Thursday, December 27, 2007

Bhutto Killed In Pakistan in Political Assassination

Who would want to prop up Musharraf when Bhutto was a moderate alternative to his dictatorship? Musharraf, the CIA and Mossad, of course.

Any chance of a moderate government for Pakistan is lost now.

Pakistan goes over to the dark side, that's the big tamale right there. Now the radical fundamentalists will surge based on the notion that it is the only way to unseat Musharraf.

Australia is a good example of this sort of political mechanism in action. We didn't vote for Kevin Rudd, we voted to unseat our resident dictator and U.S. handpuppet John Howard. Everybody here knows Kevin Rudd is an incompetent Marxist loser. It would not have mattered who stood against Howard, Australians would have voted for him.

Radicals attain control generally because of massive shifts against the current party in power when they have come to seem invulnerable. Another example was Germany in 1929 - it seemed like Bolshevism was an unstoppable force internally that was going to deliver the German people into the hands of Russia. Germans supported Hitler not because they thought he was a good choice but rather that he seemed the only force capable of counterbalancing the nuts on the other side of the fence.

John Howard was making people afraid. It appeared he was no longer even accountable to us at all. So people voted for anybody but him. That's what they got ... anybody.

Pakistan is going to see-saw into something far worse than most imagine. It's going to be bad.


Public Servant sucking at the public teat said...

And Howard got in because he wasn't Paul Keating and because, unlike his predecessor, he lied about bringing in a new tax.

Howard is one of the biggest losers in History. Only beaten by Hewson and Latham who both lost "unloseable" elections.

FWIW - Howard - the second longest serving PM and the second PM to ever lose his seat. Forever number two.

CadorBolin said...

I admit I'm not very knowledgeable of the internal political matters of Pakistan. I've always assumed that Bhutto was a ZOG stooge because she got good press in the Western media. I was wondering what Musharraf did to piss off the neocons because they were talking badly about him for the past few weeks and talking her up as the viable opposition candidate.

If a REAL election were held in Pakistan, the Osama Bin Laden Candidates List Party would win in a landslide.

Looking at geopolitics by asking ourselves the question: "How does this hurt or benefit Israel?" explains about 80% of what is going on in the world. However, the 20% is the complicated stuff that probably involves intra-party disputes where the big players squabble over turf. I suspect that the Bhutto assassination is part of that 20%.

Anonymous said...

If Pakistan erupt into an all out civil war than the US and/or India have no choice but to intervene.

If the paki nukes fall into the hands of the Taleban, or worse, the black market then we're screwed.

Looks like there's a good chance we'll be seeing mushroom clouds in january.


Anonymous said...

It is a big pot
will take a while to really boil
but it is already at simmer
6 months to become a real threat
2 months for the nuts to get power
2 months to fix any remaining opposition
and 2 months to sort themselves out
Second half of 08
that time when everything else happens!

el-mujaheed said...


Texas Arcane said...

Bhutto was a ZOG stooge. She was being groomed as the moderate to replace Musharraf. They had it all planned out how it would go.

Either she said something that didn't suit them or she sympathized with some faction they realized could mean big trouble if she got in. Overnight she went from adored in the media to suspect of some malfeasance according to them. Once they withdrew their support you knew her days were numbered.

So they blew her up.

Another dumb move by people dumb enough to think you could conquer Aghanistan in a month.

Anonymous said...

@El Mujaheed:

No it was crazy muslims who did that. The zionists were the ones pulling their strings.

"Al Qaida" is nothing but a tool.


Chesterton said...

@Rzero, El Mujaheed:

Not according to Nyquist and a few others. They say Al Qaida has much stronger ties to the KGB - which makes sense, since 9/11 and the ensuing wars helped Russia more than anyone, Israel included.

Anonymous said...

Good point however the Russians did attack afghanistan in the 80's.

And muslims never forget. I belive the russian role is more in supplying of arms than in actual planning.


Chesterton said...

It's not really about arms, it's about oil. Here's what I see happening:

The more unstable the Middle East is, the more oil Russia gets to export to Europe. Isn't it funny how Russia became a dominant exporter of oil exactly after 9/11? The more oil Europe buys from Russia, the more dependent they become.

In addition, the Iraq war has made America extremely unpopular in Europe. Dependence on Russia, hate of America, weak global economy...see where this is going?

Arms sales are also a big part of it, but more so as a tool to achieve desired results than pure profits. By arming Iran to the teeth, Russia is basically forcing Israel to attack. Israel isn't going to sit around and wait for Iran to acquire a military edge by way of their oil money. Leading to: more instability in the Middle East, more profits for Russia's state owned oil companies.

Remember, the KGB is larger and better funded than the CIA and Mossad combined.