Benazir Bhutto killed by Suicide Bomb

[Will H]

Just grabbed this news article from BBC news about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7161590.stm

 

 

 

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack.

 

 

 

News of her death was confirmed by a military spokesman and members of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

 

 

 

Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when gunfire and an explosion occurred.

 

 

 

At least 15 other people are reported killed in the attack and several more were injured. Ms Bhutto had twice been the country's prime minister.

 

 

 

She had been campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

 

 

 

Nawaz Sharif, also a former prime minister and a political rival, told the BBC her death was a tragedy for "the entire nation".

 

 

 

"I can't tell you what the feelings of the people of Pakistan are today," he told BBC News 24 after returning from the hospital where she was brought.

 

 

 

The BBC's Barbara Plett says the killing is likely to provoke an agonised response from her followers, especially from her loyal following in Sindh Province.

 

 

 

Ms Bhutto was key to her party, she was the focus of her party and she was a major political player amongst all those fighting for seats in the forthcoming elections, our correspondent adds.

 

 

 

The PPP has the largest support of any party in the country.

 

 

 

Analysts note that Rawalpindi, a garrison city, is seen as one of the country's most secure cities, making the attack even more embarrassing for the military authorities.

 

 

 

The explosion occurred close to an entrance gate of the park in Rawalpindi where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.

 

 

 

Wasif Ali Khan, a member of the PPP who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital, said she died at 1816 (1316 GMT).

 

 

 

Supporters at the hospital began chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog", referring to President Pervez Musharraf, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

 

 

 

Some broke the glass door at the main entrance to the emergency unit as others wept.

 

 

 

A man with a PPP flag tied around his head could be seen beating his chest, the agency adds.

 

 

 

An interior ministry spokesman, Javed Cheema, was quoted as saying by AFP that she may have been killed by pellets packed into the suicide bomber's vest.

 

 

 

However, AP quoted a PPP security adviser as saying she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, before the gunman blew himself up.

 

 

 

Mr Sharif said there had been a "serious lapse in security" by the government.

 

 

 

Earlier on Thursday, at least four people were killed ahead of an election rally he himself had been preparing to attend close to Rawalpindi.

 

 

 

The killing was condemned by the US and Russia.

 

 

 

"The attack shows that there are still those in Pakistan trying to undermine reconciliation and democratic development in Pakistan," a US state department official said.

 

 

 

Russia's foreign ministry condemned the attack, offered condolences to Ms Bhutto's family and said it hoped the Pakistani leadership would "manage to take necessary steps to ensure stability in the country".

 

 

 

France spoke of an "odious" act and said it was deeply concerned.

 

 

 

Ms Bhutto returned from self-imposed exile in October after years out of Pakistan where she had faced corruption charges.

 

 

 

Her return was the result of a power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf in which he granted an amnesty that covered the court cases she was facing.

 

 

 

Since her return relations with Mr Musharraf had broken down.

 

 

 

On the day of her return she led a motor cavalcade through the city of Karachi. It was hit by a double suicide attack that left some 130 dead.

 

 

 

Is this a turn for the worse for the fight for Democracy in Pakistan?

 

 

 

EDIT: Related article on Bhutto's funeral:

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7162236.stm

 

 

 

Thousands of people have attended the funeral of killed Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

 

 

 

Grief-stricken mourners converged on the family mausoleum where she was buried next to her father near their home village in Sindh province.

 

The coffin, draped in the flag of Ms Bhutto's party, was driven in a white ambulance through dense crowds.

 

Pakistani security forces are on high alert, as violence has broken out in several cities across the country.

 

President Pervez Musharraf has appealed for calm, following Ms Bhutto's death at an election rally on Thursday, where a gunman opened fire on the former Pakistani prime minister and then blew himself up.

 

The plain wooden coffin was taken from Ms Bhutto's family home to the burial site 7km (four miles) away at the village of Garhi Khuda Bakhsh.

 

Mourners - some weeping and beating their heads and chests - jostled to see the casket, which was accompanied by her husband, Asif Ali Zardari and her three children.

 

As the funeral prayers ended and the casket was moved for burial, loud sobs broke out from the politicians supporters.

 

At least 17 people are reported to have been killed in ensuing violence, and security forces in Sindh have been ordered to shoot rioters on sight.

 

The government said plans for planned parliamentary elections on 8 January remained unchanged.

 

Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro said the government would consult other political parties on the issue.

