(no subject)

[xiphias]

Raise your hand if you don't think Pervez Musharraf was behind Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

Okay, it's possible, I suppose, that he didn't know about it beforehand, and I'm certain nothing could ever be traced to him. It's also possible that it was people working without his orders.

But, yeah.

We Yanks do a damn fine job of picking allies, don't we?

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Oh fuck, they killed her? *sigh* She had to know that would happen, and be willing to let it, for the cause.

One of the problems with Pakistan is that so many people are willing and able to do dangerous things (including arms dealing) without Musharraf's authorization and knowledge, which isn't to say he doesn't authorize and know plenty. He isn't in control of some vital corners.

[florafloraflora.livejournal.com]

I'm sickened this morning.

Not because I ever thought Pervez Musharraf was a great guy. Just because the news is so... unsurprising. As your earlier commenter said, I think it hardly matters whether Musharraf was behind the assassination or not; there were so many others who were willing to do it with or without his backing.

It's hard to see how anything's going to change.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

My guess is that it was Islamists who were somehow given to understand that the government wouldn't interfere with their plans, provided the assassin killed himself in the process and there was nobody left to arrest and bring to trial.

I also have to add that Mme. Bhutto was herself no saint. She wasn't as bad as Musharraf, but even her most ardent supporters among the Pakistani middle class allow that she often bent the law when she was Prime Minister, and often to her own profit. It wasn't the sort of thing she should have been killed for, but she should not be viewed as some paragon of virtue.

The big problem with Pakistan right now is that there's nobody in a position of political power who doesn't have questionable history. Mme. Bhutto was arguably the best of a bad lot, and I'd been hoping she'd win next month's elections, but still...

In any case, it's a sad day for that troubled country and for the world.

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I'd be very surprised if Musharraf didn't have a finger in the pie *somewheres*, but my more immediate curiousity is whether there was any involvement by my *own* government. It's a sad time, but they are *so* crooked that any time anything bad happens anywhere it's a reasonable question.

best,

Joel

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I doubt it, but only because I can't see any advantage to us.

Then again, I didn't see any advantage to us to invading Iraq. . .

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

I am sad to say I was surprised when this didn't happen earlier.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think there's a good reason to think Musharraf was behind it. He might have been, but I doubt he'd take the risk. Here are two bits of evidence:

(1) Musharraf himself has narrowly avoided assassination at least twice, I think, in the past five years. Considering that the government was probably devoting a hundred times the resources to protecting him as they were to Bhutto, I suspect killing her was pretty easy and didn't need to involve high-level conspirators.

(2) Bhutto was no friend to the Islamists. In fact, they would probably have been worse off under her, since Pakistan would have had a reasonably democratic, more stable government, but still with close ties to the US. Plus killing her creates big problems for Musharraf.

So basically lots of people had the means and the motive to kill her, even assuming Musharraf had nothing to do with it.

My guess is that he didn't go out of his way to protect her, since he wanted her to be scared off, and he therefore bears some responsibility for her death. However, I'd be amazed if he actually gave the order to kill her, and I'd be surprised if any government officials were seriously involved (in their official roles, rather than as part of a terrorist sleeper cell).

This may be more complex on the ground

[temima.livejournal.com]

The recent list of suspects were intelligence/military people with ties to the Taliban or part of the Pakistani Taliban. It's too early to say if this is so, though. At least one of the comment posters on the Pakistani Spectator think Musharraf is responsible.

I would say Musharraf might be involved, but other groups might have their reasons (and they aren't fans of Musharraf, either).

(More links are at http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/27/updates-from-pakistan-and-beyond-on-the-bhutto-assasination/)

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

There are, at present, so many different lunatics of all stripes running around Pakistan, that I hesitate to say any one of them was more likely than another to have done it.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

As an initial reaction - I certainly thought it was possible that Musharraf was behind it in some way...

...but I also thought it might have been someone completely different; there is a lot of chaos and violence in Pakistan right now, and, I think, more than just two sides facing off against each other (though it's hard to tell, since so much of my information is filtered through the US cultural bias, which tend to present all conflicts as the opposition of two sides, regardless of the actual number).

Now that it appears that Musharref's government is attempting a cover up, I'm more inclined to agree with you; but it's still far too early to be so definitive.

So, does that mean I should be raising my hand or not?

Kiralee

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah, once people pointed out how many other factions had the means, motive, and opportunity for the assassination, I felt that, okay, yeah, maybe someone else MIGHT have done it. But then the cover-up convinced me that my initial instinct was correct.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

Actually, the more I think about it the less affect the cover up has on my opinion. For one thing, there are just as many factions that are willing and able to create/spread misinformation as there are factions who can launch attacks or shoot bullets; possibly more; possibly even including Bhutto's faction itself (this is a gruesome way to look at it, but it is probably in their best interests to cast her as a martyr, which is easier to do if she was shot).

The information is clearly inconsistent... so inconsistent that we can be relatively sure that someone is lying; but it may be premature to jump to the conclusion that it's Musharraf.

Kiralee

ETA: Probably a moot point, but you didn't actually answer my question about hand raising.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I didn't answer the question because it's entirely your choice.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

I was asking for directions.

In the first line of your post you set up a lexicon of motion, where raising my hand corresponds to one set of meanings, and not raising my hand corresponds to another. Since the act of doing nothing (not raising my hand) corresponds to a set of meanings, it's impossible to be silent.

So, which set does "I think it's possible that Musharraf was behind it, but I also think it's possible that someone completely different was behind it," fall into? Does it fall into the meaning set that corresponds to raising my hand, or the meaning set that corresponds to not raising my hand? Since you are the one who defined the lexicon, the choice of which meanings fall into which sets is yours.

Kiralee