Gotham,
Would declaring martial law quell the violence?

This is a sad - the death of Benazir Bhutto.
"she still was a symbol of progressive politics in a region and culture that is so sadly far behind the times"

Thank you, Gotham, for this post.

I was not a fan of Bhutto when she was alive. She's been characterized as a "sly operator", and that's the part of her I responded to negatively.

Yet she deserves immense credit for her grit and personal power and vision. She lives in my heart now.

Here's a repeat of a comment I made on OT a minute ago:

The real victims of terrorist attacks are the regular people who are not the primary targets -- they are victims twice over -- in their suffering direct injuries, and in their being unwilling first-line volunteers in ongoing lives of chaos and pain, if they survive.

If Bhutto's assassination had happened in the US, India, or another country that has lots of IB readers, Intentblog would currently have a very busy Open Thread -- yes?

Yet the Pakistani people are __no different__ from US people or Indian people or UK people or Dutch people, etc. etc.

To get a sense of what it you might have felt if the assassination had taken in your country, please check these pics at the NYTimes -- be warned, they are graphic -- yet they are brilliant for showing our common humanity.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/12/27/world/asia/1227-ATTACK_index.html

Charismatic, striking and a canny political operator, Benazir Bhutto, 54, was reared in the violent and turbulent world of Pakistani politics and became the country’s and the Muslim world’s first female prime leader.

By: JANE PERLEZ and VICTORIA BURNETT
December 28, 2007

A deeply polarizing figure, the “daughter of Pakistan” was twice elected prime minister and twice expelled from office in a swirl of corruption charges that propelled her into self-imposed exile in London for much of the past decade. She returned home this fall, billing herself as a bulwark against Islamic extremism and a tribune of democracy.

She was killed on Thursday in a combined shooting and bombing attack at a rally in Rawalpindi, one of a series of open events she attended in spite of a failed assassination attempt the day she returned to Pakistan in October and of repeated warnings.

A woman of grand ambitions with a taste for complex political maneuvering, Ms. Bhutto was first elected prime minister in 1988 at the age of 35. The daughter of one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, she inherited from him the mantle of the populist People’s Party, which she came to personify.

Even from exile, her leadership was virtually unchallenged. She staged a high-profile return to her home city of Karachi, drawing hundreds of thousands of supporters to an 11-hour rally and leading a series of political demonstrations in opposition to the country’s military leader, President Pervez Musharraf.

But in a foreshadowing of the attack that killed her, the triumphal return parade was bombed, killing at least 134 of her supporters and wounded more than 400. Ms. Bhutto herself narrowly escaped harm.

Her political plans were also sidetracked: she had been negotiating for months with Mr. Musharraf over a power-sharing arrangement, only to see the general declare emergency rule instead.

Her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to President Musharraf, the next seeming to accommodate him — stirred hope and distrust among Pakistanis and Western officials who viewed her as a palatable alternative to the increasingly unpopular.

A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, Ms. Bhutto brought the backing of Washington and London, where she impressed with her political lineage and her considerable charm.

But during her two stints in that job — first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996 — she developed a reputation for acting imperiously and impulsively. She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto often spoke of how her father encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc and, as a young woman, closely observed his political maneuvering.

Despite casting herself as a savior of Pakistan’s millions of poor and disenfranchised, Ms. Bhutto grew up in the most rarefied atmosphere the country had to offer. One longtime friend and adviser, Peter W. Galbraith, a former American ambassador to Croatia, said he and Ms. Bhutto believed they first met in 1962 when they were children: he the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the American ambassador to India; she the daughter of the future Pakistani prime minister. Mr. Galbraith’s father was accompanying Jacqueline Kennedy to a horse show in Lahore.

They met again at Harvard, where Mr. Galbraith remembered Ms. Bhutto arriving as a prim, cake-baking 16-year-old fresh from a Karachi convent.

After her father’s death — he was hanged by another general who seized power, Zia ul-Haq — Ms. Bhutto stepped into the spotlight as his successor. Ms. Bhutto called herself chairperson for life of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, a seemingly odd title in an organization based on democratic ideals and one she has acknowledged quarreling over with her mother, Nusrat Bhutto, in the early 1990s.

