MSNBC reporting that Bhutto first shot in head and neck before

[Subdivisions]

assassin blows himself up.

This is just terrible. I bet this is Musharif's doing.

[EFerrari]

1. I don't think Musharif is crazy enough to set off the backlash

that will follow this act. Bhutto was seen as an American puppet by some factions. That also makes her a target.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The previous attempt on Bhutto was clearly aided by

the government. This, and the earlier attack on Shariff, wil be used by Musharif to continue his dictatorship.

[EFerrari]

4. Was that a serious attempt or a warning? I admit I wasn't paying

attention. I can't help thinking Musharif is barely holding the place together as it is.

Could the ISI have done this on their own?

[Selatius]

7. I dunno if Musharraf has complete control over all organs of the government.

The military and the intelligence gathering apparatus are more friendly to the religious fundamentalists than many people think. ISI, Pakistani intelligence, largely helped the Taliban seize power in 1996. Musharraf knows this, and he knows he is unliked by the religious fundamentalists.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Musharraf 'walks the line'.

He is from the same military and intelligence factions that have worked both sides of the Afghan/Taliban problem. Ultimately his goal is to remain in power, and the events of today will enable him to do just that.

[malaise]

12. Ding ding

We have a winner.

[blondeatlast]

5. CNN reported her brothers were killed today as well--in different locations.

Edit: Now I can't find the story, so don't count on its accuracy...

[EFerrari]

6. Holy cR@p. That's really, really scary. n/t

[blondeatlast]

8. Can't find the story--it was a screen crawl, so don't put too much into it.

I'm hoping against hope that it ISN'T true.

[foo_bar]

9. it's not, from what I gather

In 1980, Benazir Bhutto's brother Shahnawaz was killed under suspicious circumstances, in France. The killing of another of her brothers, Mir Murtaza, in 1996, contributed to destabilizing her second term as Prime Minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Assassination

Bhutto's family is no stranger to violence. Both of her brothers died in mysterious circumstances and she had said al Qaeda assassins tried to kill her several times in the 1990s.

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_80800/world-news/BREAKING-NEWS-Pakistans-opposition-leader-Bhutto-killed-in/

Maybe CNN skimmed the Bloomberg feed too quickly:

Zia ul-Haq went on to become president in 1978. The elder Bhutto, founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party, was hanged in 1979 after his conviction on charges of authorizing the murder of an opponent. Both Bhutto's brothers were also murdered.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abaD6XPZ9jwU&refer=home

[Karenina]

10. September 20, 1996

1996 - Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's brother, Murtaza Bhutto, is killed, as are seven supporters, in a gunbattle with police outside his Karachi home.

Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was Pakistan's first popularly elected prime mister. He was executed in 1979 after being deposed in a military coup.

"Mrs. Bhutto's family history is intertwined with Pakistani politics — and violence. Her father, Zulkifar Ali Bhutto, was prime minister until his government was overthrown by a military coup in 1977. Bhutto himself was tried, found guilty of organizing a political murder, and executed by hanging in 1979. Mrs. Bhutto's brothers then organized a splinter of the Pakistan People's Party known as the Al-Zulfikar Organization, which was marginalized as terrorist. One brother, Shahnawaz Bhutto, died under shadowy circumstances in Paris in 1985. The second, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, was shot to death by police in 1996, during Mrs. Bhutto's second term as prime minister."

excerpt from NYSun 10/17/07

[spinbaby]

11. Yes, her brothers were apparently murdered

But not recently. Here's an article that mentions it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abaD6XPZ9jwU&refer=home

[DS1]

30. Al Qaeda MO

multiple attacks on the same day, within hours

[killbotfactory]

32. Any backlash will be brutally crushed

with the aid and blessing of the US government, and in the name of "stability".

the terrorists who supposedly committed this attack will remain largely untouched, as they have been.

