digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk —

Pakistan' Benazir Bhutto killed by suicide bomber

news.bbc.co.uk — At the time of submitting - news coming in that Benazir Bhutto has been killed by suicide bomber. At least 10 other people also killed at the same time.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ejdunphy, on 12/27/2007, -641/+8she wasnt killed, did u even read the article?... its title is "Bhutto 'wounded in suicide blast'"
    • Speed, on 12/27/2007, -2/+159http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm
      Confirmed that she was killed.
      • orchids, on 12/27/2007, -48/+9I feel a deep sympathy for those who affected, but what you sow, is what you reap. Pakistan has sponsored terrorism for a long time. Now terrorism is showing it's true face and striking back at it's own creator. Atleast I hope Pakistan wakes up now. It might just turn out to be wishful thinking.
        • sv650touring, on 12/27/2007, -1/+22it's a little bit early for that, *****. Maybe next you could segue into how your favorite presidential candidate could have prevented this.
        • brahmos, on 12/27/2007, -15/+12As much as I feel sad about this incident,I have to say the present situation in Pakistan is entirely their making.
          It is a country born out of hatred for India and spend most of the US aid in countering India.
          India has been facing terrorism for so many years sponsored directly by the Pakistanis and their government had even officially recognized many terror groups operating in Kashmir in the past.
          Its a known fact in India that Pakistan is the epicenter of terror,a fact the international community has realized only recently.
          They had also supported Taliban and other terror groups in Afghanistan.
          In fact,many camps have their headquarters directly in Karachi and people openly donate funds to them.
          Now the same groups are creating chaos in their own country.
          Its all messed up but they have only themselves to blame.
          • twisterrust, on 12/27/2007, -4/+5Dude, take your hatred somewhere else
        • EditorResponse, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/27/benazirbhutto.htm
          • nomadxx7, on 12/27/2007, -3/+14Um for the people saying she deserved this, she was the opposition to the President and was a vocal opponent to him suspending the law of the land and using military rule to keep power. Though I don't have a lot of the fact it seems that she was assassinated either by an opposition party (i.e. the President of Pakistan) or by a rogue splinter cell. Seeing she was a woman and an opponent of the President I wouldn't put it past him to have her taken out (he does command the army there). So I feel sad and disgusted that diggers think she deserved this fate. So when ***** hits the fan in the US and opponents of the government get assassinated for speaking out against things that are wrong I hope you have teh same mentality towards your fellow man that they deserved to die.

            You people make me sick.

    • geekchic, on 12/27/2007, -15/+45Please ignore this submission - the BBC moved the URL of their story - which they they have never done before :/
      • Albionshores, on 12/27/2007, -1/+22Seems to be working now - they must have moved it back.
      • SilentJay74, on 12/27/2007, -1/+15It's there and now reporting that she has died.
    • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -1/+50She died in the hopsital. She was taken to the hospital semi-concious after receiving gun shots to the head and the neck just before the blast.
      About 30 other people have also been reported to have died.
      This is the latest as seen on the local Pakistani media.
      • DarkSamus, on 12/27/2007, -23/+5i know exactly how that feels, i was playing cod4 all night
        • Nitesmoke, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5This is a sad day for Pakistan and the world. This woman knew her life was in danger, yet she chose to risk her life in the quest for peace. The cowards that killed her will burn in hell, whoever they are. She is a true martyr, her death will only make her cause stronger. RIP Benazir.
    • ejdunphy, on 12/27/2007, -8/+34well sorry for watching the upcoming stories and responding when the link did not say she had died yet. its a sad turn of events for pakistan.
    • Ivthypain, on 12/27/2007, -4/+19FYI

      She WAS SHOT TWICE BEFORE the suicide bombing
    • Andysan, on 12/27/2007, -7/+10Now is a time to evaluate which of the presidential candidates you would like to see take charge of the Pakistan problem .. today! A crisis focuses the mind like nothing else. Some of the candidates and their ideas scare the hell out of me in the face of Pakistani nukes coming unsecured.
      • boflaade, on 12/27/2007, -6/+9Seeing I'm not Pakistani, my choice of candidates is limited and obscure. I don't even speak the language.
        • nayajhen, on 12/27/2007, -3/+8I hope you were speaking in sarcasm. @Andysan was talking about candidates in the US Presidential election...
          • bradleyland, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6He wasn't being sarcastic, and you just don't get it. Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Their business is their ***** business, not ours, so while foreign policy is a matter of interest while choosing a leader for the country with the largest (and most active) in the world, the events in Pakistan are most important for the people of Pakistan.

            "...take charge of the Pakistan problem..."

            Can you clarify what you mean by "take charge". Because if it's the Bush variety, I'll pass.
      • Frostman3D, on 12/27/2007, -10/+21It's not our place to take care of the Pakistani problem. We're a big part of the problem in Pakistan. Musharrif is our bitch, we put him in power and pull his strings. I'm voting for Ron Paul so we'll stay the ***** out of other peoples business.
        • Drahkar, on 12/27/2007, -2/+8And just maybe fix the long standing huge problems that we have at home as our economy slowly collapses upon itself.
    • Vitalstar, on 12/27/2007, -86/+2I was listening to the radio this morning. She said she knew was in great danger of being killed. ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......okay.....soooooo, like, you walk into a ***** crowd unprotected?? Her father was assassinated.....sooooo....okay......like, you walk into a crowd unprotected.....what is she....stupid??? There was this guy called The Pope...he got shot...you wouldn't believe what he did.....he built a bullet proof enclosure to wave to crowds to....HEY!! that's a good idea Bhuto.....your dad gets assassinated, you know people want you dead....and you walk into an open crowd??? Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. NO, I'm not going to feel bad for you, because you ROBBED Pakistan of a chance at some freedom through your idiotic belief that you were somehow immune to getting a little piece of lead shot at you. Now Pakistan has to suffer because of your denial of your immortality.
      • kaykfrink, on 12/27/2007, -0/+57Do you always type like a 17 year old cheerleader?
        "Like ummmmmmmm, LOOK at those shoes she is wearing. Doesn't see know how stupid she looks in them? Duhhhhhhhhhh"
        • Frostman3D, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Lol... like ummmmm... You totally pwned that chick. fer shure....
        • Vitalstar, on 12/27/2007, -29/+6"Do you always type like a 17 year old cheerleader?"

          No.

          In this case I typed at an intellect level congruent with a person who walks out into a crowd knowing full well that they could get assassinated. Actually, I should have typed out at a 12 year old level to really be congruent with her critical thinking ability, but then Digg readers might actually start agreeing with me, and THAT, is pretty insulting.
          • tannerpetry, on 12/27/2007, -3/+11Vitalstar takes the shot, BLOCKED by kaykfrink. Vitalstar gets the ball back, makes a move, has the open shot.......and can't even hit the rim.
          • Soofi, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6Kayfrink made a valid point, and it was kinda funny, but Vitalstar is alright in my book.
          • GreyICE, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Honestly, to get any stupider, you'd probably have to be dead.
          • byt123, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5I think your intellect is congruent with what comes out of your ass.
        • feliphe, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3this user writes like that because is not its native language. you can easy tell.
      • erasedgod, on 12/27/2007, -2/+8"Now Pakistan has to suffer because of your denial of your immortality."

