Benazir Bhutto killed by Suicide Bomb

[wildernessfreelancer]

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

 

 

 

Yeah, blame Islam just because a crazy extremist shot her and blew himself up (due to the fact that she's a woman). Doesn't make sense now, does it?

[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

 

 

 

Yeah, blame Islam just because a crazy extremist shot her and blew himself up (due to the fact that she's a woman). Doesn't make sense now, does it?

 

 

 

ten bucks says you have never even witnessed anything of revelance my friend. i live the proof and simply said why i dont follow islam

[wildernessfreelancer]

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

 

 

 

Yeah, blame Islam just because a crazy extremist shot her and blew himself up (due to the fact that she's a woman). Doesn't make sense now, does it?

 

 

 

ten bucks says you have never even witnessed anything of revelance my friend. i live the proof and simply said why i dont follow islam

 

 

 

So you're saying you don't follow Islam because the terrorists/extremists did all the violence "in the name of Islam"?

 

 

 

Afghanistan versus the Taleban.

 

Saudi Arabia + U.S.A versus Al-Qaeda.

 

Turkey versus the Kurdish rebels.

 

Sri Lanka versus Tamil Tigers.

 

I can state more if you want to, but I think those are sufficient.

 

Point: Terrorists/extremists are not fixed into one religion/race. The governments are doing what they can to curb terrorism/extremism.

 

 

 

By the way, keep your ten bucks.

[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

 

 

 

Yeah, blame Islam just because a crazy extremist shot her and blew himself up (due to the fact that she's a woman). Doesn't make sense now, does it?

 

 

 

ten bucks says you have never even witnessed anything of revelance my friend. i live the proof and simply said why i dont follow islam

 

 

 

So you're saying you don't follow Islam because the terrorists/extremists did all the violence "in the name of Islam"?

 

 

 

Afghanistan versus the Taleban.

 

Saudi Arabia + U.S.A versus Al-Qaeda.

 

Turkey versus the Kurdish rebels.

 

Sri Lanka versus Tamil Tigers.

 

I can state more if you want to, but I think those are sufficient.

 

Point: Terrorists/extremists are not fixed into one religion/race. The governments are doing what they can to curb terrorism/extremism.

 

 

 

By the way, keep your ten bucks.

 

 

 

 

 

ummm wow u definitely got off track the subject but the point im trying to make is I PERSONALLY dont follow islam for the reason that islam in general does not treat women with the same respect as men.

[wildernessfreelancer]

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

 

 

 

Yeah, blame Islam just because a crazy extremist shot her and blew himself up (due to the fact that she's a woman). Doesn't make sense now, does it?

 

 

 

ten bucks says you have never even witnessed anything of revelance my friend. i live the proof and simply said why i dont follow islam

 

 

 

So you're saying you don't follow Islam because the terrorists/extremists did all the violence "in the name of Islam"?

 

 

 

Afghanistan versus the Taleban.

 

Saudi Arabia + U.S.A versus Al-Qaeda.

 

Turkey versus the Kurdish rebels.

 

Sri Lanka versus Tamil Tigers.

 

I can state more if you want to, but I think those are sufficient.

 

Point: Terrorists/extremists are not fixed into one religion/race. The governments are doing what they can to curb terrorism/extremism.

 

 

 

By the way, keep your ten bucks.

 

 

 

 

 

ummm wow u definitely got off track the subject but the point im trying to make is I PERSONALLY dont follow islam for the reason that islam in general does not treat women with the same respect as men.

 

 

 

Common misunderstanding. However since it's something personal to you, regarding your opinion, I'm going to leave this alone.

 

 

 

Back to the subject:

 

Benazir Bhutto was killed by a suicide bomber who shot her then blew himself up. Her supporters are blaming Musharraf for not providing her adequate security. This is the second assassination attempt since her homecoming from her self-imposed exile.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

 

Firstly, about Chamberlain, that is a digressed point. Comparing foreign policy to government structure is frankly like comparing chalk and cheese. On that point, there were plenty of opportunities to use diplomacy without the need to bend over the other way and follow a policy of appeasement. Nowadays, I point you to both the UN and the EU which in effect are bodies designed to maintain Capitalist democracies if nothing else, yet are both examples of diplomacy.