When Ms. Bhutto was re-elected to a second term as prime minister, her style of government combined both the traditional and the modern, said Zafar Rathore, a senior civil servant at the time.

But her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues, he recalled.

As secretary of interior, responsible for the Pakistani police force, Mr. Rathore, who is now retired, said he tried to get an appointment with Ms. Bhutto to explain the need for accountability in the force. He was always rebuffed, he said.

Finally, when he was seated next to her in a small meeting, he said to her, “I’ve been waiting to see you,” he recounted.

“Instantaneously, she said: ‘I am very busy, what do you want? I’ll order it right now.’ ”

She could not understand that a civil servant might want to talk about policies, he said. Instead, he said, “she understood that when all civil servants have access to the sovereign, they want to ask for something.”

But until her death, Ms. Bhutto ruled the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position, even while leading the party in absentia for nearly a decade.

Members of her party saluted her return to Pakistan, saying she was the best choice against General Musharraf. Chief among her attributes, they said, was her sheer determination.

Dear Heather,

I placed this message also on the Open Thread:

May I humbly remind you that we had our own assasination of a "Bhutto" in the person of Theo van Gogh who stood up for Hirsi Ali and gave his life for her vision?

Our country only barely has recovered from this and still we are one of the most tolerant countries in the world.

Mieke

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

I must admit I was shocked when I turned on the TV and saw the news caption of her assassination.

When she said she was returning to Pakistan earlier in the year I was equally shocked, the questions in my mind were...is she crazy, does she have a death wish? I felt, then, that her life was in danger and that the chance of her actualy physical survival was slim to none, and I truly wondered why she chose to go back, she had to have known this fact.

Anyway my first response was anger....the f..king drama of it all is so f..king tiring...but then I realized it is what it is...this is what and who we are right now and maybe for many years to come..blowemup or shootemup...is the name of the game of power....useless...power...childish spite..round and round we go and where and when we stop nobody knows...

may she rest in peace and may Pakistan take one baby step forward into the light..

ruth

Gotham,

it is sad, every time a human being is killed by human beings - it is very sad.
You ask where things go from here... where do we want them to go?

Are there more possible answers than "wait and see" or "let them figure it out democratically"? Are there other answers than "let's go bomb them before they bomb us"?

Can there be dedicated action not because we fear their fundamentalists and nuclear weapons, but because we love them like we love our own? and how would that action look like for every one of us?

I have promised myself to stay with this question until I receive my answer, and then act according to it.

There was almost complete silence here, in the first few hours after Bhutto's assassination.

Most countries have suffered from having their lives disrupted due to assassinations. That your country's people are only just now recovering is a good illustration of the true effect of terrorism. It is the common people who suffer the most. In this, we are all the same.

Because of the political prejudice against Pakistan at this moment, few were saying anything about this murder. And I think -- I know -- if it had occurred elsewhere, there would have been more comments.

There is so often a willingness to paint the common people with the labels and sins of their leaders. That creates and enforces artificial divisions around the world. Yet the common people don't feel or live those divisions, for the most part.

In our commonness, our humanity, lies our potential unity, and thus real peace. We all suffer when a leader is assassinated.

Hi dear Heather,

Thank you for your reply :)

Not so long ago i mentioned on Open Thread the following:

"Evolution involves the ability to adjust to any crisis that is before you.

But, like Winston Churchill, I will “Never, never, never give up”

And this quote hangs before me now and will be my quote in the coming year!

And this Conscious Evolutionary Energy will spread itself in many forms."

We had our share of wars until 1945 in Europe and i had the luck to be born just after it. But having also helped rebuilding our country with all ups and downs that it has produced i do know what i am talking about: that one develops the ability to adjust to any crisis.

It has given our country the strength to survive the Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh period, although at the moment even our queen is under attack for being tolerant.

Yet peace comes from peace and here lies our potential, especially for women, if we want a better world.

It is a terrible thing though to hear out of Benazir Bhutto's own mouth (in an interview) that she was convinced that no woman would be attacked by a Muslim because the Koran did forbid that!!

This is something that amazed me. But as i do have a certain opinion about politics, namely that it is totally indifferent, without a heart, it does not suprise me that it happened anyway.

Democracy in Western countries is implemented in as many ways as there are countries and perhaps we will have to admit that despite of the many ways of implementation, democracy cannot work in every country, especially in some countries in the East and in Africa.