 

Correspondents say the death of the leader of the largest opposition party has raised huge doubts over the elections.

 

Ms Bhutto's political rival Nawaz Sharif, also a former primer minister, announced that his party would boycott the vote in response to the attack.

 

He also called for a nationwide strike on Friday, which the BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says is being closely observed in some parts of the country.

[baron8000]

She wasn't the nicest of people it seems, previous support for the Taliban, corruption charges that have removed her from office twice and numerous other shady dealings.

 

 

 

Either way she didn't deserve to die, and assassination is obviously not a supportable political method - I wouldn't be surprised to see the region have some serious troubles over the next few days/weeks or even longer.

 

 

 

Makes me realise how lucky I am to be living in a country with a stable political system that never resorts to this kind of thing.

[1_man_army]

It's ironic that the attack happened not too far from where her father was hanged. Reports coming out now say that the bomber shot her in the neck first before detonating the bomb and that she was still alive by the time she got to the hospital but died later.

 

 

 

Yesterday a different suicide bomber (a 15 year old boy) was intercepted before he could attack Bhutto. This morning there was an attack that aimed to kill another former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. You'd have though that she and her team would have have severely beefed up her security in the light of this and the last suicide attack. Unfortunately they didn't and Bhutto like so many others involved in Pakistani politics has died.

 

 

 

For the lack of a better term Pakistan is screwed. Even in the last hour, the news has been reporting stories of violent demonstrations in response to this assassination and her a minority supporters believe that Musharraf is either responsible directly or indirectly (eg. for not providing adequate safety, failing to provide detonation jammers etc.) Of course these theories will only continue unless some group takes responsibility for this attack, Bhutto had a lot of enemies so it would be difficult to determine who really did this unless they own up to it themselves. I can see this being the flame that ignites Pakistan into civil war.

 

 

 

Seems like yet another win for the exteremists. I see no way that Pakistan can have it's elections in January now.

[Diesel]

You could have figured that it was gonna happen eventually. She's been making trouble in the area and imo it was only a matter of time before she got it. This is just gonna stir up more violence in an already troubled region.

[nine naked men]

That'll be a huge blow for Pakistan's political stability... and it wasn't even that stable in the first place. I wonder if they'll still hold elections?

[Will H]

It's ironic that the attack happened not too far from where her father was hanged. Reports coming out now say that the bomber shot her in the neck first before detonating the bomb and that she was still alive by the time she got to the hospital but died later.

 

 

 

Yesterday a different suicide bomber (a 15 year old boy) was intercepted before he could attack Bhutto. This morning there was an attack that aimed to kill another former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. You'd have though that she and her team would have have severely beefed up her security in the light of this and the last suicide attack. Unfortunately they didn't and Bhutto like so many others involved in Pakistani politics has died.

 

 

 

For the lack of a better term Pakistan is screwed. Even in the last hour, the news has been reporting stories of violent demonstrations in response to this assassination and her a minority supporters believe that Musharraf is either responsible directly or indirectly (eg. for not providing adequate safety, failing to provide detonation jammers etc.) Of course these theories will only continue unless some group takes responsibility for this attack, Bhutto had a lot of enemies so it would be difficult to determine who really did this unless they own up to it themselves. I can see this being the flame that ignites Pakistan into civil war.

 

 

 

Seems like yet another win for the exteremists. I see no way that Pakistan can have it's elections in January now.

 

 

 

+1. Pakistan isn't going to be the nicest place to live in for the next few weeks.

[1_man_army]

I wonder if they'll still hold elections?

 

 

 

I don't see how they realistically can when the likely winner is killed 13 days before the polls open. Then again Musharraf may decide to go on with the election in the hope that it splits the opposition vote and helps him to hold on to power.

 

 

 

I hope they postpone the elections for a short while until the whole country is in a position to properly carry out a fair election. However, whether that will be the case is anyones bet.

[nomadmike]

:? This event really makes things turn in your head.

 

Pakistan will not be stable for months unless their current leader steps in.

 

If somehow he WAS directly responsible it probably wont come out untill a year from now at least. :-k

 

I see more bombs exploding if they can't control their own military

[Will H]

I wonder if they'll still hold elections?

 

 

 

I don't see how they realistically can when the likely winner is killed 13 days before the polls open. Then again Musharraf may decide to go on with the election in the hope that it splits the opposition vote and helps him to hold on to power.

 

 

 

I hope they postpone the elections for a short while until the whole country is in a position to properly carry out a fair election. However, whether that will be the case is anyones bet.