 

 

 

Also, if you honestly believe the Irish managed to gain their indepedance from the Union without violence then you believe that. Are you suggesting that the formation of the IRA through Sinn Fein, the Easter Rebellion and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-21 were examples of "peaceful negotiation"? For the matter, Ireland had no need for a revolution. It transferred from a democracy ruled over in Westminster, to a democracy controlled in Dublin.

 

 

 

Thirdly, where did I say revolutions had to be violent? Britain experienced its Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Russia had its Agrarian Revolution in the start of the 20th Century. Neither of those were violent, but were still examples of rapid change.

 

 

 

Let's ignore those two points though and move back to the topic in-hand. That country cannot continue in the way it's going. Its army's de facto leader is the supreme commander of political power. At the click of his finger, he could declare martial law and would meet little resistance in doing so. The leader of the opposition to that man has just been killed in alledgedly Pakistan's most secure city by extremists who are clearly strong enough to undermine what democratic process still remains in Pakistan. Any elections held in the near future will result in mass political violence and civil unrest.

 

 

 

What on Earth is the solution? We, as the Western European powers, take a spectator's seat and watch the country descend into anarchy; an anarchy Osama himself will likely flourish in?

[Bxpprod]

Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the assassination, which took place when she stood up through the sunroof of her armoured vechile (if only she'd stayed in the car!)

 

 

 

The Pakistani leadership are in quite a conundrums. They are supporting the Americans in the war against terror, whilst seemingly remaining somewhat sympathetic to the cause. The biggest fear within the region should be that if an extremist group gets into power (Palestine anyone), because the Pakistanis have nuclear stockpiles!

 

 

 

She wasn't the most trustworthy person (hence her self imposed exile!) but what she was aiming to do was bring democracy to a country ruled by military dictatorship for nearly a decade. Hopefully Musharref doesn't put himself back in charge of the Army and revert to the semi-dictatorship role he has played since the military coup.

 

 

 

RIP Benazir

[Will H]

Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the assassination, which took place when she stood up through the sunroof of her armoured vechile (if only she'd stayed in the car!)

 

 

 

The Pakistani leadership are in quite a conundrums. They are supporting the Americans in the war against terror, whilst seemingly remaining somewhat sympathetic to the cause. The biggest fear within the region should be that if an extremist group gets into power (Palestine anyone), because the Pakistanis have nuclear stockpiles!

 

 

 

She wasn't the most trustworthy person (hence her self imposed exile!) but what she was aiming to do was bring democracy to a country ruled by military dictatorship for nearly a decade. Hopefully Musharref doesn't put himself back in charge of the Army and revert to the semi-dictatorship role he has played since the military coup.

 

 

 

RIP Benazir

 

 

 

Yikes, so it was Al Qaeda. Mind you, that doesn't surprise me. If you want another related article about her funeral, here it is:

 

 

 

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]

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.

 

 

 

Firstly, about Chamberlain, that is a digressed point. Comparing foreign policy to government structure is frankly like comparing chalk and cheese. On that point, there were plenty of opportunities to use diplomacy without the need to bend over the other way and follow a policy of appeasement. Nowadays, I point you to both the UN and the EU which in effect are bodies designed to maintain Capitalist democracies if nothing else, yet are both examples of diplomacy.

 

 

 

ok, examples of where revolution is not a good historical precedent:

 

 

 

Kronstadt rising of russian sailors against the Soviet state - failed, all members hunted and executed

 

 

 

Munich putsch - rebellion lead by ex-german army officers (a young hitler amongst the ranks) against the new democractic weimer government - failed, no reform of government structure (ironically the later reform into nazi government was entirely legal and did not require nor result in civil war)

 

 

 

Greek civil war - communist uprising against democratic greek goverment - failed, no reform of goverment structure

 

 

 

This is why historical precedent is a poor method of reasoning - there is always the opposite result in history and there is simply no way of telling which result will occur short of outside interference creating a defunct state.