Love, Mieke

it's a sad day for Pakistan...and the democratic movement! hopefully that dictator will not remain in power...after the elections..

May her light continue to shine through us,
and her passion for life ours.

"draconian tendencies" WOW! that scary!

Dear Mieke

Your comment #8 contains so much to discuss... I can only touch on a little of it now.

For peace to come from peace, there must be a sense of common ground. And we have it: our humanity. But it needs to be recognized by all of us to be effective.

What happens when the process of adjustment after an act of public violence is interrupted by more violence? More than a common level of connection needs to be felt, to resist and overcome the debilitating effects of repeated daily violence. Holland was notable in its strong, though usually hidden, resistance to Nazism and its violence. The Dutch people stood together in secret to resist negative pressures and actions, until their country was liberated. Then they stood together openly to rebuild their country. They had the common ground of a shared history and way of life, which was the starting point for the complex multiplicity of active bonds that made resistance and rebuilding possible.

The rest of humanity has the same common ground -- yet we often fail to see it, because of thousands of years of geographic and historical separation. Power-mongers take advantage of the resulting opacity to manipulate people into thinking they're different from their neighbors.

Divide and conquer has always worked.

Divide and conquer is where the fighting needs to take place. Perhaps "resistance" is a better word than "fighting", though.

I'm not surprised at anything Bhutto said. She was a politician supreme, and "politician" is just another word for professional manipulator. That is the nature of the role. Under any politician's words lies a hidden world of motivations and forces that usually become visible only after they have come into play and succeeded, or failed in an obvious or disastrous way.

Democracy is a political and legal system. It's built over a sense of shared humanity. It grew from humanism. Though imperfect by nature, and often absurdly imperfectly implemented and administered -- everywhere -- it also tends to work better than other systems because of its base values that grew from humanism.

Countries that began to try democracy in the last century must unweave old ways of running life, to make room for democratic ways. This is an evolving process, not something that can be successfully completed in twelve or twenty or forty years' time. African and Asia have the oldest civilizations in the world, and thus they have eons of unweaving to do. Their peoples and societies are flexible, intelligent and perceptive, and they understand, embrace and are building upon the potential benefits of a democratic approach.

Going back to Bhutto's murder and Gotham's questions: suppose the majority of Hindustanis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Bengalis realized deep within themselves the following facts...

-- they have lived in the same general region for scores of centuries
-- they have shared histories and blood
-- their religions are simply different flavors of connecting to God, with the different flavors coming from different sets human-interpreted rules for living
-- mutual cooperation will give them great survival advantages in a highly competitive global economy

Do you think Bhutto would have been murdered? I don't.

In my opinion, the most important thing in the world today is to openly foster a sense of shared humanity. From shared humanity comes fairness, compassion, resource sharing and peace.

love, Heath

It is tragic, in that the opportunity to present a peaceful, organized government "for the people" have been quelled. This wonderful woman's goal, was to show the self-empowerment a woman can have in leadership roles. We think differently than men; and considering we are the caretakers of "life" we would make considerable leaders. To deny her voice, silenced the opened gate; it did not shut the gate. It is too late, to shut the gate of transformation of mankind. It may come with considerable suffering; as dis-ease does, what it is. The healing afterward; is where the "new beginning" will sprout.. into a new way of living on earth for all. This is her dream. This is a common dream.

North

The ego self, void of wisdom, ultimately achieves the opposite of what it intends.
~Infinite Play the movie

Gotham,

Being that you are concerned about India and some of the people (or all of them?) there then perhaps you might participate in a more visible and audible way in destroying the world's fictions exposing the games that are being played. Words can create illusions but they can also destroy them, especially questions. You could use Graphic novels / comic books that depict a fictional reality which is really about the real world.

You could tell the world about the divide and control game. This is where beliefs are used to divide the population and destroy unity. This is how a small number can effectively rule over a large number of people. When there is an almost 50 / 50 split then the few only need to control 1% or 2% of the vote to choose or decide what they want as far as legislation or regulation rendering the other 98% powerless but still maintaining the illusion that they had a choice.

The reason a 50 / 50 split can be created is that the issue is depicted or represented using fictions and suggested perspectives building on prior divisive indoctrination and installments of perceptual manipulation.

