What’s with the constant details about what actually killed her? Sunroof, bullet, level, shrapnel, could anything matter less?
H.
from last month:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,2482408.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Well, perhaps–it wouldn’t surprise me. But comments from a variety of Pakistanis interviewed on a variety of shows seems to indicate that 1) most of the corruption charges were unproven, though what what that means is ambiguous, and 2) most of the problems on her watches were chalked up to her inexperience and ease of manipulation rather than any active desires on her part. Of couse, neither of those things makes one see her as a paragon, but she apparently had a lot of support among common Pakistanis and, let’s face it, no one in that country has done particularly well on the good government Rate-O-Matic.
Anyway, if it was indeed AQ that killed her it was because of her perceived ties to the USA, not any malfeasance of office or anything, I’d gather.
Because the reports over how she died are conflicting. One doctor who treated her said it may have been the shrapnel, a security officer said she was shot in the neck and chest, another says she hit her head trying to duck down from the sunroof and then God knows what happened.
The lack of clarity over she died is odd.
Speculation time: Musharraf isn’t the poster boy over at the Islamist fundamentalist camp nowadays after his slightly unelegant maneuvering during the red mosque incident. In fact, it might be safe to say that some kind of reprisal from the fundamentalists was inevitable.
So, getting rid of a potential populist candidate while making certain that Musharaff would be blamed for the assassination seems like a pretty good way to get back at him. I mean, right now, there’s only two people involved in this case: Bhutto and Musharaff. The faceless fundamentalists won’t get mentioned for some more time, since they wouldn’t make quite as good rollovers on CNN as “Pakistani dictator assassinates opposition leader”.
So, should I go get my tinfoil hat properly fitted, or does this assumption carry any kind of merit?
Right, but who cares? It’s just jerking off over her dead corpse, she died in an attack. 'Nuff said. We don’t need to know the details.
Fucking vultures.
H.
Um, what? AQ already claimed responsibility, as was noted multiple times in the thread.
Granted and granted, although I’ve never seen anything that would lead me to believe that the corruption charges weren’t warranted. She was, at the least, a complete slave to the system willing to let those with power use it however they liked. And her support amongst the people? How much of that was Pro-Bhutto and how much was Anti-Musharraff?
Hasn’t Al Qaeda claimed responibility for a bunch of stuff they didn’t do? Not that it’d be that surprising.
The point is that the story that’s come out doesn’t fit together, like some sort of cover up. Was it Al Qaeda, Musharraf, or somebody else? This particular detail has at least some importance, and IMHO the curiosity isn’t (so much) about morbid fascination with the manner of her death.
I understand your point, but your point is wrong. She’s waving down the road, guy steps up and kills her. Now, maybe the actual cause of final brain death is the bullet, the bomb, the crush in the car when the bomb goes off, the bodyguard, etc., but ultimately, I’M PRETTY FUCKING SURE THE GUY WHO SHOT HER AND BLEW HIMSELF UP HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. What straws are we grasping at here?
H.
The type of medical attention she received? Whether someone else may have “finished her off” if she was not killed in the initial attack?
Also, I do have a morbid fascination with the way people die. Hell, if I could go back in time I’d wanna know whether Hitler shot himself through his mouth or the side of his head (though with recent Russian archive releases, it now appears it was through the mouth). But you seem even more out of this world batty in the other direction.
You and Oliver Stone need to get a room. She’s dead, it sucks, we might see a mushroom cloud soon, get over it. There’s no need to invent some magical conspiracy theory over this.
“Hey, let’s assassinate this incredibly hated political figure!”
“Okay, but what’s our cover?”
“We’ll get someone to blow her up, and shoot her, while we secretly ram her head into the sunroof and then deny her timely medical attention!”
" . . ."
H.
I was more thinking that if the assassin, even if unconnected with the government, didn’t do the job thoroughly, some of Musharef’s allies might not have the greatest incentive to make sure she pulled through.
Do I think it likely? No. But then again, these types of conspiracy theories are less likely to happen if multiple versions of how she actually died are not given.
Good question, and one that my knowledge of Pakistan is insufficient to answer, to be sure. Hell, I’m not even sure how much Musharraff is liked/disliked–people certainly don’t like the constant upheaval and instability, but are they really jonesing for “democracy” or just stability? Given the way Pakistan has worked with autocrats so far, I’d vote on the latter, but I really don’t know.
One commentator I heard on the radio, a Pakistani newspaper editor, was saying that people in Pakistan were loth to really believe AQ was a real force to reckoned with, and felt that Islamist violence was more a USA problem, not a Pakistani one. Some folks in Pakistan have been trying to get across the extent of Al Qaeda and its ilk’s influence and role in destabilization, and maybe this assassination will push that awareness along, but it seems that few in Pakistan want to accept that a chunk of their country is now effectively a new Al Qaeda playground.
Mental note to self: Start reading threads thoroughhly before commenting on them. I just discussed this with my parents who were certain Musharaff was behind the attack, while I claimed that Musharaff is many things but not a bumbling cretin. Posting my impression of what went down here would be a good way of checking its foolproofness-
I don’t know a lot about Pakistan either, but my very limited take on it has been similar to the one given by Aijaz Ahmad in this interview: http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=744&thisview=item
Particularly since, before she died, she sent Wolf Blitzer an email stating that if she was assassinated at the rally, she held Musharraf responsible for her death. This will be awesome for Pakistan.
There seems to be a lot of doubt over that Al Qaeda claim, which didn’t come through the usual channels but via an Italian news agency who apparently received a phone call direct from Al Qaeda. It does seem a bit odd that the Al Qaeda number two would make a special call to a relatively unknown Italian news agency to make the announcement. I wonder if he spoke Italian to them.
The Pakistani government has blamed a militant leader in the north who is allegedly Al Qaeda, and that militant has denied responsibility. Bhutto’s supporters have described the government’s account of events as “dangerous nonsense”.
To be honest though, who is to blame probably won’t make a lot of difference in the end, it will just be different kinds of bad.
No doubt… especially when you look at the photo Sepiche linked. Every other person in the crowd could have been a bodyguard, and she’s still a sitting duck.
Also, I agree with Houngan: the fixation over the precise details of exactly what killed her is pretty weird. Of course, paranoiacs will want to know those details to construct elaborate conspiracy theories, but I find it odd that the media is spending so much time pandering to them.