 

 

 

Yeah, it did seem very convenient for General Musharraf, but then again Bhutto did stand for ideas which contradicted the views of extremist groups, such as democracy and female/male equality. Everyone is pointing at everyone, and it seems that the ensuing chaos will be reason enough for Musharraf to continue a State of Emergency over Pakistan.

[benar]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

 

 

All in all, without Bhutto, a governmental reform will be hard to achieve unless everyone in power cooperates.

[usahellyes]

.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

[Will H]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

 

 

 

I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand.

 

President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future.

[dsavi]

As others said, this spells trouble for democracy in Pakistan. Glad not to be living there...

[benar]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

 

 

 

I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand.

 

President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future.

 

 

 

All Pakistan needs to be thrown into a civil war is for the pro-democratic people to take up arms against Musharraf and/or the extremists.

[Flame_guy3]

Assassination extremely convenient for Musharaff....

 

 

 

From what i see Pakistan is slowly being alienated from both the world and muslim world. Muslim countries and organizations are annoyed that they support America but there so much terrorism is being blamed on Pakistan that many countries don't trust Pakistan...

 

 

 

In fact i remember reading a lot of Pakistani refugees trying to flee to India because of the conditions in Pakistan. If i read correctly places like UAE and India are sanctuaries for people in those regions.

[Hydraides]

I Hate Human Beings

[dsavi]

I Hate Human Beings

 

 

 

Congratulations, you have won the Emo quote of the day award.

 

 

 

Individuality is not a possibility in this world we live in. If only it were.

 

Lols @ emo quote of the day

 

 

 

 

Don't worry, it's normal.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

 

 

 

I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand.

 

President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future.

 

 

 

All Pakistan needs to be thrown into a civil war is for the pro-democratic people to take up arms against Musharraf and/or the extremists.

 

If you want my honest opinion on South Asia/Middle East in general, that whole region needs to be thrown into revolution. Pakistan could prove to be the birthplace of a democratic republican Middle East, just as Russia proved to be the birthplace of Sovietism.

 

 

 

This idea by the Allies that these countries can honestly tranform their governments from tyrannical fundamentalist dictatorships to liberal democracies without a revolution of some sort is completely ignorant to what our own histories teach on the matter. We had to have a war that lasted decades before we installed a Parliament. America had to fight for its independance. As did France to overthrow its monarchy. Wherever there is a change of government, a revolution has to precede. Bush needs to get it into his head that until that happens, the Middle East will continue to be split down the centre in political instability.

 

 

 

Hence why our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not helped this situation in the slightest.

[1_man_army]

I don't think Musharraf did this but there are elements within the ISI that are sympathetic towards the extremists and who have been blamed for allowing them safe passage along the Pakistani-Afghan border in the past. However, Bhutto had many enemies so it is difficult to determine who is responsible.

 

 

 

 

 

The though of any sort of civil war or revolution in Pakistan is very worrying. The fact that Pakistan is so fundamentally unstable and possesses nuclear weapons is worrying and could have implications for many other nations (not that I'm saying those weapons would be used but they make for a great bargaining tool).

 

 

 

I think Musharraf has to hold on to power for at least a few more months (longer depending on results) before calling elections as anything could happen in the current climate. Bhutto's funeral is tomorrow, I can only presume that things will only get worse with it - a large number of angry and emotional people in one place can be volatile and would be a target for more bombings.

 

 

 

Another point of interest is that the park in Rawalpindi that Bhutto was leaving was the site where Pakistan's first Prime Minister Ali Liaquat Khan was assassinated in 1951.

[Harrington]

Pakistan is falling apart just now.... I haven't seen so many suicide bombing stories since the lastest occupation of Iraq.

 

 

 

That woman doesn't sound like she was very popular though. Investigated for various scandals etc... she didn't deserve to die, but it seems some people were pretty desperate that she didn't see a third term as Prime Minister.

 

 

 

Oh well, I'm sure her replacement will be much nicer... not

[baron8000]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

 

 

 

I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand.

 

President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future.

 

 

 

All Pakistan needs to be thrown into a civil war is for the pro-democratic people to take up arms against Musharraf and/or the extremists.

 

If you want my honest opinion on South Asia/Middle East in general, that whole region needs to be thrown into revolution. Pakistan could prove to be the birthplace of a democratic republican Middle East, just as Russia proved to be the birthplace of Sovietism.