 

 

 

Also, if you honestly believe the Irish managed to gain their indepedance from the Union without violence then you believe that. Are you suggesting that the formation of the IRA through Sinn Fein, the Easter Rebellion and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-21 were examples of "peaceful negotiation"? For the matter, Ireland had no need for a revolution. It transferred from a democracy ruled over in Westminster, to a democracy controlled in Dublin.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure I referenced the violence when I reference the IRA and other terrorist organisations, maybe you missed that. You seem to have me wrong, my point was all of those violent actions did nothing to change the government or attain peace in N.I. - only in the recent years (say the past decade?) has any stability appeared in the region, all the product of diplomacy - who would have though the opposite sides would be sat round a table a decade ago?

 

 

 

Thirdly, where did I say revolutions had to be violent? Britain experienced its Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Russia had its Agrarian Revolution in the start of the 20th Century. Neither of those were violent, but were still examples of rapid change.

 

 

 

rapid changes in society sure, neither of these changed the government of the time's structure (i.e. what we are actually discussing) so I fail to see the admissibility

 

 

 

Let's ignore those two points though and move back to the topic in-hand. That country cannot continue in the way it's going. Its army's de facto leader is the supreme commander of political power. At the click of his finger, he could declare martial law and would meet little resistance in doing so. The leader of the opposition to that man has just been killed in alledgedly Pakistan's most secure city by extremists who are clearly strong enough to undermine what democratic process still remains in Pakistan. Any elections held in the near future will result in mass political violence and civil unrest.

 

 

 

so how on earth will a revolution that will be so easily crushed help? West help would of course = West indebted puppet government as always

 

 

 

What on Earth is the solution? We, as the Western European powers, take a spectator's seat and watch the country descend into anarchy; an anarchy Osama himself will likely flourish in?

 

 

 

The west stops playing its damn World Police role, interfering in countries that don't want our help which only results in an even stronger hatred for the west (see: Iraq). The west needs to realise we do NOT own the world, nor dictate what should happen where and when - if the country looks to be turning into a threat to us, then we step in for own interests, not before.

 

 

 

edit - fudged up quotes

[Ginger_Warrior]

So what is your answer? Maybe my justification is soft; after Christmas and real life problems I really don't have the energy to argue right now! :lol:

 

 

 

Personally, I actually more lean towards your side of thinking. We have to accept that we cannot steer the world in the direction we want it to. The sad fact is Bush is calling for democracy when it's clear all that would lead to is extremists getting into power in certain parts of the Middle East constitutionally where they're most strongest. Let us not forget Al-Queda is practically running its HQ in Pakistan, yet we expect moderate Islam to prevail there by waving this golden ticket called "Democracy"?

 

 

 

We have to accept Pakistan, and most of the Middle-East for that matter, is slowly deteriorating into instablity and there is nothing we can do to stop it. I'm not a person who thinks in the short-term, but a solution is needed and having elections next month, or in the months after is not going to be a long-term solution to Pakistan's political problems.

[baron8000]

So what is your answer? Maybe my justification is soft; after Christmas and real life problems I really don't have the energy to argue right now! :lol:

 

 

 

Personally, I actually more lean towards your side of thinking. We have to accept that we cannot steer the world in the direction we want it to. The sad fact is Bush is calling for democracy when it's clear all that would lead to is extremists getting into power in certain parts of the Middle East constitutionally where they're most strongest. Let us not forget Al-Queda is practically running its HQ in Pakistan, yet we expect moderate Islam to prevail there by waving this golden ticket called "Democracy"?

 

 

 

We have to accept Pakistan, and most of the Middle-East for that matter, is slowly deteriorating into instablity and there is nothing we can do to stop it. I'm not a person who thinks in the short-term, but a solution is needed and having elections next month, or in the months after is not going to be a long-term solution to Pakistan's political problems.

 

 

 

I don't blame you, same here! But reading criminal cases for the last hour had put me in a debating mood :lol: . Now you seem to be making more sense - it almost seemed as you were supporting her assassination (as she was pro-democracy) and saw it as the start of a revolution.

