CIA chief places blame for Bhutto assassination

This is going to accellerate as the U.S. begins to pour in more forces on the ground in Afghanistan, I just know it will.

Oh my fucking god...okay...so the C.I.A. goes in to determine who killed Benazir Bhutto, and the answer they come up with is...drum-roll please...Al Qaeda!

And JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald alone, with a single bullet...

Okay, so it probably WAS Al Qaeda. In fact, it was probably the same people who planned 9-11 along with Saddam Hussein and created the Iraqi insurgency. Fuck, it was probably the same people who bombed Pearl Harbor, the same people who assassinated the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the same people who killed Davy Crockett at the Alamo, and the same people who fired the shot heard round the world at Lexington in 1775! Don't you remember the midnight ride of Paul Revere? "Al Qaeda is coming! Al Qaeda is coming!"

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Long live Big Brother!

Al Qaeda.... It could have been any anti-american organisation, which would make... uhhh.... a lot. Considering she was in the Americans pocket, and had CIA backing, probably in exchange for economic incentives and a privitisation program to rival all the other countries the US has shot in the foot. (maybe im over generalising). But taking a few years refuge in washington, then deciding "hey ima take ova dat place agen" is a bit too coincidental for my conspiracy riddled mind.

Actually, Sharif was the privatization guy, she was the leftist and would've probably muddled around with the courts to clear up so much of the bureaucratic nonsense that was going on under Musharraff's nose.

So it's 180 degrees from what's being said here. Sharif, as potentially the new leader will likely drive massive investment push into the urban areas of the country where the majority of the well-educated, disciplined, secular Pakistani youth are waiting for new leadership to get things on track. Would you prefer the rampant poverty be maintained for 5 years or ten years? Because it's not gonna end anytime soon. 160 million people don't just up and change all at once, not while the U.S. maintains a presence there and in Afghanistan. At least Sharif will have a lot of Saudis, Bahrainis, Dubai Arabs, Qattaris, and Kuwaitis to support them and they need a skilled worker base that speaks Arabic.

And JFK's vanity killed himself when he opted out of the sunroof. Bullets only strike with a clear shot.

If it was them, they must REALLY want a bad reputaton for Paki-stan. She just wanted to help on her return.

Good point, wiggleroom. But we can't rule out the possibility that JFK was complicit in the conspiracy to bring about his own assassination...

first off, JFK was killed in a convertable, not standing out a sunroof, that was bhutto. and a president riding in a convertable wasnt anything crazy when JFK was shot, presidents could walk down the street shaking peoples hands and it wasnt a problem. i mean we were just coming out of the eisenhower years for fuck's sake.

but further, on the al qaeda thing, as time since 911 ticks by, it is starting to become routine for them to be blamed for every goddamn thing. if its true then they are way more powerful and well trained and equipped and thought out than i ever expected. which may actually be the case. but when i hear that the CIA is the one saying these things and pointing the finger at them continuously, i just cant help but be skeptical, incredibly so. its soooooooooooooooo convenient to blame them for all the obvious reasons. and if they are in fact behind all of it, then i would even further my conspiracy musings by offering that al qaeda could just be a branch of the fucking CIA. thinking back to all the dirty dirty filthy situations the CIA has gotten itself into (not counting all the ones we dont know about), for me, it seems entirely plausible that they would be able to create this 'terrorist' organization to give america whatever excuses it needs to take whatever action it wants around the world.

so we have a revolutionary threating to come to power in pakistan? a country we need for our stability in the middle east? what to do... what to do... i know! we'll just have al qaeda do it for us! we get to blame them and our hands are clean, and everyone in america will buy it. just like they bought our story of a statistically validated poor marksman who got off 3 manually fired and reloaded shots in under 6 seconds from the worlds worst rifle from a hundred yards away through thick foliage to hit a moving target with world-class precision! whew... its hard to think this shit up. i guess that's why they call us the central intelligence agency.