Lastly if we understand how evolution works, those of a lower materialistic consciousness or we might say lacking wisdom will destroy themselves in a gnashing of teeth. This “naturally” leaves a group conducive to life and the expansion of consciousness, not those that hamper evolution and destroy life.

Looking at the dominant operational belief systems and the use of divisive labels in that area of the world, I would say the probability is that a good majority of the people of Pakistan and India will destroy themselves many bystanders being sucked into the vortexes of death generated by a collective ignorance and a failure of each individual to place one’s attention upon the truths and not fictions.

Yet at some other level it’s all an illusion not to be taken seriously, just another unfolding drama in an epic story that we all play characters in.

We were all born into a world of fiction.

Mahalo Gotham

Praying for peace. love patty

Gotham:

...and here in Washington State a family of six is murdered.

Grief pulls us together as family. Joy can do the same. The latter of which seems less appealing to overstimulated adrenals.

When will the wild fire coursing through human flesh cool down and settle out? What is driving so many mad? Are we heating up with our planet? Are we at a transition point and resisting like hell? How can we cool the tension and soothe the inflicted?

Trish~~

dear Trish,
you ask a critical question -
how to cool the tension?
how?
without hurting others,
or ourselves

Kate:

I see/feel wings of soft billowy white creating gentle currents...uplifting, soothing. Beings of Light are with us guiding our way. We look upward for answers.

Trish~~

When one thinks deeply about what is supposedly the reward in heaven for a suicide bomber one can maybe find a clue as to the hatred of 'father' America and the hatred and killing of his spouse, 'mother' Benazir.
The inathenticity of the 'fire' that bathed the conception and upbringing of each AL-Qaidan gets projected on the world as a whole.(oversimplified, I know) Love points out the inauthenticity in all of us. Benazir died that we might see.

It's the paradox of Love.
I think we've a threshold to cross where we no longer seek for answers out there but generate 'tongues of fire' from within and, Trish, to become those Light beings that you perceive.
That kind of Love can melt the iciest of hearts for it calls Itself out from within even those. (Hypnosis is a clue)

Hold your nerve. We are coming through. Let it be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2160288,00.html

There is a law of physics that states for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Let's say, for example, and I'm using my imagination, that the event of Christ's Light was followed by the Holocost's Dark. On an individual level, the mystic is going along fine only to be followed by the dark night of the soul. Or, say you are learning to bowl. You have good luck at first, beginner's luck, and then find you have all sorts of problems and must develop skill.
My daughter, Batya, lived down south for a while and picked up some Christian Fundamentalism. She asked what I thought about the anti-Christ. Well, such a notion was the furthest thing from my mind. But that notion is an example of when the action and the reaction are in immediate proximity.
I said Christ would win, because it is said he is one with God. The anti-Christ would lose, because he is still separate.
I think the law works the other way too. A bad event gives rise to good. The bad awakens Compassion in the bodhicitta.

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

Watched a lot of the coverage of the Benazir Bhutto's murder and watched a lot of her past interviews...and I am perplexed about the whole thing.

Really, when she said she was going back to Pakistan to run for office in the election I thought it was a long shot.. that the turmoil in Pakistan at this time was not at all ripe for a democratic government...REally, I didn't think she had a chance in....heaven.. of pulling this off and I really thought she would be killed, period.

What I am wondering is this....since I am really just your average janedoe world citizen observing these events and not really privy to any political info. I seem to have read the situation quite correctly...from the time she deceided to go back to Pakistan to her murder....and this tells me that this did not have to happen. Really, she said she was going back to help bring democracy to the people but who really believed that that would happen at this time....I sure didn't and I can't imagine who would have seriously entertained this idea at this time...It is hard for me to entertain the thought that any world leaders or political strategists thought anyting other than her ending up being murdered.

So why the heck did this woman go back to Pakistan for a cause that was lost before it was started and the timing being so bad for democratic change and her not trusting Musharraf for security but staying anyway...it all just does not make any sense...politically.

Really, it was like everyone knowing her chances of living were slim to none but all including herself ignoring it....

now, her children are left without their Mother and for what, really? something that never a fat chance of happening anyway...at this time in this particular place.

shaking my head over this whole affair...perplexed...

ruth

Ruth,

You may recall the first day when Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October there was an attempt on her life by suicide bombers in which 139 people died. She was a prime target the whole time and was well aware of it.