        She didn't deny her immortality... someone else did.
      • chedabob, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6Because maybe she chose not to live her life in fear? If she stays out of the spotlight, doesn't rally her supporters together, the opposition win. It's about boosting the morale of your supporters: If she isn't scared of Mushariff, then why should her supporters be?
      • kgtech, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Her father wasn't assassinated, but executed.
      • vbgtaylor, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2it is spelled Bhutto, not "bhuto,
    • sum33t, on 12/27/2007, -8/+6You are quite possibly the biggest idiot to have ever registered to digg.
      • Myonosken, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4I think you may be. She wasn't dead when he responded.
    • anarchyx34, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7I've never seen a comment dugg down so much.
    • Bonekhan, on 12/27/2007, -3/+4Guys don't digg him down, she was reported "injured" before the article was updated. >_>
    • hjdutch, on 12/27/2007, -5/+3this has to be most disliked comment on this site - 500 and counting
    • AzMegladon, on 12/28/2007, -12/+4Anyone got a link to naked pics of this dead chic?
  • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -245/+106God damn our government and our media for focusing on ***** when the world is on fire. MSNBC had Ron Paul on this morning after the bombing and he was trying to talk about this and they wanted to talk about the god damn United States Civil War.

    Congratulations neocons. Your war is broadening as planned.

    • flogistan, on 12/27/2007, -54/+12Hey, where the hell is that interview... I missed it. I saw the end of it. I have to see the ron paul interview.
    • ufia, on 12/27/2007, -59/+8Ron Paul better had a good reason for bombing Benazir Bhutto. Why the media won't let him talk about it?
    • neiltc13, on 12/27/2007, -54/+20Buried for trying to link USA to a serious world story.
      • williamdyer, on 12/27/2007, -8/+49Musharaf is our rather well-paid employee. This is a U.S. story. Heck, the road to 9/11 goes through Pakistan. This could be the start of some very nasty things for the U.S. in 2008.
        • imgstacke, on 12/27/2007, -7/+19Lets see 3 days before 9/11 the leader of the northern alliance in Afghanistan was assassinated. I'd say chances are slim someone is going pull ANOTHER false flag event right before the US 2008 Primaries...
        • caferrell, on 12/27/2007, -3/+22To think that this bombing that took place in Rawalpindi does not involve Musharraf is not a leap of fantasy. The city that is the sronghol of the military could not defend Mrs. Bhutto who just happened to be Musharraf's only viable rival for head of state. Bhutto loyalists are certain that the assasination was planned by Musharaf's staff. He is the US "ally" in the War on Terror™
          • twisterrust, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2your argument is full of flaws, you say that Mushuraf had strong hold of city so they should be able to defend any thing?
            A. Mushuraf was attacked twice in the same city. B. so by your logic 9/11 has to be an inside Job(infact rudy's Job)
            as far as " Mrs. Bhutto who just happened to be Musharraf's only viable rival " , so tell me again why would musuruf want her to came back, pardon her charges etc and then have her assassinated why?.
    • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -1/+28This only happened like 2 hours ago...
    • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -29/+39This would have happened with or without Neocons in place dumbass. Congratulations idiot, your ability to blame the worlds problems on neocons grows more powerful every day!
      • evan119, on 12/27/2007, -17/+9Wait, neocons aren't to blame for the world's problems?
      • Drahkar, on 12/27/2007, -4/+6He was blaming the Neocons for corrupting the media, not for causing the problems in the Middle east. Though that's not really much of a stretch.
      • TopherT, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Our support for Musharrif has strengthened his rule over Pakistan, its possible that without that support he would have been ousted by now. Our support of the man is directly tied to the reaction to terrorist attacks on our country that enabled the neocons to gain a greater foothold. qed
    • SilentJay74, on 12/27/2007, -29/+131Do we have bring this RON PAUL BS into everything!
      • kgool, on 12/27/2007, -16/+11Amen! (That is like "right on" for you atheists)
      • boflaade, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4It's spam. There is a poster that thinks if you hear the name to the point of frustration, you won't vote for him. I won't, because I'm Canadian as are several other posters. Plain ol spam!
    • sacr3dc0w, on 12/27/2007, -5/+37Alpha, seriously shut up. People like you are the reason the guy is hated. Your comments were not appropriate and disrespectful and only paint a worse image in the minds of those on the fence about RP.

      RIP Benazir
      • RedRenesis, on 12/27/2007, -14/+7Isnt that the intention? Some people hate Bush and the Republicans so badly that they will grasp at anything to blame them for all the worlds problems.
        • merwin, on 12/27/2007, -1/+10Yeah, what we do in the USA has absolutely no consequences in the world.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/27/2007, -9/+2You are living proof of the dee-dee-dee theory
    • mnixxon, on 12/27/2007, -7/+3Nice. I was wondering how long it would take before some idiot tried to lay this incident at Republicans feet. Well done, I see you still haven't gotten treatment for Bushderangement syndrome.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9Shut the ***** up.
  • transcendz, on 12/27/2007, -17/+784It's now confirmed that she didn't survive. This is a very sad day for Pakistan.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/27/2007, -12/+164Sad day for the world. But using their rules, she is now a martyr, and cannot be silenced.
      • guerj, on 12/27/2007, -50/+11that's stupid.
        • MisteryMeat, on 12/27/2007, -1/+19Why do people post crap like this? Explain your position or shut the hell up.
          • guerj, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0The fact that someone gets killed doesn't automatically gives any of his/her work more meaning.
            I understand that the Bhutto died because of what she believes in, but that alone doesn't makes it more meaningful, it's just makes it sad
        • bbqsalad, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4moron. you fail.
        • iainc, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1No, guerj. It is you who is stupid.
      • ZeroFive1, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3The reason behind this is most likely more political than religious.
        These people are despicable. They are out to get nothing but money and power but use religion as an excuse.
      • jackhatedance, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0It really got me sad.
    • ejm143, on 12/27/2007, -16/+2I'm wonder what Zardari gonna do now to everyone, the situation will become more worth now.
    • IdevInull, on 12/27/2007, -141/+1Stupid woman.
      • whiskeymb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+18This is a good reminder of why DIGG has the block button...
      • bbqsalad, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Stupid child.
      • SysstemLord, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Hey, talk to your wife privately
      • johnabq, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1don't talk about your mom like that, or were you looking in a mirror?
    • arav, on 12/27/2007, -6/+55The sad days are ahead for Pakistan her death has opened up many issues..
      1. Will the elections happen peacefully ?
      2. Chances of Mushsaraf survival with life and position ?
      3. Security of Necular weapons in Pakistan ?
      4. Is this the start of Islamic fundamentalist's rise in Pakistan ?
      and few other points
      • evan119, on 12/27/2007, -7/+311. No, if they happen at all, it will definitely not happen peacefully
        2. 99% He lets extremists roam freely
        3. Don't think Necular weapons have been invented yet, not even sure what they are. Can't imagine their nuclear weapons are any less safe than they already were.
        4. Too late, already happened. Have you paid attention to anything Musharraf has done there lately? Not to mention his coup in 1999...
        • vbullinger, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5When you look at these facts, you wonder why we're allies with Pakistan, and why we backed Musharraf.

