What do they gain from her death?
2007-12-29 16:48:32 · 11 answers · asked by Emtie El © 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
100% false. They would have owned up to it....the CIA has even publicly ruled it out as there are at leas 60 separate Violent Islamic Extremist groups that operate individually and this is extreme speculation. I would take it from her own e mail that if she was killed who it would be...they really had nothing to gain and merely shrugged it off in an Oct. statement by Zawahiri that she was a US backed political toy...but usually al qaeda are quite happy to brag publicly of their involvement directly in something.....these 60 splinter groups that operate in Pakistan are not technically linked to al qaeda although the ideals are the same for the most part.
The only thing al qaeda had to gain is publicity from their notoriety on her death without doing nothing and if given that only falsely informs the public that al qaeda is a generic term for hundreds of seperatists terrorist movements meanwhile they sit back and get all the credit. I am sure is something they enjoy.
2007-12-29 17:30:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was supposedly proved recently though that Al Qaeda wasn't involved in the assassination of Bhutto but that a local Taliban leader was the person who had his men carry out the assassination. Please remember that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are different groups but share similar views.
From this Al Qaeda and the Taliban both get freedom to move around the tribal lands of Pakistan while the government struggles for its own survival, notoriety from the attack that may attract more followers, to not have a person as Prime Minister that claimed she would allow the US into Pakistan and would hunt Al Qaeda and stem the rise of terrorism, to not have a woman as President (Al Qaeda see women as almost like servants to men, being less than men in power), and a chance to unite the Al Qaeda groups within Pakistan.
2008-01-05 17:50:30 · answer #2 · answered by middleeastconflict 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically Bhutto was a western dog. She would be elected in year 2008 and she would stand on U.S. side. Then, U.S. are easily to get into Pakistan and clean up Al Q_'s network.
Although Mushraff helped U.S., Al Q_ still able to maintain a low profile in Pakistan.
Obviously, Al Q_ would love Mushraff instead of Bhutto.
Nevertheless, people always love conspiracy theory. After looking at the video crip, the gun man was more like European. The following is a conspiracy.
Since Muslim or Al Q_ loved Russian weapons, they would use Russian guns. The style of Al Q_ would use bomb instead of gun. However, the gun for assasination was a Walther P99 which is usually used by MI6.
It seems that Bhutto was double crossing Britain and Alliance. She would receive bribe from Al Q_ and allowed more freedom to them. Then Alliance was not happy on her betray. MI6 took the action to do some housekeeping.
2007-12-29 20:12:23 · answer #3 · answered by giginotgigi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disruption of even a thugocracy like Pakistan creates a power vacuum.... a vacuum that the Al Q folks want to fill so they can institute their own form of thugocracy. George Bush has repeated called Pakistan a 'democracy'...what a crock...it's no more a democracy than Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is just another 'terrorist' state that for now is on 'our side. Change the algebra and suddenly it won't be 'on our side'. This is why I've been writing for years that the US needs to get entirely out of the muslim dominated world. These bums use us or kill us, but they for certain don't intend to be our 'friend'. Since there's no way to 'civilize' these people, and no matter how much we believe in the 'white mans burden', common sense dictates that we get out of there and we don't import their oil either. Eventually we're going to have to get out of there anyway. Sorry, but no matter how much you 'support the troops' history is against us. No kiddin'!
2007-12-29 17:24:31 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is to be probed and established. But Madam Bhutto herself expressed some doubts like this. Anyway, Al Qaeda do not like democratic set up that too a woman to head such a Govt. Rather, their core base is "religion" and application of "force" to rule which we have witnessed elsewhere.
2007-12-29 17:15:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
some achievable circumstances. Al Qaeda did no longer kill Bhutto. Bin encumbered is lifeless and the tapes of threats are years previous and only trotted out by utilising the U. S. government while they could desire to scare human beings into believing interior the conflict on terror lower back.
2016-10-20 09:10:00 · answer #6 · answered by poore 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaida is not a reasonable group. Mrs Bhutto was simply a living icon of everything they fight against. e.g.: non-muslim-radicalism, democracy, equality, and hope for peace...it's just something Islamic terrorist groups can't stand.
2007-12-29 17:49:16 · answer #7 · answered by pegasegirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bhutto was pro-democracy and Al Quaeda is not pro democracy so it would be in their best interest to make sure that she did not regain power in Pakistan.
Also, Al Quaeda backs a fundamenalist Muslim religion based government, and again a democracy would be a threat to this style of government.
2007-12-29 16:55:35 · answer #8 · answered by bubbagirl 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, Al Qaeda was supported by the Taliban, who treated women with contempt (under the theory that women are responsible for facilitating immorality).
In any event, any extremists are against a woman who is out there to fight for the rights of women.
2007-12-29 16:56:12 · answer #9 · answered by perfectlybaked 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Extremists do not like women with power.
2007-12-30 00:50:04 · answer #10 · answered by J.B. Holiday 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