Which begs the question: Why did she have to poke her head through that sunroof to wave at the crowd? Was she advised against it but chose to take the risk, anyway? One must wonder!

The demise of Ms. Bhutto -- herself the child of President comPrime Minister (who was executed by a military dictator), and prosecuted for corruption in office -- under the regime of Musharraf (aka "Saddam Lite") was quite predictable and certainly no surprise to the erstwhile general's great "ally in the war on terror," George W. Bush.

Musharraf has been appeasing radical Islamists in a bid to remain in power despite being throughly despised by his people. Whatever the upshot of this unfortunate murder, he is reaping what he has quite deliberately sown. Ms. Bhutto was an ambitious politician of dubious integrity -- but that doesn't matter now that she's become a martyr.

"Ms. Bhutto was an ambitious politician of dubious integrity -- but that doesn't matter now that she's become a martyr."

Your point's well taken, John.

Now she has moved to the realm of mythological figure where any regard for history is secondary and easily manipulated to 'justify' the mythical expression she now represents.

"Ms. Bhutto was an ambitious politician of dubious integrity -- but that doesn't matter now that she's become a martyr."

Your point's well taken, John.

Now she has moved to the realm of mythological figure where any regard for history is secondary and easily manipulated to 'justify' the mythical expression she now represents.

Aloha Ruth

I saw this on Coast to Coast when I was alerted of her passing:

Astrological Analysis: Bhutto Killed in Pakistan
by Brandi Jasmine

Back in November, I spoke of my concern for Benazir Bhutto:
Last month I spoke of a woman in leadership coming to prominence, and of course the story of Benazir Bhutto fits nicely with the aspects I was watching then. Her potential is great, but I am afraid for her safety with the aspects I see right now. I would urge her to be more cautious than she has been in the past. The same for other women leaders who have polarizing or controversial pasts, who want to transform the world quickly or in radical ways. This is not the best time to push past people's prejudice. They will want to fight to hold on to the "old ways", and some of that push-back could be violent. I feel some of this energy could peak mid-month.

November came and went safely for Ms. Bhutto, but today, her good luck came crashing to an unfortunate end, and she was assassinated in the middle of a political rally. Looking at the astrological chart (above) for the time of death, the Ascendant is Cancer, ruled by the Moon (a prominent woman). The Moon in Leo (arrogant leadership, feeling invulnerable) is opposed North Node, T-Squared Venus (a strong woman crossed by unfortunate events). The 12th House Mars (secret plots, war, violence) is opposed by Pluto and Jupiter (religious extremism, the potential for great violence).

The AstroCartography chart for the death time is frightening. It places Jupiter, Mars and Pluto lines in Iran, with the Death-God Pluto directly over Tehran. Worse, the Uranus MidHeaven line (unexpected, shocking events in high profile people or leadership position) also crosses Tehran. There are two possible interpretations. It is possible this assassination was sponsored in Iran, or that Iran will be blamed for it, and there may be retaliatory assassinations in Iran as a result.

Uranus, Pluto, Mars and Jupiter are a dangerous, explosive mixture in this kind of configuration. This assassination could have repercussions that will echo around the world. It bodes ill for peace in 2008, the effects could stain the entire region under a cloud of violent bloodshed. There is a particularly high degree of danger as Pakistan is a nuclear-powered country, and the expanding chaos may put their stockpiles in jeopardy. I am loathe to predict a nuclear exchange, and I pray it is avoidable, but I would not be surprised if there were some kind of nuclear disaster in Pakistan or Iran in the next 18 months.

Mercury also plays a role in this chart, with the Mercury Rising line passing close to Atlanta (CNN headquarters), Washington DC and New York City. The same Pluto, Mars and Jupiter lines cross through the heartland of America. Clearly this news will have a huge impact in the United States as well, possibly leading to a wider spread of the war in Iraq, and a greater burden for "Middle America". The controversy may affect the US elections. I would be greatly surprised if the war in Iraq, and the broader war on terror do not spread dramatically as a result.

