Bhutto Murder

[Len Colby]

Bhutto spoke with David Forst one month ago. In this interview she claimed that Sheikh Omar Saeed killed Osama Bin Laden.

Very interesting.

John

Because of the way she said it the most logical explanation is that she simply misspoke; people have suggested she meant Daniel Pearl whose murder Sheik Mohamed has been accused of.

"Logical" is an understatement!

Although I think it just as likely that Ms. Bhutto meant to say that Sheikh Omar Saeed saw O Brother, Where Art Thou and opined that the film, in Hollywood jargon, "really killed [at the box office]."

Or perhaps that the Sheikh had expressed his distress that "[barack] Obama has been laden" with a lot of political baggage.

And why stop here? LHO "misspoke" when he claimed, "I'm just a patsy!" What he meant to say was, "I'm such a Nazi!"

Hey, just the other night, while at dinner with a lady friend, I meant to say, "Would you please pass the salt," but it came out, "You've ruined my life, you blood-sucking shrew!"

Slips happen.

Sarcasm aside yes slips happen. Perhaps Mr. Drago who seems to think otherwise can explain why Bhutto would tell a British audience that her opponents were tied to the person who killed OBL as a way to put them in a bad light and put that crime on par with beheading British tourists? I wonder if he ever watched the clip, somehow I doubt it.

As always, "Colby" is wrong.

I even watched the BBC broadcast in which the OBL reference is edited out in its entirety.

In other words I was wrong but I was right. “Drago” saw the interview but seemingly didn’t see the part in question. Conspicuously he avoids addressing the issue, i.e. the context of Bhutto’s comments that seem to indicate she misspoke.

"Colby" is the latest version of the $10,000 toilet seat. (And I can't tell you how much I love the comparison!)

Military-Industrial Complex waste -- in both senses of the word.

Fittingly Drago’s “mind” seems constantly entrenched in “waste” and the toilet like a couple of his "intellectual fellow travellers" on this forum he results to insults when he can't rebut someone's points.

[Charles Drago]

FLUSH

[Evan Burton]

"Did Bhutto's bullet proof vest extend to cover her entire abdomen, I wonder?"

That depends on the type of ballistic vest used. There is normally a hard plate in front and rear, and often thinner side plates. The plates vary in size according to the use. Aircrew are required to be seated, move their abdomen to manipulate controls, etc, so there are specific ones for them. Soldiers have to be fairly agile, so another for them. For just pure protection against an assassin, there is another type.

http://www.hagor.co.il/htmls/galleryW.aspx...2&BSP=12188

The ballistic plates are also rated to a standard, able to stop a certain sized round at a certain distance. Details here.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Paul Rigby]

Paul your theory that she was shot by the occupants of her car is about as legless as your theory Mir Amal Kasi wasn’t the CIA shooter

Curiously, Len, it's got you working over-time!

[Guest David Guyatt]

Paul your theory that she was shot by the occupants of her car is about as legless as your theory Mir Amal Kasi wasn’t the CIA shooter

Curiously, Len, it's got you working over-time!

Mind you Paul, the "shooter-in-the-car" theory appears to have been the case in the Yitzak Rabin assassination and held up extremely well under considerable scrutiny. And I have a feeling that you could be right.

If you recall, official history has it that Rabin was shot "twice" by a young Jewish zealot from behind. I watched the tape of it taking place and yup, clearly two shots were fired from behind. But the really curious thing is that a third shot (a "contact" shot) to the chest appears to have been the death shot - according to the surgeon who attended Rabin when he was "slowly" rushed to hospital.

"Slowly" rushed to hospital... as in the Diana case.

( Filed away someplace, I still have a copy of the Ichilov hospital surgeon's hand written notes on this, btw ).

These people are experts at changing history and modifying facts. Thereafter all they need is for their trained spinners -- "bots that trot" so to speak -- to trot out the prepared newspeak story to befuddle hearts and minds.

I suppose they consider the after event news coverage to be the least of their problems, in view of the hugely compliant and supine media organisations. The critical thing is to make certain that the assassination is succesful. One way or another. Thereafter, in the scheme of things, the "spin" can be easily managed.

[Len Colby]

Paul your theory that she was shot by the occupants of her car is about as legless as your theory Mir Amal Kasi wasn’t the CIA shooter

Curiously, Len, it's got you working over-time!

Mind you Paul, the "shooter-in-the-car" theory appears to have been the case in the Yitzak Rabin assassination and held up extremely well under considerable scrutiny. And I have a feeling that you could be right.

I presume that one reason much of the public at large is scornful of “conspiracy theories” is that so many of them are based on the flimsiest of evidence and ignore overwhelm contrary evidence.

Paul’s theory Bhutto was shot by someone in the car is a case in point. It is predicated on the presumption she was shot in the abdomen or somewhere else well below the car’s roofline. So far only one person Naik says that this was the case. He was not in the car and seemingly didn’t see her after she was attacked, he cited the people who were in the car. He was contradicted by numerous people several of who were top PPP officials who saw Bhutto after the attack including the people in the car Naik cited, Rehman who Paul cited and the doctors who treated her. The other witnesses and even the government gave consistent accounts of injuries to the side of her head and or her neck but not anywhere below.

