Benazir Bhutto is dead

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2007-12-27 09:07am

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, aides said.

Yahoo! News

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2007-12-27 09:11am

Fuckin' oath.

Given the number of attempts on her life, it seemed like it was only a matter of time before this happened.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2007-12-27 09:15am

Well, shit. To be honest, I'm actually surprised that the assassins managed to fuck up their attempts until now. I mean, wasn't she riding around in an open vehicle a few months ago? Still, it looks like Musharraf has another excuse to clamp down again.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-27 09:18am

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-12-27 09:20am

She's not dead yet:

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (AP) - Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was seriously injured and was undergoing surgery Thursday after she was wounded in a suicide attack that killed at least 20 other people, a party aide said.

Graniud[/quote]

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-12-27 09:20am

Oh, now she is.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-12-27 09:21am

Beeb

Benazir Bhutto 'killed in blast'
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack, a military spokesman has announced on TV.

Earlier reports said Ms Bhutto had only been injured and taken to hospital.

Ms Bhutto had just addressed a pre-election rally in the town of Rawalpindi when the bomb went off.

At least 15 other people are reported killed in the attack and several more were injured. Ms Bhutto had twice been the country's prime minister.

She had been campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

The BBC's Barbara Plett says the killing is likely to provoke an agonised response from her followers, especially from her loyal following in Sindh Province.

The PPP has the largest support of any party in the country.

Scene of grief

The explosion occurred close to an entrance gate of the park in Rawalpindi where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.

Wasif Ali Khan, a member of the PPP who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital, said she died at 1816 (1316 GMT).

Supporters at the hospital began chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog", referring to President Pervez Musharraf, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

Some broke the glass door at the main entrance to the emergency unit as others wept.

A man with a PPP flag tied around his head could be seen beating his chest, the agency adds.

An interior ministry spokesman, Javed Cheema, was quoted as saying by AFP that she may have been killed by pellets packed into the suicide bomber's vest.

However, AP quoted a PPP security adviser as saying she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, before the gunman blew himself up.

Return from exile

The killing was condemned by the US and Russia, and a statement is expected shortly from the UK.

The killing undermined reconciliation in Pakistan, the US state department said.

Ms Bhutto returned from self-imposed exile in October after years out of Pakistan where she had faced corruption charges.

Her return was the result of a power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf in which he granted an amnesty that covered the court cases she was facing.

Since her return relations with Mr Musharraf had broken down.

On the day of her return she led a motor cavalcade through the city of Karachi. It was hit by a double suicide attack that left some 130 dead.

Earlier on Thursday at least four people were killed ahead of an election rally that Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was preparing to attend close to Rawalpindi.

Yeah, Pakistan is going to be slightly on edge for a bit.....

Post by **Gandalf** » 2007-12-27 09:22am

Well fuck.

I wonder where this'll lead?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2007-12-27 09:23am

I hope this does not start another civil war...

It's going to be the ugliest war the world has seen in many years...

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2007-12-27 09:28am

Hooboy. The only real chance for peaceful resolution in Pakistan just got blown into kibble. 'Not good' doesn't begin to describe the backlash once her followers swing around to battle_rage mode.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-27 09:33am

Not a shock. Anyone with a functioning brain could see her days were numbered.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the US or one of our western allies got hit by a suicicde attack with the next week. 9/11 followed the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan by less than 24 hours.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2007-12-27 11:47am

Diplomats and others are on the news here saying that there is a risk that Pakistan might implode (I guess one don't have to be a genius to understand the risk) and one thing immediately comes to mind: Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Even though the number seem to be low (25 to 100 warheads), what should be done to secure those?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-27 11:55am

Only the security of military installations and nuclear storage sites matters. The military must secure those. Until the military itself dissolves, there's little to worry about. If that happens, however, it's too late to do anything.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2007-12-27 12:20pm

Stas Bush wrote:Only the security of military installations and nuclear storage sites matters. The military must secure those. Until the military itself dissolves, there's little to worry about. If that happens, however, it's too late to do anything.

