[Unknown Target]

Exactly. So can we please discuss this topic and not immediately point fingers at the US for everything? It is in no way relevant to the discussion at hand.

[karajorma]

More specifically, I meant what country would go into a meeting of the UN and yell out that they were glad she was killed?

As I said the main part of the meeting was to figure out their policy. Condemning the assassination is automatic for these people. It probably took them all of ten minutes.


As for the US being behind it, I very much doubt it. Bush's government doesn't have the subtlety to do something like this and has more worrying problems than Pakistan even if they did.

[jr2]

As for the US being behind it, I very much doubt it. Bush's government doesn't have the subtlety to do something like this and has more worrying problems than Pakistan even if they did.

Your logic astounds me.  If they did have the subtlety, you jolly well wouldn't have a clue that they were behind it, now, would you?  Since when did assassinations require loads of subtlety?

[karajorma]

If the Bush government were capable of subtlety, explain Iraq.

[Mustang19]

The Pakistani ISI is one of the most capable covert services in the region. They'd have no need of US help, which would not be particularly necessary. Interestingly enough, I was listening to the radio on the way home. They happened to be playing several interviews with Bhutto; in one she actually mentioned the threat of the ISI. Too bad that she didn't look out for her own security enough. She also mentioned her dislike of the USA's support of Musharaf alongside her condemnation of terrorism.

Had the assasination attempt somehow failed, however, the US would likely do everything in its covert power to ensure that Bhutto was never elected. Bush was not keen on several of Bhutto's policies, namely granting more independence to the tribal areas on the Afghan border and "destabilizing" the country with democracy. Much preferred is the Musharaf way of keeping a tight grip on the judiciary and government religious institutions.

[TrashMan]

Al Quaida took responsibility...that was a bad move for them.

Now we need to get their leaders and kiiiiiiiiil them. Poison....

[jr2]

If the Bush government were capable of subtlety, explain Iraq.

Long (10+) years of sanctions being ignored?  An inexplicable need to pretend (or otherwise) that they had WMD?

[karajorma]

And that's subtle? What's average then? The H-bomb?

[jr2]

  Blatantly disregarding ceasefire terms does not call for subtle responses!!

[karajorma]

So we're back to them not being subtle then aren't we?

Bhutto was one of America's biggest allies in Pakistan. If America were going to try a subtle plan they would have picked another target most likely.

[Unknown Target]

Al Quaida took responsibility...that was a bad move for them.

Source?

[karajorma]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7163307.stm

[Unknown Target]

Well, looks like another stupid move for Al-Queda. They might have bolstered their backing with hard line extremists with this move, but my speculation says that they just screwed themselves over with anyone sitting on the fence.

IMO, anyway.

[WeatherOp]

Now the question is did they really plan it, everyone knows Bush could fart on prime TV and Al-Queda would say they put the extra beans in his food.

[vyper]

For those who don't actually read the links, it's the Pakistanis who've said that old AQ did it. They themselves have said nothing.

[Asuko]

That might not mean much since people tend to rely on assumptions most of the time. I don't even need to point to Bush to say the Iraq war was orchestrated that way.