2007-12-28 03:14:54 · 12 answers · asked by Francis Hannaway 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I think that "claiming" and being responsible for doing something are not always the same thing.
Of course, Al Qaida WOULD clain they'd done it . . . but did they really?
2007-12-28 03:28:25 · update #1
I dont think it was Al-Queda, People who killed her blaming on them........ I think it should be the politicians of pakistan did this to her as they know that there is no way TO WIN HER....
2007-12-28 03:30:17 · answer #1 · answered by senroy2000 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Musharaf.
It has been stated that now Bhutto is gone, Musharaf is the only remaining moderate who has any chance of stabilising the country.
Musharaf knows this and though he has blamed the terrorist, I have no doubt that he colluded with them in the assasination.
She was shot, that was the first report from eye witnesses, now some general in the Pakistan line up is saying she was not shot at all, she suffered head injuries.
Is it better for them to deny that she was shot because that would deflect attention from the government of Pakistan.
After all, if it was just the explosion that killed her then that would back up their claims that it was AlQueda. However, if she was also shot, then that opens up further questions such as
1) How did the gunman get a Kalashnikov rifle into the controlled area
2) A witness in hospital said he saw a 21 year old man raise a rifle, the witness reached out towards the rifle and an explosion went off. To raise a rifle and fire two shots with precision and hit their target, then to set off bomb would take a number of seconds, yet the witness made it sound like it was instantaneous.
Was she shot by someone else and then blown up by the bomber.
3) Why was no post mortem carried out?
2007-12-28 14:23:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about who is helped by her death and who is hurt by it.
We know that Bhutto and Musharaf were opponents, and Musharraf is not a paragon of virtue. However, Bhutto's murder makes him look bad and creates chaos in the country, so I don't think he's responsible.
In fact, the murder of Bhutto doesn't benefit any of her political rivals in the election, whether or not they would like her to disappear. Chaos and rioting are not conducive to running the country.
It seems to me that the beneficiaries are the terrorists, notably Al Qaeda, but other terrorist groups too. Chaos is to their advantage. The assassination of any important person would help them.
2007-12-28 11:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Quaieda
2007-12-28 11:17:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Al Qaeda has already claimed responsibility, working through the Taliban.
She was targeted because she was modern, liberal, unafraid, and advocated as much freedom as possible for her nation.
GREAT woman, and...except for a few cowards who hide in the shadows...a great loss to the entire world.
2007-12-28 11:25:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Taliban are Al Qaeda are even both together as usual.
You not hear it was lord lucan riding shergar while listening to elvis presley on his moblile phone that was given to lord lucan by one of the aliens from area 51.
2007-12-28 11:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
this is why i hate politics because the people behind it are power hungry greedy (up their own @rse) morons, this is why people like Bhutto get killed, it's all about power and money...it's pathetic.....
2007-12-28 13:25:49 · answer #7 · answered by Dazzlebox 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's PM! Pervez Musharaff. Everyone in Pakistan knows it!
2007-12-28 11:34:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Dick Cheney and George Bush
2007-12-28 11:21:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
its on the news that al-qaeda claimed to have done it
2007-12-28 11:17:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