for it - there was also a bomb so it's all really a moot point.

As far as I can tell (and I can only guess), this whole issue is an absurd red herring that is being made into some sort of political question only because whoever is making it so can get away with it and use it to create confusion, suspicion, and doubt.

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

As far as I can tell (and I can only guess), this whole issue is an absurd red herring that is being made into some sort of political question only because whoever is making it so can get away with it and use it to create confusion, suspicion, and doubt.

Yes thats my thoughts as well.

hiredgun · 01-01-2008, 09:13 PM

Now this is really fascinating stuff. It turns out Bhutto was due to hand over some information to the US later on during the day on which she was assassinated.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html

Quote:

Sources: Bhutto was to give U.S. lawmakers vote-rigging report

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- On the day she died, Benazir Bhutto planned to hand over to visiting U.S. lawmakers a report accusing Pakistan's intelligence services of a plot to rig parliamentary elections, sources close to the slain former Pakistani prime minister told CNN Tuesday.

Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, hours before a scheduled meeting with Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania.

A top Bhutto aide who helped write the report showed a copy to CNN.

"Where an opposing candidate is strong in an area, they [supporters of President Pervez Musharraf ] have planned to create a conflict at the polling station, even killing people if necessary, to stop polls at least three to four hours," the document says.

The report also accused the government of planning to tamper with ballots and voter lists, intimidate opposition candidates and misuse U.S.-made equipment to monitor communications of opponents.

"Ninety percent of the equipment that the USA gave the government of Pakistan to fight terrorism is being used to monitor and to keep a check on their political opponents," the report says. VideoWatch the controversy surrounding Pakistan elections »

The Pakistani government denied the allegations, with two Pakistani diplomatic sources calling the report "baseless." Rashid Qureshi, a spokesman for Musharraf, called the accusations "ridiculous" and said the election will be "free, fair and transparent."

"I think they are just a pack of lies," he said.

One Bhutto source said the document was compiled at her request and said the information came from sources inside the police and intelligence services.

The election had been scheduled for January 8, but in the wake of Bhutto's assassination, the Election Commission is expected to announce Wednesday that it will delay the vote at least four weeks into February, sources at the commission said.

Sen. Latif Khosa, who helped put the report together, accused the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence of operating a rigging cell from a safe house in the capital, Islamabad. The goal, he said, is to change voting results electronically on election day.

"The ISI has set up a mega-computer system where they can hack any computer in Pakistan and connect with the Election Commission," he said.

Media outlets in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh have run reports alleging that retired Brig. Gen. Ejaz Shah -- formerly an Inter-Services Intelligence officer and now head of the civilian Intelligence Bureau -- is involved in the vote rigging plans.

Shah's name also turned up in a letter Bhutto wrote to Musharraf after the first attempt on her life on October 18, when she returned to Pakistan after eight years in exile, Pakistani media reported. In the letter, the media reported, Shah was one of four Pakistani officials Bhutto named as people who wanted her dead.

The Pakistan government has denied those allegations as well.

Khosa said he could make no link between Bhutto's assassination and the report. Some terrorism experts also said there was no reason to believe Bhutto was killed because of the report, agreeing with Pakistani government contentions that al Qaeda was responsible for her death.

Now if I may engage in utterly wild conjecture, a new kind of motive emerges. Earlier I was thinking about the incident primarily as one in which Al-Qaeda elements would enlist the aid of domestic actors to kill Bhutto, with the goal of causing instability and activating anti-government sentiment. To indulge in a moment of Oliver Stone-like conspiracy theory, it seems superficially plausible that whoever was implicated in Bhutto's report for the Americans may have wanted to kill her in order to prevent that information from reaching US officials. This jives with some of her earlier statements, where she had only restrained hostility for Musharraf, but seemed extremely eager to sound the alarm on particular figures in Pakistani intelligence (this was after the first explosion several weeks back).

The very obvious plot hole here is that killing her doesn't destroy the information. The article mentions that CNN has already seen a copy of the report, so it's still going to find its way to its intended audience. Still, it is an intriguing, if unlikely, possibility.

