Re: The CIA assessment concurred - #By cyrena, January 18: “Then there is your standard other shit, (all common for psychotics of varying stripes) like MY ‘legal mind’...”

So disappointing that you failed to see that I did directly answer your question about who was responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, cyrena. The fact that I didn’t do so in 10 words or less might not sit comfortably with your imagined IQ, though.

That you maintain that your academic field is “Law and Society” yet you harass me with threats of ”...I might one day be able to kick your ass into the next century…” is rather less palatable, though. Can you access professional counselling where you work? It would save me having to seek a restraining order.

Your utter inability to respond on this blog in a normal way that a normal or logically thinking person might indicates some issue you are having with your fantasies (or delusions). Frankly, I do NOT want to be the butt of your personal insults which have become quite creepy of late. Does your employer know about your behaviour?

But, in regard to this topic, it is interesting to note how legal minds in the USA are so essentially unbalanced as a result of supporting such an unconscionable regime as the Bush gangster administration. A recent history of Guantanamo, a fake attorney-general and a host of other human rights infringements has left them all rather disillusioned, to say the least.

Thus, the personal insecurity and low self-esteem and pathetic needy mentality sets them off on a tangent of further erroneous action. Sad, though, that it has become the new standard for your type, cyrena. It won’t take much, then, for the US “homeland” to evolve into a totalitarian state with such people in effective control.

Having paper qualifications is one thing. Having a sane mind is quite another. In the end, you will all surrender your minds and your souls to the Neocon god and the corporate machine as it reaches into your depths through fear and enticement - if it hasn’t already succeeded. It has already taken over the minds of many, as we know.

That you have all become unbalanced is one thing. The more violent are always the easiest to co-opt and control in the service of the state machine - just put them in uniform. Already being an officer of a corrupted court system, the veil of civilization is soon dispensed with. The Nazis knew this, uhh - you are so easily molded.

Eventually, you will be deliriously happy to do whatever you are told. You are already, to some degree with your instilled aggressions. Thus, the USA is not any different, really, from its “client states” of S.Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq or even the counter regimes of Russia and China. It is all an illusion cunningly designed to enslave you - and has done so for more than a century, already.

Intelligence officials on both sides of the Atlantic question al Qaeda role in Bhutto killing

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Intelligence_officials_on_both_sides_of_0118.html

“Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, President Bush, CIA Director Michael Hayden, and news reports have all claimed that al Qaeda was responsible. However, some current and former US and British intelligence officials now say the evidence points instead to Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), the country’s security services.”
_

“... when asked about the allegations that Mehsud, and thus al Qaeda, is behind the assassination, one former high-ranking CIA case officer replied, “That is total bullshit.”

“US intelligence officials believe that the use of guns against multiple targets distinctly points AWAY from al Qaeda, whose standard methods of operation are designed to minimize the cost to the organization by causing the most damage possible from a single resource.
_

“The use of snipers and gunmen as assassins, say intelligence sources, does not support the theory that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. These sources added that if Mehsud was involved, it could have only been on contract through the ISI. One US official concluded that if “Mehsud is in fact behind this, then it would be more of an indictment against the ISI than against al Qaeda.”
_

“In the case of the Bhutto assassination, these sources view the shooting as an act of murder, not an act of terrorism ... they believe that the bombing that followed the shooting was aimed at eliminating the shooter and removing evidence of the assassination.”
_

“He [the shooter] was killed, probably not knowing that the suicide bomber was there,” said this source. “We don’t know for sure if the two men arrived together. We do know that the assassin died in the explosion, and was probably meant to.”

“Several other US intelligence officials concur that the bomber was likely “inserted” to “clean up” evidence of the shooting, including eliminating the gunman.”

“The real question for most of these sources is not “who,” but rather “how.” All of them are inclined to believe that factions of the ISI, either with or without the knowledge and backing of Musharraf, were involved in the assassination at the management level.
_

“Although the ISI has existed since the 1940s, it became truly a world player during the Afghan-Soviet war, when many groups of foreign fighters – the Mujahedeen – worked as proxy warriors for Western nations against the Russians and were managed through the ISI. The ISI recruited, trained, and even housed many of these young fighters as they were readied for battle. For its efforts, the ISI was paid by the West as well, as by other nations in the region, [*] including Saudi Arabia and Israel.”
_

[*] INSERT USA via CIA, which is why I am inclined to believe the former high-ranking CIA case officer, when he says the notion that al Qaeda did it is “total bullshit.”