 

 

 

This idea by the Allies that these countries can honestly tranform their governments from tyrannical fundamentalist dictatorships to liberal democracies without a revolution of some sort is completely ignorant to what our own histories teach on the matter. We had to have a war that lasted decades before we installed a Parliament. America had to fight for its independance. As did France to overthrow its monarchy. Wherever there is a change of government, a revolution has to precede. Bush needs to get it into his head that until that happens, the Middle East will continue to be split down the centre in political instability.

 

 

 

Hence why our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not helped this situation in the slightest.

 

 

 

And what happens if the revolutionaries lose? Or will the west be funnelling whichever side we choose with weapons and supplies thus creating a state forever indebted to whichever country gave them victory, no thank you.

 

 

 

That and historical precedent is possibly one of the worst ways you could have sought to justify your point - just because it worked (or indeed didn't work) somewhere before means that it should be repeated ad nauseum? Well by that token Chamberlain tried to appease a rogue state and avoid war with Hitler and that didn't work so should we never try diplomacy and run in all guns blazing? Just because its happened before doesn't mean it will happen again.

 

 

 

If we ignore this for a moment there are plenty of countries that have formed a stable government and peace without the need for a full blown revolution. Obviously the transistion will never be peaceful (and rarely bloodless) but it will rarely degrade into the full blown civil war you seem to be talking about. Take Ireland for example, sure there was the IRA, terrorist organisations and the like, but never did a full scale successful revolution occur yet the region is now relatively peaceful and stable. How was this achieved? Through peaceful negotiation and diplomacy.

 

 

 

Revolution and civil war is a bloody, volatile and unpredictable business - all too often they are hijacked by madmen and lunatics and it is a difficult thing to condone. Trying to control and shape the revolution would result in it not being a true revolution, leaving us at square one - I fail to see how this is the answer.

[benar]

The Pakistani government is confused. Musharraf condemns extremists yet he pushes away the solution that is democracy.

 

A democracy involves two or more political powers grinding against one another in an attempt to win votes. In ours and the US's democracy, that's safe because the Armed Forces are more-or-less independant from the government, let alone a political party.

 

 

 

Pakistan is ruled by someone who until a month ago was your equivalent of a Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

 

It is descending into civil war, and only the Taleban operating over the border in Afghanistan can benefit from this.

 

 

 

I fear that we are going to hear the phrase 'Civil War' more often in the future if this really gets out of hand.

 

President Bush and PM Brown have strategically blamed extremists, because blaming Musharraf will end up in a diplomatic dispute. However, that doesn't rule out the opinion that he may have had a hand in the attacks. If it turns out he has had a hand in this, we will certainly be hearing 'Civil War' in the future.

 

 

 

All Pakistan needs to be thrown into a civil war is for the pro-democratic people to take up arms against Musharraf and/or the extremists.

 

If you want my honest opinion on South Asia/Middle East in general, that whole region needs to be thrown into revolution. Pakistan could prove to be the birthplace of a democratic republican Middle East, just as Russia proved to be the birthplace of Sovietism.

 

 

 

This idea by the Allies that these countries can honestly tranform their governments from tyrannical fundamentalist dictatorships to liberal democracies without a revolution of some sort is completely ignorant to what our own histories teach on the matter. We had to have a war that lasted decades before we installed a Parliament. America had to fight for its independance. As did France to overthrow its monarchy. Wherever there is a change of government, a revolution has to precede. Bush needs to get it into his head that until that happens, the Middle East will continue to be split down the centre in political instability.

 

 

 

Hence why our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not helped this situation in the slightest.

 

 

 

I see what you are saying. If at least Pakistan were to go through a revolution and achieve in the end a form of democracy (even a democratic-communist state would be good at this point), other nations of that region which are not being ruled by a de facto leader with a powerful regime might take after the example. After America gained it's Independence from Britain and established the constitution, many other nations have modeled their constitutions after the same thing.

 

 

 

As for President Bush's realization of this and what you said, I don't think anything is getting through to him. Bush has is own interests in the Middle East, and whether they be political or imperialistic, I care not, because he has run America into the ground enough already (doing damage which will take decades to undo). All I care about is the day his term ends.

[yomom1919]

A bit surprised, especially since just I read her Newsweek interview a week or two ago.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

this is why i could never follow islam although half of my heritage comes from the middle east. Women literally have no rights and thats a bunch of bs. and lets face it, she was assassinated mostly because she was a woman