          When you look at the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were Saudi Arabian, you wonder why we're allies with them, too.
        • Herostratos, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Mushararraf is not a muslim fundamentalist, ya know...
          That is why the muslim fundamentalists are fighting him. The problem is that he removes, through several methods, all his non-violent opponents, which leaves people with the fundamentalists if they want change. That is why his question no. 4 is highly relevant.
      • principle, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5Politically, the clear loser is Musharraf. It seems that the next move is to implicate Musharraf in Bhutto’s assassination and then try to force him out of office.
        • ATESINMEMPHIS, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2I couldn't agree more. I don't think the world will ever learn the truth behind her assassination. Radicals would do anything to stop Western influence and those who
          support it.
        • etruscan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3It was almost an inevitability, sadly... and this will certainly cause a tremendous backlash in Pakistan. Not only that, but it's in western interests to fuel that backlash. I'm fearful of what the situation will degrade to there.
        • jacquesm, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2the bigger problem is for India, eventually they will face a Pakistan that has changed lots for the worse. Historically forces in Pakistan that want to rally the people do so using India as their target of opportunity.
      • diggingaround, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6And the ever profitable perpetual war continues...
    • LukasSmith, on 12/27/2007, -13/+35Just another day in Pakistan. You wonder why we dont invade it? Iraq is everyday life in Pakistan. Without musharraf it can only get worse. As some people point out military/dictators like Saddam and Musharref are better to have then countries where everyone is killing eachother in civil wars for religious or political reasons. Musharrafs rule has allowed a moderate muslim class to develop. Without him Pakistan will go direction of Iraq. religious government, women gays etc mistreatment. The religious types are very powerful in Pakistan. Without Pakistan Military there would be no stopping them. Musharraf is the leader of this military regardless if he is officially or not. So let us accept the lesser evil that is Musharraf rather then let another taliban Afganistan develop.
      • lithera, on 12/27/2007, -4/+3soz bud, no oil in Pakistan
      • vbullinger, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Maybe we should just stop messing with other peoples' governments. What did Henry Ford say? People deserve the governments they get. They'll learn, eventually.

        Hate to quote a Nazi (Ford was a Nazi, you realize: http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_stree ... but it's an accurate quote.

        We should leave sovereign nations alone. Look what happens when we don't. We deposed Allende and replaced him with Pinochet. We deposed Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah. This has happened over and over and over again all over the world. We created Bin Laden when we trained the Mujahadin. We have military bases in 130 countries. They hate that. We have active military personnel serving in 177 countries. They hate that.
        • iainc, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Perhaps that very same quote is just as applicable to the United States. A nation full of docile cattle that has allowed itself to be corralled into a state of fascism.
      • Herostratos, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Wrong, wrong, wrong. The people want change, and when Musharraf silences the peaceful, moderate opposition people wanting change will turn to the islamists. The strongest(teh only?) candidate representing peaceful change into a moderate and human rights-respecting government was now eliminated. It is no doubt that many will turn to the only alternative, militant islamism.
        Remember that the islamist party got only 11 % last election so if the country is allowed to develop their threat will undoubtedly dominish; but if we allow him to weed out all peaceful alternatives their nimbers will swell.
    • Asure, on 12/27/2007, -31/+15... would the CIA...nah...
      Nothing to see here, move along.
      • 786digger, on 12/27/2007, -10/+10You never know ...
      • rspeed, on 12/27/2007, -3/+8Not exactly their style.
      • LucasKane, on 12/27/2007, -5/+3Man I am never believing another the U.S is lacking intelligent people survey, apparently the CIA runs the entire globe and can get away with pulling the strings of every event in every country, whoever these people working the CIA are definitely superhuman geniuses.
        • Asure, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Salvador Allende, nm, you never heard of him.
          • LucasKane, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1That never happened, the CIA can't fail!
    • brainboy77, on 12/27/2007, -22/+12what do you mean a sad day for pakistan? i really feel extremely sad for what has happened, but do remember that there is a reason she is not prime minister anymore. she wasn't a good politician. she really didn't know how to handle things. pakistan was in a worse shape in bhutto's hands than in musharaff's. but this is really a sad day and it will probably be like this for the next month.

      and for all of you posting about stuff you don't really know about, crack a book. or wikipedia, for god's sake. i don't know if the person that died today was good or bad, but i do know she was going to run country down even more than it already is. but by no means is this a good thing. things are going to get worse. there will be retribution. a lot of retribution. look at pakistan and india's history. (For those of you saying that pakistan and India are different countries, they have a lot in common. They used to be a big india that was eventually portioned. Today, the big difference is religion and wealth.)
      • Po0py, on 12/27/2007, -0/+16If the people of Pakistan wanted her in power then who are we to stop her/them. And if she did become leader and did ***** the country up then democracy would have kicked her out. It's a sad day for Pakistan but even sadder for those of us who beleive in democracy
      • LukasSmith, on 12/27/2007, -7/+3if the people of Pakistan wanted Hitler in power then who are we to stop her/them? Speaking of which here is a wierd article from thier neighbor India. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm
        • IglooBurner, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1how the hell did that name pass down the chain of command? did no one stop to think... "humm something is not right with this name." in a meeting or something?
    • IglooBurner, on 12/27/2007, -2/+32for those of you who's not familiar with her and want to see what she represents, here's a commentary from her.
      http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto ...
      • lathicentropy, on 12/27/2007, -2/+12stop digging him down just b/c the link is to CNN.com, it's a good editorial written by the woman herself.
      • CedEx, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6How interesting that in her commentary she mentions "Soon thereafter [the assasination attempt], I was asked by authorities not to travel in cars with tinted windows -- which protected me from identification by terrorists -- or travel with privately armed guards."