One last thing to remember is that the PPP's strategy had been to court the US heavily and convince the US that it is in our interest to pressure Musharraf to make room for civilian power-sharing. They understood that we had a strong interest in seeing democracy there, and wanted to position themselves as a democratic but still anti-Islamist force (in opposition to Musharraf, whom they wanted to portray as both autocratic and weak on terror, and Sharif, who actually is in bed with Islamists). As the party is currently reeling from the loss of its leadership and the ambiguous status of what was very recently a cozy relationship with the US, it makes sense that they would continue to curry our favor, particularly at a juncture where near-term outcomes remain incredibly uncertain. So another way to read the situation is that while the PPP is sowing confusion at home with the 'cause of death' thing, they continue to try and demonstrate to us why they are a better alternative than Musharraf (i.e. they can root out extremist elements in the ISI, while Musharraf, they claim, is powerless against these elements, or complicit with them).

Ustwo · 01-01-2008, 09:21 PM

But would there EVER be an election in Pakistan where people weren't claiming vote rigging etc was going on? Its bad enough in the US where people make up elaborate theories on vote conspiracies and then later when their party wins, suddenly forget about them, only to bring them back if their party loses (and I can't wait to see those claims here if a republican wins in 2008, mind you pretty much all the candidates are sub par so just about anything could happen)

And if this information was real and given to some US reps, so what? What would it matter?

Being a high profile politician odds are she would have had a meeting just about any day of the week which could have been seen as a trigger, plus if the information was already out there, again it makes no sense.

I see it as more conspiracy fodder.

roachboy · 01-01-2008, 09:39 PM

there are ALOT of reprints of the reuters release about this. it's kind of amazing to see how many papers reproduce the same story in the same way from a wire service.

anyway, i searched around for a minute for the guy who wrote the report that bhutto is supposed to turn over and found the above, which is a curious news-collating page it seems:

http://www.daylife.com/words/Latif_Khosa

is this latif khosa also this one?

http://www.ifj-asia.org/page/pakistan070621.html

nothing hinges on it, just curious.
if it's the same guy, it would appear that he is not a musharraf fan.

=======
btw ustwo:
re. the beer....it's totally fine....anonymity is an interesting thing to consider: i go back and forth about it.

Elphaba · 01-01-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

hiredgun, this may be the video that you are referring to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGOI2ztguww&feature=related

What I find odd about this is that the "shooter" is much closer than reported previously and better able to fire and hit his target. The "backup" suicide detonation is not something that I have seen reported before in any other "radical" killing. The changes in the official cause of death are equally perplexing.

I would like to persue who had the most to gain from the assassination of Bhutto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Elphaba:
What I find confusing about this line of thinking is that I don't see how oddities in the tactics used in an assassination are connected to oddities of motive or guilt. Why does a small degree of confusion over the cause of death imply a conspiracy? I don't see that an assassination sponsored by the government, army, a rival, or any other political player would somehow be more likely to result in novel tactics or an ambiguous cause of death.

My take on the matter is this: initial changes in the cause of death, and in reported tactics (how far away the shooter was, etc) are simply a product of the honest confusion that immediately follows an incident such as this one, in which scattered and conflicting reporting creates a distorted picture of the event, which is eventually corrected and narrowed down as the facts come in. The politicization is something being added on after the fact by a number of parties desperate to ensure that Pakistan moves in a certain direction from this key juncture.

Who had the most to gain?
* Not anyone in the party. Her husband knows he is a political dead fish with or without her (corruption and graft have earned him the nickname Mr 10 Percent), and in any case he has been quite obviously distraught in television appearances over the last few days. No one in the party has emerged boldly to take her leadership position - it seems that instead, the party has urged 19-year-old Bilawal to step forward, and I think it vanishingly unlikely that he was involved.

* Not Musharraf. This is important: while painful, Bhutto's presence actually held the key to legitimating the current regime. Remember, she was not running directly against him - she was aiming for the premiership, while he had already safely been elected to the Presidency, a position that he himself had (extra-?)constitutionally strengthened. An eventual power-sharing agreement would have been difficult but would have greatly stabilized the power configuration by expanding the ruling coalition and giving it a much larger popular base. His real battle was with the judiciary, and it's not at all clear that Bhutto would have sided in the end with irreconcilably anti-Musharraf forces; I think the opposite is more likely the case.

