Could USA via CIA be responcible for the killing of Bhutto, knowing that they do not like a powerful state in that region, Iraq war threats to Iran, and, too, there are nuclear arms there under the control of the army?
2007-12-29 03:06:19 · 26 answers · asked by Billboy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No - Al Queda is to blame and is not above killing women and children
2007-12-29 03:08:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is USA that control President Mush.Pakistan is not a powerful State in the region.It had fought several wars with India and surrendered.Half of Pakistan was separated in a war and became Bangladesh.USA or CIA is not afraid of Pakistan.Bhutto assasination might have been mastered by Mush only.
2007-12-31 20:10:49 · answer #2 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cia ....possibility
Don't see it as the U.S. has much bigger fish to fry in that region and Bhutto was more of a help to the states than a hinderance
i do belive it was Al Quaida
2007-12-29 03:09:44 · answer #3 · answered by banjaxed 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why would the US want to kill her? The US has been pushing for free democratic elections in Pakistan.
Martial law and the suspension of the constitution in Pakistan was lifted due to huge political pressure from the US on Musharraf.
What we have here is a WOMAN running for the top position in an almost ALL MUSLIM country, gee I wonder why anyone there would want her dead!!
Whoever killed her more than likely had a copy of the Koran in their hand and yelled ALLAH AKBAR before they did it, of that I can assure you.
What your dealing with here is a region of the world were SOME not ALL men believe that it is ok to simply kill a woman when she does not adhere to their warped sense of a womans place in society.
2007-12-29 03:12:27 · answer #4 · answered by h h 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Just because she was for democracy doesn't mean the U.S. wouldn't have benefitted even more from her assassination. In case people do not know, the CIA is controlled by the executive branch. They have been since about 2002 or 2003.
Edit:
Let me make it simply for people to understand. Al Qaeda infiltrated the U.S., hijacked our air planes, and crashed them into the twin towers successfully on their first attempt. There have been multiple failed assassination attempts against Bhutto, which Al Qaeda finally succeeded. So basically, its far harder for Al Qaeda to assassinate a single individual than to cause 9/11? Uh huh, sure.
Was strictly the U.S. behind it? Probably not, but I bet you the U.S. did play a part in the assassination.
2007-12-29 03:09:30 · answer #5 · answered by Arcanum Noctis 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It is more like Musharrah did it on his own to get rid of Bhutto as she was going to win the upcoming election. Just as Bush puts all the blame on the al-Qaeda, Musharrah has done the same thing blaming the terrorists. Musharrah just cannot let all that corruption money from the US go to anyone else but him and his bushie cronies.
2007-12-29 03:15:16 · answer #6 · answered by !truth! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
How would killing Bhutto resolve the questions you have raised?
2007-12-29 03:10:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If it's only as likely as the US attacking itself then there is a possibility - but for my money look no further than the the man who does not want to be deposed. What chance of any democracy in Pakistan now!
2007-12-29 05:35:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes and the USA (Bush Administration) is also responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs
2007-12-29 22:03:51 · answer #9 · answered by R. Guetive 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is here:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj9aaczuX0.aQjmeWS9L3zQhBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20071227185557AAucuat
Greetings.
From United Kingdom.
2007-12-31 21:19:38 · answer #10 · answered by ƟƝƂƏƙƎƝƉƐ ƘƦăƒƑƭƐƃƖƞĝ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah right, take out a strong popular leader from a nuclear ally. The notion is preposterous
2007-12-29 03:10:27 · answer #11 · answered by ©2009 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