If worst comes to worse, couldn't strikes by outside military forces to secure or destroy these weapons be considered?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2007-12-27 12:33pm

That NOS Guy wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Only the security of military installations and nuclear storage sites matters. The military must secure those. Until the military itself dissolves, there's little to worry about. If that happens, however, it's too late to do anything.
If worst comes to worse, couldn't strikes by outside military forces to secure or destroy these weapons be considered?

Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2007-12-27 12:59pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?

How exactly would NYC and London be threatened immediately if the strikes went wrong?

Wouldn't a couple dozen loose nukes be far more dangerous in the grand scheme of things?

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2007-12-27 01:01pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?

Don't be an idiot. Pakistan lacks the delivery vehicles to reach either of those targets, while conventional terrorist attacks don't require nuclear material.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2007-12-27 01:03pm

Excrement, meet oscillator. Oh boy, this is not going to end well...

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2007-12-27 01:07pm

That place has been a powder keg waiting to explode. I'm surprised she was assasinated this soon. I thought the extremist/terrorist/jihadists were going to use Bhutto to get a larger foothold of power before they would have killed her.

I thought the same thing JME2 did when I first heard this on Fox radio...the fit's gonna hit the shan.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-12-27 01:47pm

That NOS Guy wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?
How exactly would NYC and London be threatened immediately if the strikes went wrong?

Wouldn't a couple dozen loose nukes be far more dangerous in the grand scheme of things?

Indeed, I doubt if Pakistan could hit BEIJING, let alone London. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure the Pakistani warheads are a bit too small to be easily concealable.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2007-12-27 01:50pm

Er, you mean too large, Chewie?

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-12-27 01:59pm

nickolay1 wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:Would you want to be in New York or London if that strike goes wrong?
Don't be an idiot. Pakistan lacks the delivery vehicles to reach either of those targets, while conventional terrorist attacks don't require nuclear material.

Pakistan may lack military delivery vehicles with direct capacity to deliver to target, but such weapons could be sold to other countries that have them. Or "vehicles" could be obtained. If the crew doesn't mind dying (and history shows that there are such people) you wouldn't need a military bomber - just a conventional ship, truck, or airplane to transport the device elsewhere, get close to the target, and detonate. Really, think "truck bomb" with the word "nuclear" in front of it.

On top of that, while terrorist attacks don't require nuclear material the "dirty bomb" scenario has been bandied about much these past few years and there's nothing like some weapons grade nuclear isotopes to really mess up the landscape. For that matter, you don't need radioactive material to assassinate people, either, but it wasn't that long ago someone used some very expensive dust to kill someone in the UK, was it?

The idea of nukes falling into the wrong hands is very, very scary. What should be done about it? Well, I don't think anyone should go charging in immediately, and I would certainly prefer a global consensus of the need for intervention if such came to pass, but it would seem to be an instance where military force to secure the weapons would be justified for the safety of the world's population. My feeling is that such weapons should be secured by a power that already possess nuclear arms, and I also feel, given the situation, that it would better for those arms to go to someone other than the US to prevent rising tensions and a perception that the US would benefit from/take advantage of such a thing (from a political standpoint, Russia might be a good choice since they are not seen as a US lapdog and have a very long experience dealing with nuclear problems) though I'd expect the assholes in DC to have a differing opinion.

I can, in fact, see a possibility of the Russians acting unilaterally to secure such weapons; or India, which had a stare-down with Pakistan not too many years ago after it became clear both nations had The Bomb.

But let's hope it does not come to that.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-12-27 02:03pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Indeed, I doubt if Pakistan could hit BEIJING, let alone London. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure the Pakistani warheads are a bit too small to be easily concealable.

Well, what if they just hit targets in India, which is also a nuclear power? India and Pakistan have a long-standing animosity, after all...

Seriously, even if such a conflict were limited to just those two nations there's no bandage big enough to cover the resulting boo-boo. Millions of people would be impacted if it came to that.

As I said - let's hope the lid can be kept on this particular pot. Mussarref is not my favorite person, but he is NOT the worst of all possible evils to be running Pakistan.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-12-27 02:09pm

White Haven wrote:Er, you mean too large, Chewie?

Yes. I meant too large.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 02:19pm

If Musharraf is overthrown by a hardline Islamic regime India will almost certainly attack Pakistani nuclear sites. There's no way they let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of a Talibanesque government.