        Seems like they were setting her up for the fall. Conspiracy theories are going to be spreading like wildfires soon.
    • Po0py, on 12/27/2007, -1/+20A sad day, indeed. But I have to say I am not surprised. She was almost killed a couple of months ago when her tour bus was bombed. And for some inexplicable reason they don't understand the concept of crowd control in Pakistan. They like the big fussy crowds all ganging round their leaders, people shouting slogans and wipping their fingers up into the air. Almost every rally Bhutto had was like this. It's a security nightmare. How can you possibly expect to keep the assassin's away? Some crowd control and some ***** barracades would have come in handy. Also, sticking your head through the sun roof of a bulletproof car is not a good idea either. (That was what Bhutto was doing when she was killed, apparently.)
    • ICSU, on 12/27/2007, -20/+13The religion of peace, the fruit of the holy trinity of Abrahamic religions and its outcome.
      • hakz, on 12/27/2007, -6/+9oh man stfu. She was muslim herself.
        • MacEnvy, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6He wasn't condemning Muslims in particular so much as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Ba'Hai, and Druze as a group. Can't say I disagree.
          • scott2007, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6A trinity is a group of three, Mac....
          • MacEnvy, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Yep, just threw them in for the sake of completeness.
        • ICSU, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Hakx, thanks for pointing out how ridiculous dogmatic religious and cultural thinking is.
          • ZeroFive1, on 12/31/2007, -0/+0Buddhism doesn't involve religious and cultural thinking?
            Just a question.
      • burkay, on 12/27/2007, -6/+4Yes it is still the religion of peace, I am religious and I am peaceful. Did this completely obliterate your point or what?
      • ZeroFive1, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1If you haven't noticed, radicals are found in every environment. Maoist rebels, anyone?
    • mudgod, on 12/27/2007, -17/+20Why is it sad? A lot of people in Pakistan are celebrating. You need to quit following the mainstream media.
      Benazir was the one that actually brought the Taliban into power (1995 , the military provided extensive support to the Taliban allowing em to take over)
      Not to mention she had close to 3000 political opponents hunted down n killed it in Karachi during the same period (extra judicial cold blooded killings, no trial no nothing)
      And then she also killed another threat - her own brother (Google Fatima Bhutto her niece's opinion about her)
      • DephexTwin, on 12/27/2007, -1/+17Yeah, it's acceptable to assassinate political leaders rather than simply having her lose in an election. If she really had a substantial amount of popular opposition, the latter is all that should have happened. That is what is truly awful about an event like this. It doesn't matter at all if she was great or if she was a horrible leader.
      • scott2007, on 12/27/2007, -6/+1I just read her niece's essay at the LA Times written November 12th. B. Bhutto was a crook and probably a murderess.
      • principle, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1She could not win, but they still managed to use her to damage Musharraf.
      • vbullinger, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I have trouble backing either Bhutto or Musharraf. I think the answer is to back neither and leave Pakistan alone (as far as our government is concerned).
    • cnn1, on 12/27/2007, -6/+3Her death was only a loss to the US

      http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/latest_col.php?id=6&r ...
    • RedHairedMan, on 12/27/2007, -4/+4Truly dissapointing. She was a fantastic leader and stateswoman, and could have brought her country forward into the world and improved the lives of everyone there. Guess that was why she was killed, she would have made a difference.
      • B3000, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2If you know anything about Bhutto's past, you would know the things she CLAIMED to represent were far from what she ACTUALLY represented. She was a vengeful politician, twice thrown out of office for massive corruption, she was a supporter of the Taliban during her time as Prime Minister, giving them military and financial support and her niece suspects she had a hand in the assassination of her own brother. Don't take my word for it - here's the article that her niece wrote for the LA Times a few months back.
        http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la- ...
      • superkendall, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1She was killed for those reasons, and because strictly religious muslims cannot tolerate a woman in power.
    • GuacamoleSan, on 12/27/2007, -6/+1The cnn story claims now she was hit in the head by a SNIPER. What terrorist organization has snipers?
    • pacificman, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1please pay your respects at http://www.benazirmemorial.org
    • blitzer, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4" The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session and later said it "unanimously condemned" the assassination. "

      Was a session really required?
    • mw113, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1read article b y her sister:

      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14 ...
    • happyseamonster, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1It was the ISI. Musharif and the US is not in charge. There is a US led agenda to remove nukes from Pakistan and the ISI is trying to interrupt that. Musharif was going to be the figure head President and Bhutto the Prime Minister. She has a history of wanting to end the nukes there. The US is pissed because they don't have control over the ISI.
  • Rubab, on 12/27/2007, -161/+28she died, ahhh she died.. what a country... a hub of conspiracies, . she was the first Muslim female prime minister, aah everyone in Pakistan crying..aah she should not have, very bad impact, Pakistan would dismember now
    • lee1199, on 12/27/2007, -9/+19Are you a moron???
      • Nichiren, on 12/27/2007, -2/+31I've noticed that Digg comments have been degrading at an alarming rate lately. I don't even care if someone is wrong as long as they state their point well. We are slowly being overrun by morons as more people discover this site.

        Preparing to be buried.
        • lnf69, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Well, Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo to you!!!
          SGI by chance?
          • Nichiren, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5What's funny is that I took the name from a novel I didn't even finish reading and from the book, it meant "Eater of Souls" which sounded pretty cool at the time. Then I started receiving messages about Nichiren and it turns out that it's a sect of Japanese Buddhism. Awkwarrrd when I'm asked about it. But I started learning more about it and it's highly interesting (the sgi-usa website could use some work though o_O). I may already be a pastafarian but I don't mind looking into other beliefs... especially ones that don't bomb each other.
        • ICSU, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3That happened about 6-9 months ago. Once something becomes popular among the masses (read morons) it's about to deteriorate.
      • Wartz, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2maybe he doesnt speak english too well, as I assume he is from pakistan?
    • RedRenesis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8Which is why I rarely visit this site anymore. Used to be a good resource at one time, then I got tired of sorting through all the crap each and every time I logged on trying to find real information.
      • cyberoidx, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1you know you can arrange the comments by number of diggs, dont you?
    • danno74, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Rubab is from Pakistan. We should not all jump to conclusions because you don't understand the point of her post. I think she is sad, why would you bury the comment? Use your brains for a minute.
      • Frei, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6That's asking way too much around here.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Rubab,
      Sorry you were dugg down for your comment - we understand you now. Yes, it is a very sad day for your country. We are so sorry for you.
  • digghasnoethics, on 12/27/2007, -50/+291Sorry, but it stinks.
    Musharraf will do anything to save his position and freedom and this is a bit too convenient in timing - just before the election.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/27/2007, -30/+7Wow, you are a genius. Yes, it looks very bad.
    • chetanw, on 12/27/2007, -3/+53Musharraf is contesting for the position of President while Benazir was contesting for Prime Minister.
      • bizchris, on 12/27/2007, -8/+8And there was a contentious relationship there that was politically inconvenient for Musharraf.
      • digghasnoethics, on 12/27/2007, -4/+17Musharraf is president because just before the court was due to rule on his eligibility for standing in the first place he announced a state of emergency; arrested and imprisoned the judges, and replaced them with his own men - who then said there was no problem with is candidacy.