Nawaz? I guess it's a theoretical possibility. By eliminating Bhutto, he now forces Musharraf to deal directly with him - and while the general dislikes Bhutto, he loathes Nawaz Sharif (and the feeling is quite mutual, I'm sure). But I don't see Nawaz doing any of the posturing that would allow him to actually gain from the event. All he has done is announce an ineffectual boycott of the upcoming elections, throwing a wrench into the government's plans but doing little else to help himself.

In terms of exploiting existing political cleavages and bringing wrenching instability to the country, I still think that extreme anti-government forces - rather than establishment forces - are the most likely culprits. Al Qaeda and/or Pakistani Taliban sympathizers seem to me the prime candidates here

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It matters, immensely how Bhutto died. If the official machinations are an indicator....the government intentionally, after announcing several variations, settled on a version of events which puts Bhutto in the least "martyred" light; "ducking" from a bomb blast, fatally injuring her own head, vs. killed by assassin's bullets.

Everything about the murder of Bhutto matters, if an honest inquiry into her death is of interest to anyone. That would appear to be a big "if" even among members of tfp.

My thoughts lean toward elements within Pakistan's security agency. Islamic fundamentalists within the agency have the desire, and the opportunity to allow a breach of security to remove Bhutto. Security would also have the opportunity to "confuse" the form of attack and cause of death.

The Occam's razor explanation that she hit her head retreating into the car from the sun roof, causing her death, is just a little too "thin" to take seriously.

Given all of the political significance of Pakistan within the current Middle East turmoil, I think just a bit more attention is warranted.

host · 01-02-2008, 01:29 AM

From post #51

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

how does Cheema know that Bhutto died from a skull fracture, with no autopsy performed?

I never thought I would get an answer to the above question, from the Pakistani government, itself, but.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheema

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7239336.story

Cheema told CNN he based his statement about the sunroof lever "on the initial investigations and the reports by the medical doctors" who treated Bhutto. He said the ministry would wait for forensic investigators to finish their report before making any more conclusions about her cause of death.

<i>"I was just narrating the facts, you know, and nothing less, nothing more," he said Tuesday.</i>

But the medical report—criticized by many as unprofessional and simply clinical notes—said nothing about a sunroof or a latch. There was no autopsy to determine what actually killed Bhutto. Doctors have complained that their statements have been misrepresented by the government and the doctors have gone into hiding,.....

Sounds familiar????

Quote:

President Participates in Social Security Conversation in New York
See, in my line of work <b>you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.</b>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050524-3.html

Maybe the next revision will be that she wasn't killed, after all:

Quote:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/P...ow/2666486.cms
Pak govt makes U-turn on cause of Bhutto's death
1 Jan 2008, 1426 hrs IST,PTI

ISLAMABAD: In a dramatic U-turn, Pakistan government has "apologised" for claiming that former premier Benazir Bhutto died of a skull fracture after hitting the sunroof of her car during a suicide attack.

Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan has asked the media and people to "forgive and ignore" comments <h3>made by his ministry's spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema</h3> which were slammed by her Pakistan People's Party as "lies" and led to an uproar at home and abroad.

The Interior Minister made the apology during a briefing for Pakistani newspaper editors on Monday.

...The government's apparent damage control exercise on Cheema's comments made at a news conference a day after Bhutto was assassinated at Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi on December 27, came after TV channels aired privately shot photos and video footage which showed a gunman shooting at Bhutto.

The Pakistan People's Party leader is seen in the footage falling through the sun-roof before the suicide bomber detonated his explosives.

The briefing by caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro was also attended by the foreign, interior and information ministers and senior officials.....

Now, the official line is that they only know that they aren't supporting anything that they've previously communicated about how Bhutto was killed. It's amazing to watch a government addressing the press with even less crdibility than our own administration enjoys.....

Quote:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/2664453.cms
'Bhutto wanted to call Sharif minutes before she died'
31 Dec 2007

...Bhutto was assassinated on December 27 shortly after she addressed an election rally at the historical Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi.

