Posted on 12/30/2007 2:57:57 PM PST by jdm
Are you discounting even the possibility that the Pakistani/Musharaff govt had something to do with this?
Musharaff is no angel, he’s a military dictator and Ms. Bhutto was his only serious contender in the upcoming elections. And believe me, it does make a difference who offed her. If Musharaff gets pinned for this or somehow the military gets blamed, then i seriously doubt the rioting/turmoil stops. Like him or hate him, Musharaff and his military is somewhat predictable in an unpredictable part of the world; add to that the Paki nuke aresenal - this is an applecart we don’t want to upset.
It’s at the VERY END of the vid..
That whole part of the world is a festering sh*thole of corruption......who knows who did what and why. One who has everything to gain politically is second to someone who gains fiscally all to be countered by many who gain personally.........
Hope yer well my friend.....You keep the rubber side down tomorrow evening and as always .......
Stay safe !
“I kind of doubt that they do know exactly what happened”
The initial news report from the hospital doctors was two gunshot wounds. That was changed by a government spokesman to hitting her head on the sunroof lever due to the explosion, which by the miracle of eyewitness video is now known to be a baldfaced lie.
The most charitable possible explanation is that the government official responsible for her security panicked, and came up with the cover story to hide his incompetence. But then how did he get the whole government to quickly agree to the lie? So it smells to me like something even worse than that.
Innocent people act innocent, and guilty people act guilty. If the Pakistani government didn’t actually murder Benazir Bhutto, they need to right now legally prosecute the official who came up with the false cover story, and apologize to the Bhutto family.
The original report was that she was struck by shrapnel. The next report was that a sniper shot her with an AK-47. I reported that to FR, then got a report of the actual wound damage and bullet path. Minutes later I got a correction that the wounds were caused by 9mm rounds, so I posted a correction.
It was some minutes after that that I got a report that a 9mm semi-automatic pistol had been recovered and that the assassin blew up after the crowd grabbed him.
Unclear whether the assassin blew himself up or was blown up by remote control by a one of the other two assassins.
I think he blew himself up because Bhuttos vehicle carried RF jammers to prevent remote signal or cell phone usage near her vehicle. The assassins likely knew that.
Also, the three assassins were operationally independent and carrying bombs, looking for an opening, none in control of the other.
For the record, she was not in a jeep but a white armored Land Rover and was wearing kevlar.
Finally, Bhutto suffered from terminal arrogance. That along with Musharraf’s refusal to let her have western security forces (that would have prevented this) caused her death.
Almost like there were two attempts in the works. One team and one lone bomber , unaware of the others. Looks like the shooter is grabbed by the shoulders and turned back and too his left and pushed away by someone dressed almost in the same manner......yet they have no time too get away before the bomb goes off.
How many others were killed in that blast ? If that guy that was the trigger was thrown too the ground or into a crowd away from the bomb he could still be walking around .....albeit saying Huh ? A lot.
Good eye RR.......
To explain further, the bullet struck the back of her neck vertebrae, shattering it and destroying the spinal cord, thus causing immediate paralysis and the heart and lungs to stop. The bullet then traveled up and out the left side of her head, exiting.
Agree but also think of possibility of a bodyguard inside that snagged or clothes-lined her legs from the seat she was standing on etc .....that could explain the sudden straight down collapse as well as getting a hit directly in the motors which I too suspect was the case . I too think she was shot from what I am able too see. All the tell tales you mention are clear albeit I can’t see where rounds impacted....... her scarf rising is telling .
Stay safe !
You asked — “Are you discounting even the possibility that the Pakistani/Musharaff govt had something to do with this?”
Well, I do believe that there are always elements within any government which operates in opposition to that same government. We see that here, in our own country. But, no, I don’t believe that Musharaff is someone who instructed his government (or someone within that government) to get rid of Bhutto.
In fact, Bhutto herself didn’t believe that about Musharaff. She asked him, personally to look into certain people in his government who were threatening to her. She handed him a list of names for him to look into it. So, it’s possible she may have identified someone in his government (several people) who were acting against what his government would have done (and that’s possible).
It’s also very possible that al Qaida has their operatives at all levels of society, infiltrating very many agencies and branches of the government. But, that wouldn’t be the government of Musharaff doing that, but rather al Qaida working, infiltrating and spying on what the government is doing and creating situations in which they will be the beneficiaries of problems that al Qaida creates (like this one — the assassination of Bhutto, that al Qaida carried out and is hoping to create chaos out if it, so they can benefit from it and take over...).
Bhutto said that she was going to let the U.S. come into Pakistan and get rid of al Qaida. And that would be good enough reason for al Qaida to get rid of Bhutto. I think Musharaff would like to get rid of al Qaida, too.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “The initial news report from the hospital doctors was two gunshot wounds. That was changed by a government spokesman to hitting her head on the sunroof lever due to the explosion, which by the miracle of eyewitness video is now known to be a baldfaced lie.”
We’ve got our own government speaking all sorts of contradictory statements, all the time. We hear from some general over in Iraq, then get a report from the CIA, and then an official over in Iraq says something different, and then the White House press meeting says something completely different again. Where have you been? It happens over here all the time... LOL!
I wouldn’t expect Pakistan to do much better than we do in this country... :-)
—
And then you said — “Innocent people act innocent, and guilty people act guilty.”
Well, that should make it real easy for our police, prosecutors, judges and juries. LOL!
We’ll just tell them, “Remember now... innocent people act innocent and guilty people act guilty. As long as you remember that, you’ll always get the guilty ones...”