        Hell, even Bush wouldn't try anything that blatant.

        Someone not under his control in a position of power means there is a probability that he ends up swinging from a rope by his neck. He's not the type to allow that - don't forget for all his smiling face, he came to power via military coup.
    • smoothmedia, on 12/27/2007, -11/+81I suspect it's the work of a radical group that benefits from the instability of Pakistan, and not Pervez Musharraf.
      • div2n, on 12/27/2007, -10/+22Are you suggesting that Musharraf _wouldn't_ benefit from instability? I'd have to argue the opposite.
        • NSResponder, on 12/27/2007, -2/+16You don't benefit from instability once you've pulled off your coup. Musharraf had nothing to gain from this.

          -jcr
        • blackhawk919, on 12/27/2007, -1/+9The same people who threatened and killed Bhutto would like to see Musharraf dead.
        • Borger, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0That's rediculous - the instability that resulted from Musharraf declaring a state of emergency was terrible for him politically.

          Musharraf benefits from being the best option at the moment. Once someone better comes along the US will gladly abandon him.
      • crazydiode, on 12/27/2007, -3/+21i think so too. Remember there were suicide attacks on Musharraf as well. This is indeed a sad day for Pak.
      • imgstacke, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6ISI
      • leexy, on 12/27/2007, -3/+43You don't seem to understand how dictatorships work. Allow me to quote the late Benazir: "The extremists need dictatorship to flourish, and dictatorship needs the extremists as a pre-text to continue in place."
        • CartoonAl, on 12/27/2007, -7/+6Someone should read that quote to Bush...
        • carpespasm, on 12/27/2007, -2/+12he's already read it and taken it to heart.
      • smoothmedia, on 12/27/2007, -6/+12Al Queda has claimed responsibility. Called it.
        http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id= ...
        • Groovemaster, on 12/27/2007, -11/+7I'm surprised the CIA would take responsibility this quickly.
        • janeuner, on 12/27/2007, -1/+16More like: someone claiming to be from Al-Qaeda claimed to be responsible for the attack. It would be better to reserve judgement.
      • digitalhair, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7if al qaeda were not really responsible for it, despite what one paper says, has the media ever given an outlet for extremists to be whistleblowers? I just find it suspect that there is never any kind of legitimate source cited when papers and TV news say that "al qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attack." Musharaff clearly has the most to gain from Pakistan's instability, so I find it strange that you seem to have already made your mind up about who's to blame so much so that you post about it here...
    • Groovemaster, on 12/27/2007, -9/+54I'm gonna wait till I see what the US mainstream media says before I start making my mind up on this.

      That way, at least I'll know what isn't true.
      • williamdyer, on 12/27/2007, -2/+12That's pretty much how it will go. Whatever they say, you can bet it is our government's line, and not the facts.
      • Darthcactaur, on 12/27/2007, -2/+9US mainstream media? If its not news about Paris Hilton then I wouldn't expect true coverage on this. They probably haven't had their foreign corespondents in Pakistan for years. What you'll get is borrowed video and basic questions.
      • digitalhair, on 12/27/2007, -1/+10best comment I've seen all day.
      • Fabc001, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Good comment and probably the only one that has made any sense on this thread.
      • principle, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Just listen to Wolf Blitzer…
        • Imusion, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1... in the situation room *cue music*
    • KaiserArny, on 12/27/2007, -4/+7I'm sure that was done by some Islamic fundamentalist supported by Al-Quda that are just looking to destabilize Pakistan. They want an Islamic regime and don't care if the majority don't want it. They just want chaos to take control and transform Pakistan into what Afghanistan was before. The Taliban came from Pakistan.
    • LucasKane, on 12/27/2007, -4/+12Musharraf has nothing to gain from this, she was taking attention away from him - now he is target #1 again.
      • Genady, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Um... no... sorry... The correct questions was "What effect does martyrdom have on Pakistani Politics. Digghasnoethics, I believe you had the last correct question, please make a selection."
    • nimbleprune, on 12/27/2007, -5/+4thats what the terrorists that did this want people to think...they want civil war so they can move in and take over during the struggle....I wonder how fast a Nuke war would start with extremest Muslims in control of a Nuke arsenal...I would say 2 weeks after taking power. would prob take them a while to figure out the controls.
      • Groovemaster, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3And the sad thing is, you're serious.
        • jacquesm, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2the really sad thing is he/she's probably dead on.
    • Bonekhan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately Pakistan is no stranger to political turmoil.
    • wootup, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4digghasnoethics has no idea what he's talking about. Bhutto and Musharraf have very similar views on foreign policy and both are rabidly pro-American (in a country where 90+% of the population is rabidly anti-American). Bhutto was, if anything, Washington's "second choice" in Islamabad after Musharraf.

      CIA tools don't usually off themselves in such spectacular ways, so I would assume this was an attack by a radical Islamist (which, realistically, represents the majority view in Pakistan) against Bhutto's pro-American stance. Don't forget that Musharraf himself has survived something like 3 bombing assassination attempts in recent years.
  • Rubab, on 12/27/2007, -25/+19 we have seen Pakistan breaking in 1971 while East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan constituting Bangladesh. We don't want to live also, because we cant see breaking Pakistan.
    She was true revolutionary..
    • cyberoidx, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Can someone send a mental health professional to pakistan immidiately?
    • santasing, on 12/27/2007, -3/+4You forget to mention that this place you call east pakistan is actually bangladesh, its hundreds if not thousands of miles away from waht you call west pakistan all the way on the other side of india. What's next, claim Chechnya for yourselves and call it north pakistan?
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2"...while East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan constituting Bangladesh."

        She DID mention it you idiot. Read better next time.
  • coolian, on 12/27/2007, -57/+195Damn, Pakistan is one MESSED UP country.
    • cybermort, on 12/27/2007, -23/+13shhh. their "our friends" so lets don't mention their large fundamentalist population, lets don't talk about their military dictator that is loosing strength because of its American support or that they currently posses ready to launch nuclear weapons for that matter. eyes on the price, Iran is the real danger int he middle east.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/27/2007, -4/+12would it kill you to take a remedial English program? They're and Lose are not their and loose
    • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -22/+15It's messed up. And I thank the United States of America for it.
      • KaiserArny, on 12/27/2007, -8/+11Very popular sport. Blame The USA. That's the best you can come with. Read a bit of history and you will see that Pakistan was always messed up. They've been killing each other since their independence.
        • cyberoidx, on 12/27/2007, -4/+4And also that USA has been funding and "gifting" the pakistani army.
      • MCMLXXXII, on 12/27/2007, -3/+15Everyone in Pakistan knows how true this statement is. What has the US ever given us except drive this country into ruin? Since 1947, Pakistan has always allied with the US and during the cold war era it was influential in the region. Pakistan has always opened up the red carpet for the US, they did it to fight the US's war in Afghanistan in 79 and all that did was fill the country with guns and extremism bred by the CIA. The US supported dictators in Pakistan to make sure that their agenda continues, first Ayub Khan, then Zia ulHaq then Musharaf. But everytime Pakistan has needed the US, they shut the door on them and imposed sanctions. Pakistan should never have aligned itself with the US. The Afghan war did a lot of damage to Pakistan, not once but twice. Americans who deny this are simply ignorant. They don't realize how simple foreign policy directives in the US changes the landscape of entire countries out there and then they get pissed when the whole world blames the US for their problems. Stop being a Hegemon.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 12/27/2007, -4/+7Two questions:

          1) why did we impose sanctions?