ISI working with covert agents from elsewhere, including the US-CIA were players in the struggle for control of that area long before the Afghan-Soviet war. Al Qaeda is a relatively new [created] kid on the block. But serves well as the culprit behind the assassination, because al Qaeda is essential to keeping the deception of GWOT alive and well. 

In other words, if it comes from an official currently in favor with the rulers in DC ... it probably isn’t true!

However, the need to keep al-Qaeda at the surface of the collective American brain is!

We are all asking the wrong question. The question should be, WHO BENEFITS? The assassination certainly HAS NOT improved Musharaff’s image in the world!

Bhutto was murdered, not by “a” person, but by the collective ignorance and distorted attitude of a people numbed by decades of disinformation and lies.

This tragedy is not limited to 3rd world or “lesser” nations. It visits ALL nations who have failed to honestly embrace and practise a philosophy expressed in what is called the Golden Rule.

We must learn to LIVE together in peace or we will surely DIE together in a global conflagration. The choice is ours.

You have some very serious psychological issues Chalmers, and you should address them.

I asked you who YOU thought, (after your very bizarre and contorted post, that has nothing to do with anything, and rarely does) was responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. You haven’t suggested anything of course, because you just write to write, and to insult people.

Then there is your standard other shit, (all common for psychotics of varying stripes) like MY ‘legal mind’, or your constant hype about “lawyers” in general, despite the fact that I’ve told you more than a few jillion times, that I am NOT a lawyer. I’m an academic, and my field is Law and Society. I do not practice the only kind of law that you are apparently familiar with, and I don’t ever intend to. So, I’m really not sure why you go on and on about that.

I also don’t have any particular ‘fantasies’ about Barack Obama, or ANYONE ELSE! I’m very grateful for my ‘middle-aged’ status, and there is little time for me to ‘fantasize” about anything more than the totally unlikely possibility, that I might one day be able to kick your ass into the next century. Now that of course is a fantasy, and even that is not something that I waste much time on.

So, I asked you a question, like who YOU think might be responsible for Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, and in all of your personal insecurity and low self-esteem, and pathetic needy mentality, you had to go off on a tangent. Again, very standard for you.

So, STOP your ‘fantasizing’ about ME, because it’s a waste, and it creeps me out. You can find somebody else to pick on around here. And, if you can’t answer the question, in a normal way that a normal or logically thinking person might, (and we know you can’t) then just say you don’t know, (although we know THAT’S never gonna happen.) Or, just change the subject like you usually do. But leave the personal insults out. I’m not the one who needs the analyst. I do a perfectly good job representing myself, as who I am…nothing more, and nothing less.

You’ve got issues Chalmers…really LARGE ones.

Re: The CIA assessment concurred with - By cyrena, January 18: “...then who do YOU think did it? It would have had to be a non-Muslim of course… Must have been the CIA then, eh…”

You are becoming as hopelessly naive as the title of this article, cyrena, uhh. “Closing in” is spurious juvenile journalistic garbage when it is already known that an assassination is an arranged murder and that those who would most want Benazir Bhutto murdered are also known.

Who actually pulled the trigger is of little significance, unless, as it was later postulated, the shot actually came from a rife. Then it could have indeed been someone in uniform. Any specialist in Pakistan would know that the military have been trying to get rid of her and have repeatedly done so at their every opportunity.

That is exactly why A Khokar is now pretending to be “Feeling deeply sorry…”, as sarcastic as his comments about BB’s death really are (“dwindled right on its stem before it could blossom”, ha ha). His is typical of the attitudes of those in the Pakistani military who love their boys’s club so much that they are unable to see that they should be serving their country and not themselves.

But that is exactly what has happened and the Paki military dotes on the USA for $billions of “aid” in guns and bombs to support the Neocon agenda in their region. And they wonder why it was once so easy for the English to control them (and India) in the past. They are such fools, uhh.

So, what A Khokar really means is “love for all MEN in his army and hatred for none except those who would have WOMEN in government. Now you know where to go find your murderers, cyrena. Such is their hypocrisy (of democracy) as it is the Talebans’ hypocrisy (of religion) to oppress all women. Thus they are the same.

Further, BB also indicated that the Taleban were IN Karachi - not just in some remote tribal mountain region - and that Al Qaeda were IN Islamabad, too. Obviously, though, your poor legal mind is as incapable of understanding that as you were of addressing your sexual fantasies over Barack Obama which your lot (frustrated middle-aged women and dumb 20-somethings who obstinately refuse to believe that their mothers are right) which were leading you to lynching anyone who dared to disagree.

Little will be let known of Benazir Bhutto that who killed her?
A tragic loss for Pakistan; Certainly she fell a victim to the bigger Neocon’s games in this area.