--Brandi Jasmine, editor in chief, Astrology.ca

To see the chart the link is: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Chart122707a.jpg

love patty

"Now she has moved to the realm of mythological figure where any regard for history is secondary and easily manipulated to 'justify' the mythical expression she now represents." Freyja 24

Yes, she now represents the hopes of Pakistanis for a non-tyrannical government -- whether or not she
herself actually had any such intention or not.

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

Hi Patty and Ron,

I quess what I ponder is the fact that there seems to have been a very clear reality happening in this situation...all the evidence of potential murder and death...violence...against Benazir's actual physical survival and that everyone just decided to ignore it. Then, of course it is played out and all this grief, drama, anquish..is played out and the whole world acts out their parts....the what ifs...the whatevers...and I sit back and say.....HELLO...to me all that matters is that she has three children who are motherless, now, and that really didn't have to be..I hate to say it but....I really think this murder happened because everyone decided to simply ignore the actual reality of the environment in favor of illusions of grandeur, and this, to me...is the saddest part of this whole affair.

have a great day everyone, ruth

Very sad but not unexpected. She wasn't an innocent bystander in the game. It is the fruits of Ego and Religion. It is a pity she didn't have a chance to prove or redeem herself.

Bhutto was a leader and stood her ground knowing she could be killed at any moment...unless she thought she was invincible. I don't see her upright strength coming from ego or political ambition. I see her strength coming from inner passion and love for children and families in her beloved country.

Bhutto lives on in spirit. Maybe she can have some influence from the other side...if people will be still and listen.

Solutions to peace and justice is One voice that sounds from all directions. It's the natural loving intelligence of the universe. Let's tune in.

Trish~~

Aloha Ruth

I hear what you are saying. I was very surprised that she would put herself in such a situation, as Ron had shared she had survived an early attempt. I think she was on a bus when it happen but something else was driving her.

What I suggest to families the sadness that they feel when losing a loved one, maybe what they are feeling is a deep deep love. Our feelings, emotions create a vibration within the field. There is no loss or wasted life. People die to have the most impact on those around them.

The Mayan Calendar ends in Dec. 2012. Barbara Hand Clow feels the Mayan’s calendar is from the Vedas. And she feels we will experience a field of peace where conflict won’t be felt. The acceleration of time began in November. The next year we will be finding the opporturnity/Christ (however you want to look at it), in the crisis.

I don’t know if you watched the youtube of Nassim Haramien but I felt a comforted from his theory we are the black whole collectively as singularly. He was taught by a Indian Master Meditation Teacher of fourteen when he was eleven. He has figured out matter:) love patty

If I had first-hand knowledge of the thought processes of Benazir I'd feel better able to comment on her departure.

As Jesus was reported as saying; he would rather not fulfil what was only too clear in his mind, nevertheless 'not my will but Thine,'

'God moves in a mysterious way' Weekly Intent - Harsh Thakkar

Benazir Bhutto was either incredibly stupid or incredibly brave or both. She was set up perfectly for this incident.

That being said, I wish others would now think in terms of what this means to the people of Pakistan and not only about how "does this effect us and our country?" I think ordinary people there are fed up of outside advice and interference in their country's affairs. Interference has till now only compounded the problem.

I think there are enough people in that country who understand that promoting militancy and jehadi culture as a matteer of state policy have brought them to this sorry pass. What they don't neeed now is lofty advice. Pakistan is on the brink of civil war. However. left to sort it out themselves they may go through a very bloody and painfull process but chances are they will pull through eventually.

What they dont need now is more midnight calls from Bush and Rice telling them what to do, that is the surest recipe for civil war. These worthies would be better off sorting out the mess they have created in their own country.

MiamiHerald.com
Posted on Sat, Dec. 29, 2007

Find bin Laden

Before President Bush demands of others that the extremists who assassinated Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto be brought to justice, he should answer why he has failed to bring to justice the extremists who committed the 9/11 attacks.

Instead, Bush embarked on a disastrous and needless war against a sovereign nation during a time of peace based on flawed intelligence. The war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of almost 4,000 brave and loyal Americans.

Perhaps if Bush hadn't failed to fulfill the promise he made to this nation more than six years ago, then Bhutto might be alive.

If Bush wants to find those who are guilty of Bhutto's heinous and cowardly murder, then maybe he should just look in the mirror.