As she left the venue in her bullet-proof vehicle, Bhutto said she wanted to speak to Sharif, but then she heard the “Jeay Bhutto" slogans from her supporters and decided to wave to them from the car's sunroof.

Bhutto's political secretary Nahid Khan reportedly told a mourner that the former premier initially sat in the vehicle and asked for her mobile phone, the Dawn newspaper reported on Monday.

Bhutto said she wanted to call Sharif as she had just learnt that five of his supporters had been killed in an attack as he was also campaigning in the garrison city of Rawalpindi.

Khan said when Bhutto fell inside the vehicle after the attack, she thought she had lost her balance and slipped.

"I said 'Bismillah' when BB almost fell into my lap but then to my horror I saw blood oozing out of her head and she was almost unconscious," Khan recalled.

Bhutto had called Sharif a day before her assassination to discuss with him the government's alleged plan for "massive rigging" in the January 8 general elections.

The two leaders had a long telephonic conversation and talked about evolving a joint strategy to foil the rigging plans. She had also sent flowers and a cake to Sharif on his birthday on December 25.

Chief political adviser of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, Safdar Abbasi said Bhutto's last words were "Long live Bhutto".

Bhutto, who was chanting slogans along with her supporters from the sunroof of her vehicle, said "Long live Bhutto" just before she fell.

"She did not say anything more," Abbasi, who is Nahid Khan's husband, recalled.

Recounting the incident, Abbasi said, "All of a sudden there was the sound of firing. I heard the sound of a bullet.

"I saw her: she looked as though she ducked in when she heard the firing. We did not realise that she had been hit by a bullet."

He said he looked up to see Bhutto sliding back through the sunroof just before the vehicle was rocked by a huge explosion.

There was no sound from the 54-year-old Bhutto and Abbasi said he noticed blood seeping from a deep wound on the left side of her neck...

fastom · 01-02-2008, 07:08 PM

"Telephonic" ??
Whenever i hear that word in regards to an assassination "Evil Bushco" isn't far off.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html

Elphaba · 01-02-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

"Telephonic" ??
Whenever i hear that word in regards to an assassination "Evil Bushco" isn't far off.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html

Well, that was real useful. The term you object to is common in other cultures.

roachboy · 01-03-2008, 10:45 AM

so it appears that the drama of the mobile fatal wound has acquired enough separate momentum that it has required a response from musharraf. this from this morning's ny times:

Quote:

Musharraf Says Bhutto Took Risks With Her Safety
By GRAHAM BOWLEY

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan engaged his international critics for the first time on Thursday, denying accusations of government involvement in the assassination last week of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and instead publicly criticizing Ms. Bhutto for being reckless with her own safety.

Speaking at a news conference with foreign journalists in Islamabad, the capital, he said Ms. Bhutto had been warned repeatedly of threats against her. He said the police had provided her with ample protection, including four squads of about 30 people permanently detailed with her and more than 1,000 police officers at the site of her assassination. All the surrounding roofs were occupied by the police, he said.

Asked whether he had “blood on his hands,” he visibly bridled and said, “Frankly, I consider the question below my dignity to answer.” But he said he would answer it anyway. “I am not a feudal leader, not a tribal leader,” he said. “I come from a family which believes in values, which believes in principles, which believes in character.”

In answering the frank questions, Mr. Musharraf displayed an air of confidence that suggested he believed he would survive the current crisis gripping his country, and told the reporters that he retained widespread support across Pakistan.

He said parliamentary elections set for Feb. 18 would be “inherently fair” — noting with mild jocosity that the date was also his wife and daughter’s birthday.

He denied accusations that his ruling party would tamper with the results.

“There is no possibility of rigging,” he said. Foreign election observers “must come and visit and see the polling themselves,” he said.

He signaled that even if the main opposition party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, won the election, he would be able to work with it.

He said that there was no cover-up by Pakistan authorities in Ms. Bhutto’s death, but said that he was not fully satisfied with the investigation.

British detectives from Scotland Yard, who are traveling to Pakistan to help with the inquiry, would be able to look at “pieces of detailed evidence that we are looking at,” he said. “They will look at it and then decide who did it.”