The problem with these baseless theories is that people often conflate them with reports of skullduggery like the faking of intelligence regarding WMD’s in Iraq, the ‘fixing’ of US elections since 2000, the quashing of global warming data, the cover-up of the toxicity of the area around Ground Zero and the probable conspiracy to kill JFK for which evidence is strong or in some cases conclusive. Unless there is a reduction in the “chaff” few people will take much interest in the “wheat”.

[Ron Ecker]

the "shooter-in-the-car" theory appears to have been the case in the Yitzak Rabin assassination and held up extremely well under considerable scrutiny.

It has been speculated that the case was the same in the Reagan shooting. According to the official story, one of Hinckley's bullets (seemingly from the magic-bullet cache used previously on JFK and RFK) ricocheted off the side of the car just right to hit Reagan standing behind the back door. But by Reagan's own account, he didn't know he was hit and felt no pain at all until he was inside the car and his bodyguard fell on him. Feeling a sharp pain on the impact, Reagan told him, "I think you've broken my rib."

If Reagan was shot in the car (with a silencer?), with Hinckley already overpowered and disarmed, Reagan, conscious and talking, couldn't be shot again. But I'd be curious to know how quickly the driver got him to a hospital. (Wrong turns here and there?) All to no avail, the old man wouldn't die.

The moral? If at first you don't succeed, with Rabin make sure it works.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Paul Rigby]

Mind you Paul, the "shooter-in-the-car" theory appears to have been the case in the Yitzak Rabin assassination and held up extremely well under considerable scrutiny. And I have a feeling that you could be right.

If you recall, official history has it that Rabin was shot "twice" by a young Jewish zealot from behind. I watched the tape of it taking place and yup, clearly two shots were fired from behind. But the really curious thing is that a third shot (a "contact" shot) to the chest appears to have been the death shot - according to the surgeon who attended Rabin when he was "slowly" rushed to hospital.

"Slowly" rushed to hospital... as in the Diana case.

Agreed, and good to see such an apposite example instanced. I would also add the remarkable case of Fred Woodruff, the CIA station chief who was the victim of the Georgian "package."

These people are experts at changing history and modifying facts. Thereafter all they need is for their trained spinners -- "bots that trot" so to speak -- to trot out the prepared newspeak story to befuddle hearts and minds.

Enough of Len Colby...

I suppose they consider the after event news coverage to be the least of their problems, in view of the hugely compliant and supine media organisations. The critical thing is to make certain that the assassination is succesful. One way or another. Thereafter, in the scheme of things, the "spin" can be easily managed.

Again, agreed - the job, first and last, is to destroy the target, which is why I think a "gut" shot is overwhelmingly likely. The video footage of the youthful assassin in the shades is a) merely the inner layer of deception and powerful evidence of the uncertainty of this method. (Look how unstable the hand is...) To make sure, really sure, one needs to be both direct and positive ie up close and able to observe the results.

Paul

[Len Colby]

the job, first and last, is to destroy the target, which is why I think a "gut" shot is overwhelmingly likely.

There was no “gut shot”, find me someone who saw her after the attack who said there was or get over it.

The video footage of the youthful assassin in the shades is a) merely the inner layer of deception and powerful evidence of the uncertainty of this method. (Look how unstable the hand is...)

You can judge how steady a hand is in a jerky low resolution video? My my your forensic abilities are amazing! They must have got the guy from "the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" Are you sure your not seeing his hand move from the recoil? But the gunman's accuracy is a bit moot since he might well have missed, the surgeons who treated her said she was struck by shrapnel not bullets, try and keep up.

Enough of Len Colby...

Enough of crackpot theories that ignore the overwhelming weight of available evidence.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

IT'S ABOUT TIME!

[Paul Rigby]

Enough of crackpot theories that ignore the overwhelming weight of available evidence.

You couldn't be more right - now practice what you preach, and stop offering us anything emanating from, or filtered through, the motley assortment of murderers and thugs known as the Pakistan government. The latter is as credible as George "We don't torture" Bush.

Have a splendid New Year!

Paul

[Evan Burton]

People! At this stage, we still don't really know too much what happened. There are a few vids available for the event itself, but they don't clearly show rounds hitting targets, tell us intentions, etc.

Although I am inclined to believe it was a "simple" assassination by her political enemies (i.e. no extra-national involvement) we simply don't know. Speculation at this time is expected and should be encouraged. Reasons in support of - or refuting - such speculation is also to be expected and encouraged. The problem is that there is little if any evidence for the speculation (at this time) so being asked to provided evidence to support that speculation may be quite difficult... even if the speculation is quite accurate. If you think the speculation is wrong, then by all means say so. If you think the speculation is correct, then please say so. The onus of supporting such speculation - at this stage - does not really apply (unless you make a really wild speculation, such as "It was actually Elvis who fired the fatal shot using a M61 Vulcan canon, which was mounted in a flying saucer to the rear of the car, but cannot be seen because it was covered by holographic projections of clear sky."