          2) in your myopic worldview of blaming the US, when do the actual terrorists and extremists get to take responsibility?
    • williamdyer, on 12/27/2007, -17/+12The U.S. is certainly putting enough money into the game there to raise the stakes. It is very likely CIA incompetence that played a role in this.
    • guitarromantic, on 12/27/2007, -17/+34I absolutely love it when Americans say things like this. Sure, those crazy Pakistanis are "MESSED UP", with terrorist attacks, political power struggles, and Presidents who just won't relinquish power despite all signs pointing to the fact that they are hilariously poor at their job and their only strength is in the military... wait a second. Pot... kettle?
      • coolmanmax2000, on 12/27/2007, -5/+22And they don't have trillions of dollars of national debt...
        • 955701, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8it's not for lack of trying. Took them a few times to kill her as well...
      • charlietuna, on 12/27/2007, -4/+10And you know for a fact that an US American said that?
        Methinks - irrespective of the US failings - that Pakistan in fact remains messed up. No rule against both countries having shortcomings.
        • guitarromantic, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2His profile says "A dude from USA who joined Digg on April 15th, 2006", but even without that, comments like that are frequently made by ignorant Americans who love to criticise the 'backwards' countries in the news, while conveniently ignoring all the terrifying ***** that goes on right in their own backyard.
      • GreenAlien, on 12/27/2007, -10/+4Americans are a heck of alot more dignified than Pakistan. I don't see Americans repeatedly blowing themselves up or the president killing civilians or political opponents. And no I'm not from America but come on, open your eyes!
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/27/2007, -4/+13A messed up country with nuclear weapson. A dangerous combination.
      • loganhid, on 12/27/2007, -2/+13Kinda like America
      • aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5I have always wondered how the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in war says that everyone else is irresponsible with WMDs and should not have them...

        Just thinking aloud...
    • mw113, on 12/27/2007, -5/+12shes also a big reason it's ***** up.
      she wants accountability, what about being accountable for all the corruption and swindling she did? pathetic.
    • phre3k187, on 12/27/2007, -18/+8lol muslims.
    • tillerman00, on 12/27/2007, -2/+5Yeah, reminds me of what happened in America back in 1963.
    • Soar, on 12/27/2007, -4/+2Thats a bit uncalled for, no? It's not the people, but their government that is "Messed Up".
      • arplayer2k, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Well certain factions of the people are to blame. Mainly the extreme fundamentalist muslims lead by the mulla's. They are the ones who preach to the 50% + illiterate population of the country, and ultimately get them to carry on their sick and delusional plans towards something they think will achieve their cause. Musharraf also doesn't help at times. It is an all around bad situation. The moderate and upper middle to upper class people have to have armed guards in front of their homes to prevent constant robberies and threats. Corruption is rampant there, and fundamentalism is left unchecked. Wahabi's kills Shia's at their mosque's and other places during worship in holy months via suicide bombs and heavily armed gun men. Need I say more?

        THE WHOLE SITUATION IS MESSED UP.
    • max420, on 12/27/2007, -9/+6Damn, the United States of America is one MESSED UP country! The most messed up in the world. The US the one of the main problems in the world today, not hunger or aids or war. (Well the US is the main reason for most wars...)
    • pedepy, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2These kinds of political assassinations have occurred many times before on US soil, not to mention all American sanctioned/sponsored overseas killings/coups. Now, it is true that the state of things in Pakistan right now is probably worse than anything we've ever witnessed on this side of the Atlantic, but still it's precisely this kind of careless hand waving of such events from westerners that allow in a way situations to degenerate to such a level without any kind of meaningful international intervention. This is just too bad for Pakistan, and to some extent, the rest of the world and democracy in general..
    • kum11, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2ye i totally agree with u Pakistan is just messed up under the rule of Musharraf, dont know where it will be heading under his rule...
  • lutschdran, on 12/27/2007, -106/+20Her own ***** fault. She shouldn't have come back to the country she corruptly ruled and was chased out of, only to legitimize a ruler even worse than herself.
    Admittedly, there are no easy solutions for Pakistan but her actions were just idiotic.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/27/2007, -6/+12She knew what she was doing. Her cause could not advance without her dying. She knew that. The only thing she could do is get her message out as fast as possible. This brutality is being played out on the world stage, it is a war of ideas, and these are very powerful messages.
      • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -8/+3What the hell were you smoking this morning? She's no martyr with great ideas that fought for some cause. She was a rich and corrupt ruler. Her family has a long history of political assignations itself. She became the leader of her fathers party in exile. Her father was behind the assignations of his rivals. This is simply one looser killing another looser and such is life in Pakistan.
        • slvrbullet87, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1ASSASSINATION learn to spell
          • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1You don't like assignations? :) I'm not sure how my spell check missed that one. Must have clicked "add to dictionary" instead of change. Good catch!
        • abuelos84, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2chill, dude, chill...
          • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2You're right. Apologies for frustration. I'm becoming cynical. Its just that you take a looser like Bhutto who has been a pretty nasty and corrupt elitist her whole life and because she's murdered it seems to me that everyone wants to re-write history and make her a martyr. But I guess it really doesn't matter and I certainly shouldn't sweat it.
    • scoobydoo84, on 12/27/2007, -27/+4lutschdran,
      You ***** idiot!! The CIA told her to and paid her to come back you ignorant dumbass!!
      • lutschdran, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5The facts ($ one billion laundered, support for the Taliban as late as 1996, deal with Musharaff to jointly govern) don't exlude an argument for your conspiracy theory.
        But why would the CIA want to destabilize such a geopolitically important country even more? They've controlled Musharaff pretty well so far.
        • williamdyer, on 12/27/2007, -6/+1Good question. Possibly because Musharraf was losing his grip and the CIA wanted a fresher puppet.
        • imgstacke, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2War Forever! and all that - since Iran doesn't seem to want to play - I think they are going to destabilize Pakistan - Get some unsavory gents in there and raise the fear level back to where it was back in the summer of '07...