That should save us a lot of investigation costs... :-)
Regards,
Star Traveler
“As long as you remember that, you’ll always get the guilty ones.”
Your sarcasm is inane.
Obviously life is complex and difficult, and sometimes the truth is clear, and sometimes it isn’t.
But nobody lies about a murder for no reason. And frequently the reason is they participated in the murder.
“The wicked flee when no man pursueth”
Proverbs 28:1
You said — “Why lie about a murder unless you’re involved? Consciousness of guilt is reliable legal evidence.”
Well, I’ve repeated several false reports about Bhutto’s assassination, simply because I was relating what was reported by other witnesses. Now, I suppose someone could accuse me of lying and acting guilty because I was not relaying the truth — except for the fact that it was reported one way and then another way and then another way — with apparently a bunch of different witnesses saying different things.
What I’ve found out with all these big breaking stories and big events that are being reported “live” and when they are actually “developing” too — is that many of the initial reports are invariably wrong. But, you go with them, anyway and remain cautious as to believing them 100%. And eventually you find out that some of the initial reports are found to be unreliable and you discard them. Now, that doesn’t mean that one was lying when they repeated those false and unreliable stories, but simply that this was all they had at first.
How those witnesses, themselves, came up with these false accounts may be quite another matter — as they (individually) may have had some reasons for relaying false information, or they may have simply been mistaken or seen things wrong. I know a lot of people that I wouldn’t rely on their testimony without questioning them thoroughly first, because they would mix in some conclusions that they had made, along with what they think they had seen. And their conclusions would be wrong.
But, for the people who heard some of these eyewitness testimonies (and also government officials who are trying to sort out the conflicting accounts) — one doesn’t know who is lying, who is mistaken and who is simply incapable or giving an accurate account (and there are people like that).
Eventually, and by further information coming forth, one is able to discard certain things and hold to others. It’s the same thing with the government, if they speak too soon or rely too heavily on one account over another account. They risk being wrong — just as wrong as all those readers (of the news accounts) who believed contradictory stories that we heard, too.
And so, would I be “conscious of guilt” if I heard a wrong account, or listened to the “direct testimony” of someone who said they “saw Bhutto hit her head” (or something like that)? No, I wouldn’t have any consciousness of guilt from that. And neither would government investigators, in sorting out the conflicting accounts. They would simply be trying to find the right one to account for what happened.
It’s actually more wise for the government to sit on things for a while and take their time in sorting it out, rather than make statements too quickly, because more times than not, those quick statements come back as wrong and then it gives people who are inclined to be “conspiracy minded” to make false claims that a conspiracy is in the works.
But, instead of waiting and making “solid pronouncements” later, most of the time governments and people rush to make pronouncements before knowing all the facts. We all do it and correct things as we go along. That’s what is happening here...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — ““The wicked flee when no man pursueth” Proverbs 28:1
I see that leads to another sure-fire method for getting the guilty ones... Be sure you grab the one who is running. The professional hit-man (of course) knows not to run, so he’s the one who is walking. The guy they nabbed (who *was running*) happened to be out for his morning run and “they got him” (he must be guilty)... LOL!
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — You’re coming up with all kinds of good clues as to how to nab the guilty ones... :-)
Well innocent mistakes do happen, but it’s extremely difficult to believe that the government official who held the press conference and said categorically that Bhutto died from hitting her head on the sunroof lever, didn’t know that she had actually been shot. Perhaps he should now hold another press conference to explain where the misinformation he provided came from. That would be acting innocent.
“Be sure you grab the one who is running.”
More inanity.
The biblical proverb is metaphorical as well as literal. Many many murderers have been convicted due to betraying a consciousness of their own guilt. It can be as probative as DNA evidence.
And as you point out, there’s always room for an explanation of innocent intent — if it’s possible to explain.
I await the explanation from the Pakistani government.
Thanks for the ping!
That said, there are a few potential reasons for the Pakistan govt to lie about the mode of death:
The cool and professional manner of the shooter suggests that he got military style terror training as opposed to the plain 'ole "press this button to blow me up" deal reserved for foot soldiers. Given that the Pakistani intelligence agencies ran many of these advanced camps (see the 9/11 commission report) - the shooter may have been a state asset gone bad. They would not want to expose that.
For you to be a "martyr" under Islam, you have to receive a mortal would directly from the adversary. Bhutto dying due to an accident, even if triggered by a blast, would put paid to portrayals of her as a martyr in the eyes of the faithful.
Why is al qeada claiming credit? And who says al qeada wouldn’t use a gunman? There was also a bomb that went off that is al qeada’s trademark. The two looked pretty close to each other in the crowd too. Maybe, al qeada knew the car was protected (bomb proofed) and they sent a gunman to be sure?
Musharaf's problem now is that no one believes him and apparently with good reason. Bhutton wasn't autopsied to determine the manner of death. Bhutto complained about poor security provided by the government. Bhutto of course sabotaged her own security and I believe she felt she was immune. But the what is important is the public perception.
The government came out and said that Bhutto had not bullet wounds. Now we have video showing her getting shot. We had eyewitness from inside the car saying she was in the car before the bomb went off. We have outside eyewitnesses saying she was in the car before the bomb went off.
It's hard to believe that the bomb going off caused her to bang her head so hard, that she died, when the witnesses say otherwise and the video shows otherwise.
Mushy has succeeded in pissing off 70% of his country. Not good, if you want to stay in power.
I thought the story about her hitting her head hard enough to fracture her skull and die from it sounded far fetched.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.