THAT sort of speculation requires at least some evidence to be seriously considered.

[Paul Rigby]

The onus of supporting such speculation - at this stage - does not really apply (unless you make a really wild speculation, such as "It was actually Elvis who fired the fatal shot using a M61 Vulcan canon, which was mounted in a flying saucer to the rear of the car, but cannot be seen because it was covered by holographic projections of clear sky."

THAT sort of speculation requires at least some evidence to be seriously considered.

Be careful, Evan, any one capable of producing such an imaginative, albeit satirical, scenario may yet find himself fielding a recruitment pitch from the ISI or its master!

[Mark Stapleton]

As I write, we have been told that the cause of death was head trauma caused when Bhutto dropped from her through-the-sunroof perch after having been shot. Immediately we are put in mind of the Rabin hit, and how evidence suggests that he might have been killed after initial shots were fired and he entered his security vehicle.

Who was inside her SUV?

Outstanding - the practical application of the key paradigm.

From the POV of the beneficiaries of the war on abstract nouns, the assassination is such a timely boon:

the nascent Caliphate gets nukes;

US special forces get bases on the Iran border;

India is compelled to move even further into the sea powers embrace;

the MIC gets a huge shot in the arm.

And that's only four. Yes, one sees at once why we can discount CIA involvement.

Paul

Good points Paul.

Although I just can't see the US allowing loose cannons control of the nukes. I reckon they have a team there just in case it gets too whacky. Not that we would ever hear about it.

[Len Colby]

Enough of crackpot theories that ignore the overwhelming weight of available evidence.

You couldn't be more right - now practice what you preach, and stop offering us anything emanating from, or filtered through, the motley assortment of murderers and thugs known as the Pakistan government. The latter is as credible as George "We don't torture" Bush.

Have a splendid New Year!

Paul

Great New Year to you to Paul (and everyone else!). I wrote this nursing a hangover so I hope it comes out alright. I couldn’t agree with you more about the regime in charge of Pakistan but let look at you claim that my evidence was “emanating from, or filtered through” them. Let’s see I’ve cited:

Bhutto’s husband regarding his refusing and autopsy and following who indicated Bhutto suffered injuries to her head and/or neck but not her body:

1. “Safdar Abbassi, her chief political adviser, who was sitting behind her.”
   
2. “Bhutto’s personal secretary Naheed Khan” who is Abbassi’s wife and was also in the car.
   
3. “Pakistan People’s Party information secretary Sherry Rehman, who was riding in the car behind Bhutto’s when it was attacked” also described as “Bhutto's close aide” and “Bhutto's spokeswoman” she was one of the people who bathed Bhutto’s body for burial.
   
4. “Babar Awan, a senior official of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, ...[who] said he'd seen her body after the attack”
   
5. “At least seven doctors from the Rawalpindi General Hospital – where the leader was rushed immediately after the attack”
   

I’ve only cite Pakistani government sources on two points were they agree with the above i.e. 1) it was Bhutto’s widower who declined an autopsy and 2) she suffered injuries to her head/neck and not the trunk of her body.

Your only source is “Farooq Naik, Bhutto's top lawyer and a senior official in the PPP” who by his own account WASN’T in the car and didn’t indicate he saw her body after she died. His sources were Khan who contradicted him and

So unless your theory would have to be that the doctors at the hospital and five of Bhutto’s top advisors including her husband were “in on it”. The former is unlikely because as previously noted the legal director of the hospital was the person who complained about the lack of an autopsy and they (the doctors) complained to the Washington Post that they’ve been pressured by the government to “to remain silent”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

As for the latter (that her top advisors killed her) it’s had to believe that Bhutto who seems to have been a master politician could had such poor judgment but if that were the case and her top advisors were willing to betray her she posed no threat to anyone and would have been more useful as a live pseudo-opposition puppet than a dead martyr.

Oh and here for your perusal is the medical report from the hospital concerning here death it was signed by seven of the doctors who treated her it was faxed to the WP by the hospital's legal director..

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world...ort_010108.html

Her injury close to her ear is described in detail but no mention is made of an injury below the neck except for a “Fractured rib due to resuscitive thoracotomy” it concludes

“CAUSE OF DEATH Open head injury with depressed skull fracture leading to cardiopulmanory arrest”

Did the US government have a role in her assassination? I wouldn’t put such a thing past them but it seems unlikely because she was the most politically viable politician who wanted to crackdown on the Islamists. Was Musharraf or someone else in the government responsible? That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Was she shot by someone in the car? No, all the evidence indicates otherwise, not even Naik said that. So when you come up with a theory that actually has some evidence to back it up get back to us.

PS – Makhdoom Amin Fahim another top party official was in the car as well according to Naik as were I presume her husband and a driver. I haven’t been able to find were any of them said anything about where she was injured.

EDIT - Formated for clairity, broken image links fixed

Edited January 1, 2008 by Len Colby