          Without the constant fear of death people might start to realize they are being controlled like cattle.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Please provide sources for your outrageous claims
      • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Please give us a reason why the CIA would do this. But then again, I'm sure you'd rather be a troll than take the time to actually learn about the history and politics of Pakistan.
        • scoobydoo84, on 12/27/2007, -7/+2oldhick,
          Your name suits your knowledge level perfectly!! Im not even going to respond to you!! Can't deal with ignorant ***** like you anymore!!
          • oldhick, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Then please don't. I happen to be somewhat of a Pakistan scholar since several of my immediate family members or Pakistani.
          • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2you mean you don't have a way to counter oldhick's comment and are backed into a corner so you'll just say, "Im not even going to respond to you!!"
          • jsmith39, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Hate to destroy that little infinity loop you've got going there scooby but you did in fact respond to oldhick. Stating in your response that I will not respond to you does not actually negate the fact that you responded.

            Just thought you should know.
      • jsmith39, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Really? You've got the paystub? Or you were in on the meeting? Oh, I get it you're high up in the administration so you know all about these things. Or maybe have you just been reading a lot of conspiracy sites again?

        This administration does a lot of ***** up things, but they don't actually have the time/money to do every ***** up thing.
      • captric, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Right - the CIA tried to bolw up Musharaff and now they blew up Beneto - does that make sense to you?????
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1@ scoobydoo84

        Please provide sources for your outrageous claims
    • captric, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5She was obviously much braver and idealistic than you are. She lived in the US and wanted the same freedom for her people.
    • Rekzai, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Pakistanis I talk to agree with lutschdran..
  • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -59/+372Now this ***** David Shuster is saying that Pervez Musharraf is a "bullwork in the War On Terror (TM)!"
    How can the Unitied States survive as a democracy when ***** like this control the media. Musharraf is a terrorist protecting Al Queda and is responsible for Bhutto's death. When will the populace of this country rise up? Oh I forgot, Jamie Lynn ***** Spears is pregnant and Mike Huckabee is hunting birds. WTF!!!?????? Damn I wish I didn't have to work today because I wanna be ***** sedated.
    • RedHerringHack, on 12/27/2007, -22/+3Watch Sky News man.
      • MacEnvy, on 12/27/2007, -3/+16RIght, because we all know how independent and unbiased Rupert Murdoch's news organizations are ...
    • Damhna, on 12/27/2007, -4/+26Bulwark, a 'bulwark in the WOT'

      What on earth did you think a Bullwork was ?
      • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -7/+6Yeah, I see what I did there.
        • sekhui, on 12/27/2007, -7/+7jesus ***** christ, let that idiotic meme die. please.
    • lajaw, on 12/27/2007, -26/+17Go on back to work, and please don't get any hair in your customers fries.
      • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -3/+22But the collagen in my hair may provide critical amino acids in addition to the carbohydrates and fatty acids in the fries, thus providing them with a more balanced diet. Moreover, its presence may discourage consumption, thus leading to less triglycerides being emulsified by bile salts, resulting in less cholymicrons being transported into the lymphatic system and the bloodstream, thus perhaps lowering the customer's LDL level. So, I fail to see your logic.
        • jlharrity, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaps
        • TheGooseyOne, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1You aren't nearly as funny or smart as you think you are. But neither is the guy you were replying to. And such is Digg itself.
    • mstump, on 12/27/2007, -13/+11Then shut down your computer, go outside, and protest. Or STFU.
      • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -1/+11I think I'll just caucus on January 3rd, and bitch in the meantime.
      • GreenAlien, on 12/27/2007, -0/+7"Then shut down your computer, go outside, and protest. Or STFU."

        So you're trying to tell him he's not allowed to express his thoughts unless he goes out and protests. Who put you in charge of Digg
        • abuelos84, on 12/27/2007, -4/+1I did, and I told him to say that, so go back to your room and don't bother us, the Digg Rulerz...
    • olbap, on 12/27/2007, -1/+17Yeah, like protesting works......especially when they round up all you protesting fools into "free speech zones" and you all comply willingly!
    • fak3r, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5exactly - people seem to forget everything going on in the world, all people talk about at work is what can be bought cheaper at Wal-Mart. Go watch 'the story of stuff', it says a lot about why the US is so mindnumbingly single minded about things. It's consumerism above all, does anyone remember we're in a 'war'?
    • BahJayJay, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go.
    • digindrivefast, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I'm so sick of hearing the crap that all the media is feeding us as "NEWS" I'm throwing up everytime I have to hear about some spoiled brat going to re-hab etc..... It's not freaking NEWS!!!!
    • RetardoCrisp, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6The United States is a Republic on its way to being a Totalitarian state. It has never been a Democracy. Democracy, like true Communism, are great theories but in reality they can never work due to human greed.
    • shaft3205, on 12/27/2007, -4/+1Your a goddamn moron. Pakistan is the major hideout for Al Qaeda, but Musharraf is a major US Ally. However he is in a highly unstable position, and there are parts of his own country that his own troops and officials can barely access. Do some research before you start spouting off about some ***** you might have taken out of context from a blog 3 months ago.
      • epiccollision, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1yeah...remember the part where the DOD said they would "bomb them back into the stone age" if they didn't comply with taliban eradication...great way to make friends
  • VeryBoredNow, on 12/27/2007, -102/+20Everyone that posted above this comment is an idiot.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/27/2007, -1/+18So your post changed that?
    • MrBleh, on 12/27/2007, -2/+10Everyone that posted above this comment is an idiot.
    • CedEx, on 12/27/2007, -3/+0You are not the C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!!!!
      • Frostman3D, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Right, and your post starts the dumbass through retard section.
  • j1a1g1, on 12/27/2007, -10/+103I wonder, whose gonna win the Jan 8 elections now?

    • chedabob, on 12/27/2007, -2/+12Unless that cricketer gets assassinated, I reckon he'll win. IIRC, Bhutto and him and an "alliance" of sorts.
      • iashraf, on 12/27/2007, -1/+22By the 'cricketer', he means Imran Khan
      • geekchic, on 12/27/2007, -3/+6That cricketer - Imran Khan - has hardly any political support inside the country. He is a nobody frankly.
        • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5He is the best politician out there, by far. He has the best ideas and is truly man of the people... except he doesn't get much votes.
          But seriously, some of the points he makes are spot on.
          • chedabob, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Bhutto and him wanted democracy, and they forged an "alliance", so I shouldn't see why Bhutto's supporters won't back him, seeing as he wants the same things that Bhutto wanted, and he is their best chance of getting democracy.
    • sandanista, on 12/27/2007, -0/+21If there still are elections. I can imagine that a 'state of emergency' may be declared and elections 'suspended' to deal with the 'security crisis'.
      • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2Pakistan is already being ruled under the state of emergency.
        • cyberoidx, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4News flash: Pakistan Emergency has been lifted. LONG ago.
    • brainboy77, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2"elections"? Elections occur when there two or more opponents. In this "election", there was only one candidate. Pervez Musharaff. Bhutto was under freakin' house arrest, you really think the dictator-in-chief would let her run for the candidacy? After that, there was really no one in the running. i heard about another guy, forgot his name, but the only reason he was trying to run because he wanted some publicity. Bhutto had an outsider's chance, but there was no way she would win. Musharaff is guaranteed a win, legally or illegally.
    • orxor, on 12/27/2007, -1/+12Dick Cheney
    • Genady, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Whoever manages to capitalize the most on the 'martyr vote' effect. The question is will a clear leader emerge to capture the majority of that vote, or will the various factions squabble and bicker to the point that Musharaf is able to be elected?
    • UnkelJethro, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1I wonder, who is going to teach you how to spell?