 

 

 

I quite agree on the state of the middle east, its something we can do little about - any action we seem to take just makes the situation worse but its a difficult situation to sit back and ignore. Democracy may be a way forward, we can only hope that moderate Islam in the area outweighs extremism and can beat it but that is something that they must do for themselves. A solution? I don't think any of us on a small, game related forum are ever going to find that in a few days of posting but all I know is that the Western method of poking it with a stick to see what happens is not going to work.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't blame you, same here! But reading criminal cases for the last hour had put me in a debating mood :lol: . Now you seem to be making more sense - it almost seemed as you were supporting her assassination (as she was pro-democracy) and saw it as the start of a revolution.

 

Oh... god no. I may technically be an extremist myself but I'm still very much a supporter of democracy. TBH, her assassination reminded me of Martin Luther King who is someone I have quite a lot of respect for.

 

 

 

Well one thing's for sure; the West's (I'll refer to as 'us' from now on) tactic of confronting anything we don't like in the Middle-East is not getting us anywhere and is actually making things worse. Al-Queda was obviously well known before 9/11 but now it's much larger, thanks to how we've insensitively poked about the more authoritarian teachings of Islam and their governments, it's become a lot worse. There was a poll done by the Daily Telegraph (obviously not exactly scientific) which claimed 100,000 Muslims in the UK felt the justification of the 7/7 attacks on London was valid.

 

 

 

The fact is, they see us as meddling and some even see us a Islamaphobic. All we're doing is creating an environment where extremism can flourish by contantly getting involved in their affairs and attacking their brothers with threats, war and economic sanctions. We have got to stop being so counterphobic, and accept Pakistan and the rest of the Middle-East will go in whatever direction it takes, and we have no right to judge them for it until it becomes a threat to our own security.

[amoeba_009]

Sad to hear. :( I guess this is the end of democracy in Pakistan. She was pretty much a last hope. Or so my parents say. -.-

[Purple_Fury]

I'm sympathetic for all of the innocent children born into violent areas of the world, like Pakistan and Iraq. Suicide bombers over there are as common as convenience store robbers here in America. :cry:

[Barihawk]

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.

 

 

 

Bhutto receives all this acclaim about being the "Democratic Reform" candidate for the elections, but it's bullcrap. She only earned that moniker from Western media because she opposes Musharaf, who many believe to be a dictator.

 

 

 

Ask many Pakistanis who remember Bhutto's terms as Prime Minister and they will tell you that she was more of a dictator than Musharaf is now. The majority of her supporters are young people who were too young to remember her previous terms.

 

 

 

There was a reason she was dismissed by Parliament and kicked out of her own country twice, and it was not because she was a woman. If she was elected PM of Pakistan, it would be just as bad for Democracy.

 

 

 

It's sad that she was killed, because her life would have meant at least steps toward democracy. But now that she has been murdered, there's no telling what will happen.

 

 

 

And I personally believe it was an extremist group that opposed her based on her gender. Musharaf is not that stupid.

[wannabee789]

How many people actually have died so far? Last time I checked the news it were like 32... Because of fights with the police.

[warren211]

In an interview with CNN a while back, Bhutto said she had faith in the people of Pakistan and was rilling to take risks to help the country be stable. She knew of the risks and was willing to take them.

 

 

 

Now she was killed. (btw according to CNN, she was actually killed by a bullet to the neck shortly after the blast. the shooter then killed himself.) They claimed her last word was "Allah". She is also the mother of three young kids and wants all of pakistan to see her as their mother and not ruler. Well, now that she died for her beliefs, I'd think she became a kind of martyr for her beliefs. Instead of cutting off the movement for democracy in pakistan, her death may have united many people

[1_man_army]

The Pakistani Interior Ministry say that she wasn't hit by the bullets or any bomb shrapnel. Instead they claim that the force of the bomb threw her hard into the security enforcements around the sunroof of her car which broke her skull. However, people from Bhutto's political party claim that this is a lie.

[Satenza]

They have shown X-rays of her skull which show no "foreign material".

[Jaziek]

They have shown X-rays of her skull which show no "foreign material".

 

 

 

so the weapon was made locally! this will help track down the killer much more quickly..

 

 

 

 

 

 

im off to look for more clues.