In its early findings, the Pakistan government has blamed terrorists linked to Al Qaeda for the killing.

He acknowledged that the crime scene had been quickly hosed down after the death but said that this was not to cover up evidence but because of inefficiency.

“I’m not fully satisfied,” he said, The Associated Press reported. “I will accept that: cleaning the area. Why did they do that? If you are meaning they did that by design I would not say no. It’s just inefficiency, people thinking things have to be cleared, traffic has to go through.”

On Wednesday, the main opposition parties denounced the government’s decision to postpone parliamentary elections for six weeks after the assassination of Ms. Bhutto, but they said they would abide by the ruling.

The Election Commission set Feb. 18 as the date for the elections, citing the time needed to recover from the violence that followed Ms. Bhutto’s death last week. Nearly 60 people were killed, election offices were damaged and parts of Ms. Bhutto’s home province, Sindh, were paralyzed.

Condemning the violence and expressing his sorrow at the death of Ms. Bhutto, Mr. Musharraf went on national television on Wednesday to explain the elections’ delay and to dampen public anger.

He acknowledged that the government’s conflicting reports had created confusion over how she had been killed, and he said he had requested the assistance of a team from London’s Metropolitan Police Service, Scotland Yard, to help with the investigation.

“I myself want to go into its depths and want to tell the nation,” Mr. Musharraf said. “It is extremely important to bring the nation out of confusion.”

“I am sure this investigation with the help of Scotland Yard will remove all doubts and suspicions,” he added.

Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/wo...hp&oref=slogin

a detail that i find interesting is the choice of scotland yard--presumably the americans are not understood as neutral....the responses to the khosa report are interesting as well. so we've reached a little dramatic turning point, but it's probably only a transition moment within the first act, from one scene to another....

12-28-2007, 10:37 AM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what if we think about this ritual of moving around/redefining the fatal wound as a political action? what could be at stake in it? if bhutto is understood as having been killed by fracturing her skull while trying to get out of the way of an assailant's gunfire and/or bomb, what changes situationally? what does it mean politically if she is understood as having been assissinated directly? does the skull fracture hypothesis mean that there was no assassination? or is it a theory designed to save face for the government, a slight displacement of the center of gravity from the actions of the assailant to accident (caused by the actions of the assailant, but not identical with them)? i dont know, am just thinking about what i've read this morning.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-28-2007, 10:39 AM	#46 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I dont know enough detail to have a firm opinion of the corruption accusations against Bhutto and her husband. She has always claimed that they were politically motivated, but is the informed opinion that they were not groundless? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2007, 12:09 PM	#48 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I have to say and agree with hiredgun, that while I dont pretend to believe that Musharraf is incapable of ordering violent action, I dont think that this kind of crime is his style, or in his interests. He may be no democrat, and he may have repressed some freedoms - but I do believe he has acted on a genuine belief that tough action was required to maintain security and peace. I am also not certain that this belief if in any way shown to be incorrect. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2007, 03:18 PM	#52 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	And how exactly is it proposed that Israeli security forces are to protect a Pakistani politican in Pakistan? Anyway... lets hope than Usama Bin Laden finds that openly declaring war on Musharaff is a different matter to hiding in the mountains and calling on people to fly planes into civilian buildings. He cant run to Afghanistan anymore, or the British or Americans will kill him, if he really wants to confrornt the Army in Pakistan hopefully he will be killed soon. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2007, 03:48 PM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you know, if there were nukes in the equation, which escalates the problems that accompany political instability, this would be kinda interesting political theater. since there was no autopsy, the cause of death can be moved around. if it is being moved around by spokesmodels at the hospital to which bhutto was brought, then that defines one set of possibilities as to meanings; if this is coming from the state, there's another. i'm just curious about this, why it's happening. maybe it's perfectly banal and the medical folk on site don't really know. but it is a strange situation, for now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-28-2007, 08:26 AM	#41 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Regardless of what she really stood for the best thing for Pakistan to do is use this assassination for the betterment of the country. If they turn her into a martyr for democracy then there is a good chance that much of Pakistan will reform because the people of Pakistan will be behind the reforms. My hope is that Musharaff will use this to the advantage of the people and not to his own.