Again, there was no evidence to indicate a conspiracy prior to JFK's death. All "alternate" theories have been fronted years after the initial investigation by people who were never in Dealy Plaza.

Bullets hit their target when the target is open. The shots came from above and behind, indicating Oswalt did shoot at him. No hard evidence indicated shots from the grassy knoll. All eyewitness testimony that supported second-gunman theory was collected years after the event when witnesses had been pressured to re-remember the event. Oswalt shot Officer Tippitt after escaping the scene of the crime and his story given to the Dallas Police changed numerous times.

Folks gotta stop believing all the b.s. they find on the internet and just follow the evidence as it lay. Either way, we've more important things to discuss here.

Al Qaeda in Pakistan is mostly a myth. Al Qaeda is more of a street name than a single monolithic army seeking to destroy the world. What we think of as Al Qaeda today has gone through mulitiple changes since its inception as an extension of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (which spawned Hamas in Gaza), an orthodox Islamist movement that sought to overthrow Anwar Saddat in the early 1970's. As you may know, Bin Laden's second, Al Zawahiri was jailed after the assassination and when he was let go, he fled to Afghanistan where he met up with other Mujahedeen fighting the Soviets. The Muslim Brotherhood helped stir on agression against secular pan-Arab nationalists like Saddat which then led to the Arab states triggering the Yom Kippur War against Israel in 1973, and further gave reason for Egypt to crack down on civil freedoms and organizations. Hence, the war on terror for Egypt started early and has remained an authoritarian government which Pakistan seeks to emulate.

The Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been a U.S. intelligence proxy since the 1970's when the U.S. backed Pakistan against India, which was moving towards Russia for geostrategic warfare.

Currently the ISI has radical elements who act as double-informants for the U.S. which has sought to undermine democratization in Pakistan for 30 years. The ISI roots out terrorism inside the country and attempts to steer the country towards war with India at every beck and call. Additionally the Pakistan Army Intelligence is even -more- hawkish and outright threatens India on a daily basis. All the money we've given Musharraff to fight Afghan terrorism is actually going to shore up more weapons and security along the India-Pakistan border, not the Afghan border. Obviously you can't hand money to a dictatorship and expect them to spend it on what you want.

The whole region was in chaos back then as they were scrambling to develop on par with the rest of the world. In the 70's India and China had fraying tensions while Eastern India was breaking down into Maoist rebel factions. Indira Ghandi had to do something, and that something was to crack down on the anti-nationalists all over the country, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims all represented organizational threat against the Hindi majority. That had the effect of radicalizing their neighbors and allies in West Pakistan and East Pakistan, now called Bangladesh (the other Islamic partition created after the British Raj left their efforts to colonize the subcontinent). As the Bangladeshi problem settled down in the 80's, Pakistan further moved away from India, going to war over Kashmir several times and fighting over the Jammu region to Kashmir's north with China. The second is now settled but the first is still hotly contested and should be the absolute focus for anyone who seeks to understand what's happening between Pakistan and India today.

We do not need to worry about the Taliban getting the bomb. Al Qaeda numbers in the low thousands in a country of 160 million. They are fighting for regional dominance of the Western frontier region and have no interest whatsoever in Pakistan's democracy. They are not fronting a serious candidate and Nawas Sharif will more than likely go after them as the Saudis go after the same groups in Saudi. The insurgents will not win the election by any stretch of the imagination and they are tremendously unpopular in Pakistan (almost as much as the U.S. is).

We've got to -calm- down on this and realize the real support we need to show is to Pakistan's judiciary: the only branch of the government which is still loyal to the rights of the people and in opposition to the military and the bought-n'-paid legislature. They were the ones that refused to validate the result when Musharraff attempted to defraud the parliamentary elections last year. When he removed the Supreme Court chief, Musharraff made one mistake too many and large sections of all their courts refused to open session until massive changes were promised and few were acted upon. It's a matter of time now until the election in a few weeks and then we'll see what happens.