[Onlooker]

2. Religious extremism

Here is was used to murder Indians, enslave blacks, arrest gays, oppress women, force children to work 72 hour weeks. Eventually, we had wars, tightened up on the separation of church and state, elected more secular leaders and gradually shoved them at least partly to the side. The Muslim world needs to crack down on Muslim extremism. It should be outlawed, but unfortunately those who do the outlawing are often no better than the extremists themselves.

[The2ndWheel]

16. Then it really isn't simply religious extremism

"but unfortunately those who do the outlawing are often no better than the extremists themselves."

It's the products of organization, be they religion, the state, the corporation, etc.

As you said, we eventually had wars between organized efforts. One particular organization wins the particular war, expands its influence, and then goes to war again if it hits a different form of organization as it expands.

All forms of organization dislike diversity. That's why they define something as extreme, be it religion in general, a different religion, secularism, whatever isn't the same as itself. Which is why "those who do the outlawing are often no better than the extremists themselves".

It's a crazy world, spinning around in circles within circles with no destination.

[Onlooker]

22. That's an interesting point

I think it's dogma, and there's a threshold at which dogma becomes dangerous. I suppose it's dogma that creates the organization, but it's the rigidity of the dogma that turns the organization to sadism.

[Kip Humphrey]

13. Pakistan's Robert Kennedy moment - an incalculable loss

In correction, the reports are that she was shot after the suicide bombing. This suggests either an Al-Quaida/Taliban coordinated attack, or an attack of opportunity conducted by Pakistani security services or the CIA.

Who wins? Mushariff, the Taliban, Bush/Cheney.

Who loses? The rest of us.

[Mudoria]

15. I''ll have some of what you're smoking...

instability in Pakistan doesn't benefit either Mushie or the US. No one,other than extremists, wants an unstable country with nuclear weapons. My bet is martial law is getting ready to be declared again.

[Kip Humphrey]

38. Martial law, eh? Hmmm... Sounds like something BushCo/CheneyInc. AND Mushy both want!

Which is my point.

[bdamomma]

14. Who is going to diffuse this situation?? Not Negroponte or Rice???

where is Biden??? We have been supplying Pakistan/India with arms we are no better.

[brazos121200]

18. Musharraf didn't want to share power with Mrs Bhutto or anyone else.

Very convenient for him that she is assassinated less than two weeks before the election. Surely just a coincidence I'm sure. Nothing to see here folks, move on please.

[SteppingRazor]

19. It would be incredibly stupid for Musharraf to do this, and he knows it.

Musharraf is as aware as anyone that Bhutto's assassination will likely lead to widespread instability, the delegitimization of his authority, and a power vacuum into which may step the dictator's more-dangerous political enemies, namely Islamic terrorists.

No one on the planet knows better that this assassination does not bode well for Musharraf than Musharraf himself. I sincerely doubt his hand was in this.

[Subdivisions]

20. Perhaps you are correct. However, it would provide the

catalyst for reinstating martial law and giving Musharraf absolute power.

[SteppingRazor]

21. That's true, he could (and probably will) declare martial law, but then what?

Martial law will, in fact, only make people more sympathetic to the swirly eyed crazies who get their giggles blowing themselves up. Musharraf has to be aware that martial law is a temporary solution, at best. As for absolute power, in reality, he already has it in all but name. It would be foolish to seize totalitarian rule when he already has a dictatorship.

I agree that, on the surface, it seems like Musharraf benefits here -- his primary political opponent is now out of the picture. But on a deeper level, Bhutto's assassination is actually terrible news for Musharraf, and I think he's smart enough to know this. The only people who truly benefit from this are the type of people who send suicide bombers to do their dirty work (i.e. the aforementioned swirly eyed crazies).

Now, mind you, I don't dismiss out of hand that someone with bombs and guns getting into a rally with tight security certainly conjures up the real possibility of inside help in Musharraf's security staff. But I think that such help would not be a soldier on security duty who was actually an intelligence officer working for Musharraf, but instead a security guard who was sympatico to the fundie Islamic cause.