ERNEST J. MYERS, Miami Beach

http://www.miamiherald.com/456/v-print/story/360508.html

Coincidence Dara!

Haven't experienced this vefore, exact same time of both comments. Good timing John!

Trish et al, and other hippie types I recommend reading this article:

Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan

by Larry Chin

Global Research, December 29, 2007

[...]

Bhutto, militant Islam, and the pipelines

Now that she has been martyred, many unflattering historical facts about Benazir Bhutto will be hidden or forgotten.

Bhutto herself was intimately involved in the creation of the very "terror" milieu purportedly responsible for her assassination. Across her political career, she supported militant Islamists, the Taliban, the ISI, and the ambitions of Western governments.

As noted by Michel Chossudovsky in America's "War on Terrorism", it was during Bhutto's second term that Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and the Taliban rose to prominence, welcomed into Bhutto's coalition government. It was at that point that ties between the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established.

While Bhutto's relationship with both the ISI and the Taliban were marked by turmoil, it is clear that Bhutto, when in power, supported both---and enthusiastically supported Anglo-American interventions.

In his two landmark books, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid richly details the Bhutto regime's connections to the ISI, the Taliban, "militant Islam", multinational oil interests, and Anglo-American officials and intelligence proxies.

In Jihad, Rashid wrote:

"Ironically it was not the ISI but Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the most liberal, secular leader in Pakistan's recent history, who delivered the coup de grace to a new relationship with Central Asia. Rather than support a wider peace process in Afghanistan that would have opened up a wider peace process in Afghanistan, Bhutto backed the Taliban, in a rash and presumptuous policy to create a new western-oriented trade and pipeline route from Turkmenistan through southern Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which the Taliban would provide security. The ISI soon supported this policy because its Afghan protégé Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had made no headway in capturing Kabul, and the Taliban appeared to be strong enough to do so."

In Taliban, Rashid provided even more historical detail:

"When Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister in 1993, she was keen to open a route to Central Asia. A new proposal emerged backed strongly by the frustrated Pakistani transport and smuggling mafia, the JUI and Pashtun military and political officials."

"The Bhutto government fully backed the Taliban, but the ISI remained skeptical of their abilities, convinced that they would remain a useful but peripheral force in the south."

"The US congress had authorized a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilize Iran, and Tehran accused Washington of funneling some of these funds to the Taliban---a charge that was always denied by Washington . Bhutto sent several emissaries to Washington to urge the US to intervene more publicly on the side of Pakistan and the Taliban."

Bhutto's one mistake: she vehemently supported the pipeline proposed by Argentinian oil company Bridas, and opposed the pipeline by Unocal (favored by the US). This contributed to her ouster in 1996, and the return of Nawaz Sharif to power. As noted by Rashid:

"After the dismissal of the Bhutto government in 1996, the newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his oil minister Chaudry Nisar Ali Khan, the army and the ISI fully backed Unocal. Pakistan wanted more direct US support for the Taliban and urged Unocal to start construction quickly in order to legitimize the Taliban. Basically the USA and Unocal accepted the ISI's analysis and aims---that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would make Unocal's job much easier and quicken US recognition."

Her appealing and glamorous pro-Western image notwithstanding, Bhutto's true record is one of corruption and accommodation.

The "war on terrorism" resparked

Every major Anglo-American geostrategic crime has been preceded by a convenient pretext, orchestrated and carried out by "terror" proxies directly or indirectly connected to US military-intelligence, or manipulated into performing as intelligence assets. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is simply one more brutal example.

This was Pakistan's 9/11; Pakistan's JFK assassination, and its impact will resonate for years.

Contrary to mainstream corporate news reporting, chaos benefits Bush-Cheney's "war on terrorism". Calls for "increased worldwide security" will pave the way for a muscular US reaction, US-led force and other forms of "crack down" from Bush-Cheney across the region. In other words, the assassination helps ensure that the US will not only never leave, but also increase its presence.

The Pakistani election, if it takes place at all, is a simpler two-way choice: pro-US Musharraf or pro-US Sharif.

While the success of Bush-Cheney's 9/11 agenda has met with mixed results, and it has met with a wide array of resistance ("terroristic" as well as political), there is no doubt that the propaganda foundation of the "war on terrorism" has remained firm, unshaken and routinely reinforced.