Feeling deeply sorry for a bud; dwindled right on its stem before it could blossom.
——————————————
Love for all, Hatred for none

What a surprise it was the Taliban.I am sure if it was Musharaff he would have turned himself in.Bring in international investrigators and have them give as honest an opinion as they can to who did it.To hear Musharaff and the CIA give their opinion on who did it could not be more irrelevant.

....her ambition ! She had been signed her death certificate herself ! So now just rest in peace (?).

•  But again, note that still no-one has said anything about BB’s statements in her interview with David Frost on the BBC in Britain in December regarding what she said about the death of Osama bin Laden.

Douglas, do you really EXPECT anybody to acknowledge this? Hell, that might be the reason she was assassinated.

•  In that interview, she also mentioned Mahsud and Hamsa bin Laden as possibly wanting to kill her. How convenient then for the Paki ISI and the CIA to not have to go further than her own words.

Well, they haven’t blamed Hasama bin Laden for it, just Mahsud. (and they only ‘suspect’ him.) Besides, they’ll blame anybody. They didn’t need this to be ‘convenient’, and why would they focus on her particular words in THAT instance, when she said UBL had been murdered, in practically the same breath?

•  Interesting, though, that Mahsud has categorically denied involvement in the first attack on Bhutto in an interview in which he had quoted Islamic custom that a woman should not be harmed. That would also indicate that he had no intention of making any attack subsequently either.
Well then GEE Chalmers, that settles it then, eh? I mean, if Mahsud has ‘categorically denied’ any involvement, than OF COURSE he couldn’t possibly be lying. Perish the thought. I mean after all, he quoted that Islamic custom that ‘a woman should not be harmed’. So, all of those women that are routinely killed in Afghanistan for those hideous infractions, (like trying to provide schools for young girls) are all just a figment of our imagination, well because he quoted that Islamic custom. Would that be the same custom that forbids suicide? They’re pretty strong on that one as well.
And ya know, you’re starting to sound like Maani in these observations of ‘what that would indicate’. I mean, having put forth that quote, it OBVIOUSLY ‘indicates’ that he had NO INTENTIONS of making any ‘subsequent’ attacks, DESPITE the fact that you ALSO just reminded us that Benazir herself, said exactly that. (making it convenient for the ISI and the CIA)

So, how many times have you contradicted yourself on this short post? Did you write this just because you didn’t have anything else to do? Hell, you could have had your best dream fulfilled, and hung out with Hillary a few hours ago. Instead, you’re writing this nonsensical stuff.
So, if Mahsud didn’t do it, (even though Benazir suggested he might want to) because of that thing where they don’t harm women, then who do YOU think did it? It would have had to be a non-Muslim of course, because they don’t harm women, just like they don’t do suicides.

Must have been the CIA then, eh? We could hire you out as a CSI specialist in Pakistan. Or maybe even a ‘global’ CSI specialist.

Or maybe an International Sam Spade…

The CIA assessment concurred with that of Pakistani officials…”

The CIA believes….. The intelligence official said he could not disclose how the CIA had reached that conclusion…”

Ha ha, the CIA said, ha ha! Nice how they all denied Benazir Bhutto’s accusations of ”...the ISI or any other organization within the Pakistan government in the plot…” but that she was assassinated soon after.

But again, note that still no-one has said anything about BB’s statements in her interview with David Frost on the BBC in Britain in December regarding what she said about the death of Osama bin Laden.

In that interview, she also mentioned Mahsud and Hamsa bin Laden as possibly wanting to kill her. How convenient then for the Paki ISI and the CIA to not have to go further than her own words. After all, they have already tried to absolve themselves by blaming BB for her own death - first that she bumped her head and then that she exposed herself to risk.

Interesting, though, that Mahsud has categorically denied involvement in the first attack on Bhutto in an interview in which he had quoted Islamic custom that a woman should not be harmed. That would also indicate that he had no intention of making any attack subsequently either.

Militants Commander Baitullah Mahsud has contradicted reports about his or group involvement in assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
“Killing or aggression against a woman is contrary to tribal traditions,” remarked Baitullah Mahsud’s spokesman Maulvi Omar in telephonic calls to media offices…..

On such grounds “We condemn killing of Benazir Bhutto. “She was highly respectable politician at international level,” he added….. “We condemn brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto,” he concluded. The spokesman, at each and every level during his brief chat with media offices, called Benazir Bhutto as “Shaheed and Mohtarama (respectable).” http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/65063/47752

This has all already been discussed on previous Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto topics on Truthdig recently. By the way, there are some ethnic Mahsuds in the Pakistan army, too.