[EFerrari]

23. Or for ISI which plays all sides against the middle. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

26. Couple things worth mentioning on that note:

First, Rawalpindi, where the attack occurred, was the original headquarters of the ISI, and even after the move to Islamabad, the agency has remained a force there.

Second, the Bhuttos are long-time enemies of the ISI, going back to Benazir's father, Zulfiqar, back in the 1970s and all the way up through the 1990s, when the ISI supposedly rigged elections to prevent the Bhuttos' Pakistani People's Party from winning elections.

Of course, neither of those inferences really tell us anything about the attack today. But once you start considering the murky world of intelligence agencies, not just ISI but also worldwide, the possibilities get deeply weird. As it stands, I imagine what happened today is the work of Islamic terrorists and not much else. Occam's razor, and all that. Of course, that theory is just as credible (or incredible) as any other.

[EFerrari]

27. It is too soon to know what just happened. Am I right in thinking that

ISI works more closely or more openly with third parties -- such as the Taliban -- than CIA does?

The reason I'm asking is because I recently heard a journalist (sorry, can't remember name) on BookTv who was running down the situation in Pakistan. He said that the urban guerilla groups have managed to network with the Talibanized tribal region -- and, they did that very quickly. It occurred to me that in order for that to happened, the wheels must have been greased in some way.

(He also said that the now Talibanized tribal region was more thoroughly ideological than the Afghani Taliban because in Afghanistan, there was an ideological group at the top, and a large pyrimid below that were one task/ trick foot soldiers. Apparently in his opinion, the Pakistani Taliban group is both more democratic but also, more evenly extreme.

Yikes.)

[SteppingRazor]

28. The urban/rural linkup in Pakistan is not due to the wheels being greased in some way, as you say...

or rather, as this guy on BookTV says. There was a conscious effort throughout 2006 and 2007 on the part of rural, puritanical nutjobs to enter the cities to stop decadent city dwellers' backsliding from the One True Faith.

In fact, urban Muslim radicals were a relative unknown in Pakistan up until a couple years ago. But just this year, you had the Red Mosque siege, which was the real downturn for the Musharraf government. Almost all the anti-gov't fighters in that siege had moved to Islamabad from the outlying provinces.

So, I don't think there is a "linking up" of urban guerillas and rural Islamic crazies here. Instead, it's more a case of the Islamic crazies moving from the farms to the cities.

[EFerrari]

29. I'm going to try and run down that journalist's name.

Because he seemed pretty solid and the errors are likely mine.

[SteppingRazor]

31. Right on. Lemme know if you find it. Would love to read his stuff.

I've been following Pakistani politics for a couple months, especially since the aforementioned Red Mosque siege in July and Bhutto's return to the country Oct. 18. Always looking for more info and more voices.

[EFerrari]

33. It was this guy. He was superb. No noticeable agenda

(to me anyway). He genuinely seemed to be thinking about Pakistan:

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8016&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

[SteppingRazor]

34. Ah! Frontline Pakistan.

I started to read that, but I got bored. :blush:

[EFerrari]

35. It was really hard for me to keep up with him when he was talking.

But, he seemed so willing to put his assessment out there -- as opposed to the normal filtered fare we get, that I tried to listen hard. He was good with details, he seemed credible.

It was sort of shocking to hear that our government knows about the al Qaida training camps in the tribal areas and that Mullah Omar has been sitting in Quetta and that they decided not to bother. :shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

36. He's extremely credible.

Dude's the Pakistan correspondent for three or four major newspapers.

[EFerrari]

37. And even more, he seemed like one of those crusty bastards

that own their own mind. That's rare any more, and valuable, imho.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Horrific.

I hope this doesn't cause a civil war.

Just tragic.

[MiniMe]

25. Faux news reporting that she was shot with an AK47, on-air report

I feel so dirty now. Says that she was shot by the suicide bomber just before he blew himself up.

Its Faux, believe what you want