As for Nawaz Sharif, who now emerges as the sole competitor for Musharraf, he, like Musharraf and Bhutto, is legendary for his accommodation to Anglo-American interests---pipelines, trade, and the continued US military presence. As Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie noted in the book Forbidden Truth, the October 1999 military coup led by Musharraf that originally toppled Sharif's regime was sparked by animosity between the two camps, as well as "Sharif's personal corruption and political megalomania", and "concerns that Sharif was dancing too eagerly to Washington's tune on Kashmir and Afghanistan".

In other words, Bush-Cheney wins, no matter which asset winds up on the throne.

Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7699

Ref. #39

I have no doubt we are behind this.

Two things happened recently that brought this to be....

1) Claims that the 'Surge' were working along with growing pressure from Americans to end this occupation, which would cut off all the spending.

2) The release of the NIE report saying Iran had stopped it's work on a nuke in 2003, which dead ended the path this 'war' was to take.

The people profiting from the USA hitting the Middle East with a military sledgehammer suddenly got scared. Result: Pakistan's destabilization.

We may regret this more than we realize. Remember, there are people in Pakistan VERY loyal to the Muslim states, and VERY angry with the USA.

Recall it was Pakistan that sold the nuclear plans and materials to North Korea.

So you get a rogue group in that nation that gains control of their nuclear weapons?

India, the USA and Great Britain could have a major problem,

If the rogue groups in the USA get people in Pakistan to do their bidding?

Iran may get a special delivery package.

OR Pakistan COULD go to war with Iran.

So, Turkey gets a piece of Iraq and the Kurds get snuffed, we start to squeeze Iran, Pakistan squeezes from the other side, a few nukes go off in Tehran.....

Bushco gets it's way.

If some REAL Muslim extremists, OR Pakistani Patriots get a little too pissed off....

We get a special delivery package AND/OR India gets hit starting off a nuclear exchange.

If that happens, China Russia and Iran win.

Remember, Bush is an idiot. He still thinks that he will have a legacy IN THE FUTURE showing him to be some kind of genius who's misunderstood actions were never appreciated in OUR time.

The man is the son of another of his kind and he is going to severely hurt us and the world if he is not stopped.

Screwing with a Nuclear Power.....who else but Bush would ever do something THAT stupid irresponsible and criminal?

Benazir names 19 year old son her politcal heir and nominates him as Chairman of her party. Even better, till he finishes studies, hubby gets to run the party.

Another dynasty perpetuated. How will a political party following undemocratic practices itself, usher in democracy in a troubled country?

And Dara, the Bhutto Party wants to go ahead with the elections on Jan 8, although other parties are reluctant!

Why? and Why not? The Sympathy Vote!

Bhutto's party is trying to get the most political advantage out of the untimely death of their leader.

And to ride on the people's Sympathy Vote which will sure win them the election by a landslide and get them back to power!

This happened in India when Rajiv Gandhi{whose mother was killed i office by her Sikh body guards!) the then ex prime minister was similarly killed by a suicide LTTE terrorist during an political rally. The result his party won a 2/3rd majority.

Many similarities with Bhutto Family and the Gandhi-Nehru Family and their dynasty politics in the neighboring countries of India and Pak.

Benazir Bhutto's two brothers were killed under mysterious circumstances, who were suppose to be their father's heirs. Indira Gandhi's elder son was killed under mysterious cirums. Her younger son Rajiv was a reluctant entry to politics like Benazir was(Both were educated in the west)

Rajiv Gandhi's Italian wife took charge of the party like Benazir's husband now does.

Sonia Gandhi's son Rahul like Benazir's son(again both are west educated) is the current heir to lead the country.

Interesting similarities there.

US presidential candidates pledge support to Pakistani dictator

The response of the leading US presidential candidates to the December 27 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto has been to pledge continued American support to the Musharraf military dictatorship, with little more than lip service to the democratic rights of the people of Pakistan.

[...]

All of the major presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, stand on a common platform of defending American imperialism. Some Democrats, like Richardson and Obama, emphasize diplomacy and dialogue; others, like Clinton and the Republicans, are more open supporters of military action. But their fundamental goal is the same: upholding the strategic and economic interests of the American financial aristocracy.

By Patrick Martin
31 December 2007
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/elec-d31.shtml