[cryztalwing]

At 6min 12sec into the interview Bhutto states that Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden.. :boohoo:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide]

 

The new map of the Middle East?

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7687

 

[/hide]

[tzone92]

AFAIK, everyone knew that some organization was trying to assassinate her. (Maybe the opposite political party?) They should have had more security, more bodyguards, &c.

[blosssom2581]

Well, that's pathetic and coward to kill such a national leader (in Pakistan) in such an assassination way. Yet, this is a smart move by the terrorist in my eyes. :?:

 

 

 

Clearly, this is a WELL - SET plot employed by al-Queda / Taliban / Bin Laden (if he is still alive). That after the call of emergency state by the president, the world opinion turned against the Musharraf government, a loyal USA leader. To catalyze the collapse of Musharraf government, the terrorist group assassinate the beloved leader and democracy supporter, in order to wreck havoc =; to Pakistan government which is currently in pivotal state and lack of public support -.-

 

 

 

As a result of assassination, people will blame Musharraf for being the mastermind of such a plot, by either involving in the planning of assassination, or not providing adequate protections to Benazir Bhutto. :| The successful move of these terrorist group in turning Musharraf into a scapegoat :shame: helps causing chaos in Pakistan and possibly starts a civil war, while the real person behind the whole event leave untouched. :evil:

 

 

 

When the state of Pakistan is in chaos, well, the terrorist group can take control of it and turn the table - switching pro-American Pakistan into an anti-American base :uhh: . Not only turning the table but they can also eliminate Musharraf government, reducing the American influence in Middle East and deal a huge bow to the USA soldiers. :ohnoes: Killing 2 birds with a stone is ALWAYS a wise move.

 

 

 

edit - typo (anti-Pakistan => anti-American) in Paragraph 4

[Will H]

Well, that's pathetic and coward to kill such a national leader (in Pakistan) in such an assassination way. Yet, this is a smart move by the terrorist in my eyes. :?:

 

 

 

Clearly, this is a WELL - SET plot employed by al-Queda / Taliban / Bin Laden (if he is still alive). That after the call of emergency state by the president, the world opinion turned against the Musharraf government, a loyal USA leader. To catalyze the collapse of Musharraf government, the terrorist group assassinate the beloved leader and democracy supporter, in order to wreck havoc =; to Pakistan government which is currently in pivotal state and lack of public support -.-

 

 

 

As a result of assassination, people will blame Musharraf for being the mastermind of such a plot, by either involving in the planning of assassination, or not providing adequate protections to Benazir Bhutto. :| The successful move of these terrorist group in turning Musharraf into a scapegoat :shame: helps causing chaos in Pakistan and possibly starts a civil war, while the real person behind the whole event leave untouched. :evil:

 

 

 

When the state of Pakistan is in chaos, well, the terrorist group can take control of it and turn the table - switching pro-American Pakistan into an anti-American base :uhh: . Not only turning the table but they can also eliminate Musharraf government, reducing the American influence in Middle East and deal a huge bow to the USA soldiers. :ohnoes: Killing 2 birds with a stone is ALWAYS a wise move.

 

 

 

edit - typo (anti-Pakistan => anti-American) in Paragraph 4

 

 

 

I agree that there is a very high chance that an external terrorist group is to blame, however, I don't think that this is any Anti-Western (America, believe it or not, isn't everything) effort at the moment.

 

They have caused political chaos, but they can't just waltz in and say 'Let's blame the Americans for this mess!', because the Pakistani population isn't stupid.

 

 

 

Oh, and for further news, Benazir Bhuto's son, Bilawal Bhutto, has been named as her successor for the Presidency of the PPP. He's currently studying at Oxford, and for the time being Benazir's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, (for the sake of memory, call him AAZ, or 'Big Al', or Mr Z or something...) will run the party to the elections.

 

 

 

I'm not posting a quote for yet another article on the subject, but if you're interested, clicky.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

 

As a result of assassination, people will blame Musharraf for being the mastermind of such a plot, by either involving in the planning of assassination, or not providing adequate protections to Benazir Bhutto.

 

 

 

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the assassination already and it is true the jack*** Musharraf did not provide enough security protection for Bhutto