12-28-2007, 10:17 AM	#43 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	does Islam prohibit autopsies? That would be the easiest way to get a clear answer, but if the body is already in the ground and can't be taken out, we won't have that answer.

12-28-2007, 11:20 AM	#47 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Well, it would be extremely difficult to kill yourself while ducking into your car of your own power. My impression was that the skull fracture came from the blast wave of the explosion knocking her head back onto the sunroof. In fact, assuming the bomb went off while she was still exposed from the top of the car (and this much I've heard repeatedly on independent Pakistani television starting only a few hours after the incident), it isn't possible for her to have escaped the blast wave at that range. So from a technical perspective, the skull fracture story adds up. It is also confirmed by numerous eyewitnesses that shots were fired before the explosion. Whether or not Benazir was hit by these shots remains an open question (from what I read, the attacker was up to 50m away, and the suspected gun [shown on Pak television] is a handgun, so I would actually be surprised if he managed to hit her). I haven't yet seen any evidence that the information about her cause of death is politically motivated. As for an autopsy, it is not forbidden in Islam, although it might be looked upon kind of strangely. The larger point is that I don't think her supporters would allow her body to be 'desecrated' in that way, and last I heard the body had already arrived at the family mausoleum to be buried, so that's probably the end of that.

12-28-2007, 12:24 PM	#49 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I also agree that it is not so much that he'd never do such a thing as it is just not a smart thing to do for him, not to mention not his style. Afterall, if he wanted to be hard line, he could just arrest her again or something else to make it hard for her to campaign, and he can always postpone the election a bit longer if he really wanted it that badly. Even not being guilty, many are going to believe he is, and many more are going to hold him accountable even if not the one who was behind the attack. Afterall, it is the incumbant government's responsibility to provide for the election and that includes security for the candidates. There were a lot of complaints prior to the attack, in the wake of the first one when she got into the country, that the government was not doing enough to secure her safety as she campaigned. The election may now be a non-starter, and he may have a little longer in office, but the damage far outweighs the gain, I would think.

12-28-2007, 03:59 PM	#54 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i know a little about autopsies in islam.. but if anyone needs more info, i know a few people that are well versed in islamic law that could answer some questions... as far as autopsies go.. westerners may find it strange, but it actually quite common to bury someone the same day that they died. so i wouldnt consider it a conspiracy as such just because someone was buried rather hurridly. my grandmother died a few years back in the morning. by noon she was buried. granted, the doctors knew what she died of, so there was no autopsy performed. Bhutto died in the late afternoon/ early evening, so it would have been too late to bury her that day. she would have been prepared for burial the next day. but as a general rule, the sun shouldnt set twice on the deceased before they are buried. autopsies are not forbidden in islam, though if it is not necesary, then it is regarded as desecration of the sacred. deceased are considered sacred, as they are 'returning back to God'. theres an islamic saying "ina lillah wa ina ilayhi raji'oon" which basically translates into "we are from god, and to god we shall return" hence the sacredness of the dead body. as for the autopsies itself.. they arent forbidden, and would even be encouraged under certain situations. for example: under islamic law, inheritance is is already prescribed, so you dont get the squabbling over who gets what later. however, if say someone killed their parents, then the child isnt entitled to recieve any inheritance. so if there is doubt as to whether someone was murdered for example, and there was suspicion that the son did it, then an autopsy wouldnt be out of the ordinary in order to pinpoint the cause of death. this would also be the same with leadership and so forth. in Bhuttos case, if it was obvisous that she had died from bullet wounds then an autopsy wouldnt be performed. no conspiracy here. though it would work to musharrafs advantage that her burial be dealt with quickly if he wanted something hidden up. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

12-28-2007, 04:17 PM	#55 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	hiredgun, thank you so much for providing your insight on this. ps: It's good to see you again. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-29-2007, 01:46 AM	#56 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	What Benazir Bhutto said : <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Minute 2:10 : "..he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden The reporter does not care, he does not ask her anything about Bin Laden's death . Why ? I think Musharaff is Bush's friend even if Bush tries to hide it- so to not cause more hate against Musharaff from those who hate USA. Bush wants him in power to keep the nuclear weapons secured. CIA killed Bhutto, they would not want her to expose more about Bin Laden. The islamic militants are against Musharaff, they would not kill his opponent. Last edited by pai mei; 12-29-2007 at 01:55 AM..

12-30-2007, 12:11 AM	#58 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Regarding the cause of death, it is sort of an odd little controversy. There is now a brief and blurry video out there that shows the shooter (sorry, I saw it elsewhere and don't have the link on this comp) at nearly point-blank range, so now the official story - that all three bullets missed - seems slightly unlikely. But I don't really see it. What would the government gain from telling other than the truth about this matter? Whether or not the shooter was able to shoot her is really irrelevant to how you interpret the effectiveness of the army in protecting Bhutto - that is, whether or not the state was negligent has nothing to do with whether or not the shots that were fired hit their target, especially because the end result was the same. Perhaps the PPP is sensitive to the symbolism of her death and maintains the shooting story because it somehow seems to have more glory in it than blunt force trauma (and is therefore more conducive to the concept of martyrdom). Or perhaps they are willing to seize on any issue that helps them portray the government as deceptive and conspiratorial. Most likely, it just seems to me to be a technical misunderstanding exacerbated by distrust and distress.

12-30-2007, 01:19 AM	#59 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	hiredgun, this may be the video that you are referring to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGOI2ztguww&feature=related What I find odd about this is that the "shooter" is much closer than reported previously and better able to fire and hit his target. The "backup" suicide detonation is not something that I have seen reported before in any other "radical" killing. The changes in the official cause of death are equally perplexing. I would like to persue who had the most to gain from the assassination of Bhutto. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-30-2007, 11:04 AM	#60 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Ho ho ho, now this is interesting. Benazir's son Bilawal (19) takes over leadership of PPP along with her husband Asif Ali Zardari. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...29995920071230) Sigh. They're going for the name thing. To be honest, as much as I dislike the PPP, they had a half dozen other candidates who might really have been useful people to have on the political stage in Pakistan. Aitzaz Ahsan comes to mind - he was a key figure in the judiciary revolt earlier this year, and is at least motivated by a keen understanding of checks on executive power. Elphaba: What I find confusing about this line of thinking is that I don't see how oddities in the tactics used in an assassination are connected to oddities of motive or guilt. Why does a small degree of confusion over the cause of death imply a conspiracy? I don't see that an assassination sponsored by the government, army, a rival, or any other political player would somehow be more likely to result in novel tactics or an ambiguous cause of death. My take on the matter is this: initial changes in the cause of death, and in reported tactics (how far away the shooter was, etc) are simply a product of the honest confusion that immediately follows an incident such as this one, in which scattered and conflicting reporting creates a distorted picture of the event, which is eventually corrected and narrowed down as the facts come in. The politicization is something being added on after the fact by a number of parties desperate to ensure that Pakistan moves in a certain direction from this key juncture. Who had the most to gain? * Not anyone in the party. Her husband knows he is a political dead fish with or without her (corruption and graft have earned him the nickname Mr 10 Percent), and in any case he has been quite obviously distraught in television appearances over the last few days. No one in the party has emerged boldly to take her leadership position - it seems that instead, the party has urged 19-year-old Bilawal to step forward, and I think it vanishingly unlikely that he was involved. * Not Musharraf. This is important: while painful, Bhutto's presence actually held the key to legitimating the current regime. Remember, she was not running directly against him - she was aiming for the premiership, while he had already safely been elected to the Presidency, a position that he himself had (extra-?)constitutionally strengthened. An eventual power-sharing agreement would have been difficult but would have greatly stabilized the power configuration by expanding the ruling coalition and giving it a much larger popular base. His real battle was with the judiciary, and it's not at all clear that Bhutto would have sided in the end with irreconcilably anti-Musharraf forces; I think the opposite is more likely the case. Nawaz? I guess it's a theoretical possibility. By eliminating Bhutto, he now forces Musharraf to deal directly with him - and while the general dislikes Bhutto, he loathes Nawaz Sharif (and the feeling is quite mutual, I'm sure). But I don't see Nawaz doing any of the posturing that would allow him to actually gain from the event. All he has done is announce an ineffectual boycott of the upcoming elections, throwing a wrench into the government's plans but doing little else to help himself. In terms of exploiting existing political cleavages and bringing wrenching instability to the country, I still think that extreme anti-government forces - rather than establishment forces - are the most likely culprits. Al Qaeda and/or Pakistani Taliban sympathizers seem to me the prime candidates here.

12-31-2007, 07:46 AM	#61 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Looks like Bhutto is on her way to being canonized. To my mind the only good that come of this is if leads to a real backlash at grassroots level against the Taleban __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-31-2007, 08:42 AM	#62 (permalink)
allaboutmusic Aurally Fixated	I don't have anything to add other than that as always, the insight from posts in this thread has been awesome.

01-01-2008, 05:17 PM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that is strange enough a statement that i will try to sort it out too. maybe security trains for people with guns but not for people who strap bombs to themselves because, well, best i can figure it that there's some chance of intervention regarding someone who has a gun but not a whole lot relative to someone with a bomb strapped to themselves. so gun=security failure (covered) bomb=act of god (not covered). gun+bomb= um. i'm not sure. a bad thing certainly, something that happened without question, a terrible idea definitely, a tragedy arguably, generating of heightened political tensions without a doubt, but a security failure..... maybe security failure would imply something like the assassination of malcolm x kinda thing. it's hard to say---i was playing around with the question of why the govt kept moving the fatal wound around earlier---i still dont understand anything, but the theater of the moving fatal wound keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-01-2008, 07:18 PM	#66 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Why do the xrays show a bullet deep in head pointing downward , if she was sticking out of the top of the car how was she shot from above? There is a YouTube video showing somebody shooting upwards from behind the car. This deal is like another JFK.

01-01-2008, 08:54 PM	#71 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	The other thing that doesn't really make sense is this... there _was_ a gun. The gun was shown on television only a few hours after the event. You can now see it on video. No one, to my knowledge, is denying that someone with a gun managed to get close enough to fire at Bhutto. So at that point, how does the question of 'cause of death' say anything at all about security? Either a gun was fired and it missed Bhutto, or a gun was fired and it found its mark. This question says nothing about the quality of security, and if it says anything at all, it says a little bit about the marksmanship of the attacker. This is separate from the fact that - wait for it - there was also a bomb so it's all really a moot point. As far as I can tell (and I can only guess), this whole issue is an absurd red herring that is being made into some sort of political question only because whoever is making it so can get away with it and use it to create confusion, suspicion, and doubt.

01-01-2008, 09:21 PM	#74 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	But would there EVER be an election in Pakistan where people weren't claiming vote rigging etc was going on? Its bad enough in the US where people make up elaborate theories on vote conspiracies and then later when their party wins, suddenly forget about them, only to bring them back if their party loses (and I can't wait to see those claims here if a republican wins in 2008, mind you pretty much all the candidates are sub par so just about anything could happen) And if this information was real and given to some US reps, so what? What would it matter? Being a high profile politician odds are she would have had a meeting just about any day of the week which could have been seen as a trigger, plus if the information was already out there, again it makes no sense. I see it as more conspiracy fodder. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-01-2008, 09:39 PM	#75 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are ALOT of reprints of the reuters release about this. it's kind of amazing to see how many papers reproduce the same story in the same way from a wire service. anyway, i searched around for a minute for the guy who wrote the report that bhutto is supposed to turn over and found the above, which is a curious news-collating page it seems: http://www.daylife.com/words/Latif_Khosa is this latif khosa also this one? http://www.ifj-asia.org/page/pakistan070621.html nothing hinges on it, just curious. if it's the same guy, it would appear that he is not a musharraf fan. ======= btw ustwo: re. the beer....it's totally fine....anonymity is an interesting thing to consider: i go back and forth about it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-02-2008, 07:08 PM	#78 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	"Telephonic" ?? Whenever i hear that word in regards to an assassination "Evil Bushco" isn't far off. http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html