      /is your children learning?
    • diggingaround, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Madeleine Albright... the butcher in white gloves.
    • skyshock1, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1*who's not *whose
    • anachronaut, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1If Washington gets its way, it will be Aitzaz Ahsan.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aitzaz_Ahsan

      Keep in mind as you read that entry that, as far as countries in which Western powers have a deeply-vested interest are concerned (and that includes the US), the term "democracy" is almost always used as a code word or euphemism for "corporatism". Don't make the easy mistake of thinking that this means the benign type of democracy in the sense that the American public thinks of the word; rather, it's the type of democracy that the American government and corporations want. This guy is a known pawn of Western interests, and he'll end up just as dead as Bhutto if he actually wins the election for Prime Minister.
    • ozwolfbane, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Now that the candidTE MUSHARRAF AND AMERICA wanted/were rigging to win is gone, they will have no interest in elections, benazir was going to be america and musharrafs lacky when she came back to answer lusting only for power
  • jdaniel284, on 12/27/2007, -49/+17It is very unfortunate that she was killed. However, she was fanning the flames. Staging these wide-eyed frenzied rallies while she screamed angry controversies from a bullhorn did nothing to calm the situation.
    • dbrodbeck, on 12/27/2007, -7/+13So it is her fault then, excellent analysis...
      • dbrodbeck, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3In case you can't tell Marge, I'm being sarcastic...
    • johnhummel, on 12/27/2007, -2/+37Yeah! I mean, those crazy controversies like "We should have open elections", "We shouldn't have a person who staged a coup as our next president", "We should have freedom of the press", or "We shouldn't let religious extremists have a say in what a woman can do with her life", or "Don't give in to fear and let the leadership use the threat of terrorists to dictate your lives!"

      Damn that woman for speaking out about such crazy ideas! No wonder she got killed! Obviously, with your thinking, she deserved it.

      Asshat.
      • IdevInull, on 12/27/2007, -17/+3Yeah because open elections did wonders for the Palestinians. When will you morons learn that some people need a dictator?
        • Yetidude, on 12/27/2007, -1/+10Check out the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution when you get a chance. Some very intelligent people disagree with you.
        • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Everything was fine until the dictator came along, idiot.
          Just in case you didn't know, Musharraf is the dictator.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1don't even bother comparing Palestine with Pakistan, you'll only strain your idiot bone.
    • GhengisKhan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6In America we call it 'freedom of speech.'
  • egeo2000, on 12/27/2007, -22/+3damn beat me by one minute *sigh* anywho's a lot of people are going to be unhappy as word spreads
    • Frostman3D, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2It doesn't make you a better person to post a story with a lot of diggs. It does make you an ***** for being disappointed that you weren't the one to tell the bad news.
  • evan119, on 12/27/2007, -8/+185MSNBC is reporting that she was shot in the neck and chest before the bomb was set off. 20 dead total. Can't help to wonder though how Bush will react to this one. This impacts many more people than just her supporters and throws many questions in the air. Will Musharraf still hold elections soon as he promised? I can't help but wonder if hopes for Democracy in Pakistan died with her.
    • Groovemaster, on 12/27/2007, -13/+40Bush will react however his handlers tell him to react.
      • TechnologyGirl, on 12/27/2007, -11/+5Haha, Bush is like a dumb little show dog. (I believe most dogs aren't dumb, but I'm comparing him to a dumb one.) Time to check the teeth and under the tail!
      • evan119, on 12/27/2007, -6/+13Ya, wouldn't be surprised though if he's sitting in a classroom in Florida reading to kids...
        • paradexes, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2So you're saying that the kids are his handlers? AAAHHH Makes all the sense in the world. How else would you explain how screwed up things are. He is getting policy advice from kids.
      • turkeyssr, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2...no different than Clinton or any of the rest of the worthless politicians
      • superkendall, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Is that what your handler said?
    • strike2867, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1Bush: Whos that?
    • diggingaround, on 12/27/2007, -4/+1Please CIA ... we need a new Saddam... can we clone him?
    • gridbread, on 12/27/2007, -4/+8He'll probably react the same way he always does.
      "She was uhh....a uhhh....strong supporter of freedom...she loved freedom and uhhhhh.... she wanted freedom.....uhh."
      • diggingaround, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4They hated her ... uhhhh.. because she loved the freedom... uhhh.. and democracy... uhhh
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -2/+6Rudy jumps in, "9/11!"
    • superkendall, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1The elections will proceed without her. Probably someone will step forward to take a simialr role as she did, though sadly not likely to be a woman.
    • captaindh00m, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1by being on holiday at camp David??
  • kody, on 12/27/2007, -63/+34The religion of peace...
    • malykii, on 12/27/2007, -7/+7No, war is peace.
    • anj747, on 12/27/2007, -1/+17I believe this is poltically motivated. Many of these incidents are, thinly veiled with religious justification by some self-proclaimed scholar who needs to give it backing to give it legitimacy in the eyes of the hardliners.
    • GhengisKhan, on 12/27/2007, -27/+7Agree completely kody. What a bunch of ***** savages.
      • kody, on 12/27/2007, -18/+2thank you
      • Myonosken, on 12/27/2007, -0/+7Kennedy? Lincoln? I don't get how political assassinations make you a savage race.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Had nothing to do with religion
    • pmuaddib, on 12/27/2007, -7/+18The comments of a dumb ass.
    • Lassan, on 12/27/2007, -5/+11And of course, religion has a whole lot to do with this, doesn't it?
      • JimSwarthow, on 12/27/2007, -6/+2it has everything to do w/ it, numbnuts. pay attention.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2um, no - it doesn't, moron. It was a political assassination. There is no religious aspect to the story. ***** off.
    • fandyboy, on 12/27/2007, -8/+13This is a political act not religious, asshat.
      • kody, on 12/27/2007, -9/+1really so should we expect suicide bombings in our political races? *****?
        • fandyboy, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1lol *****..haha
        • electrichead, on 12/27/2007, -4/+1You shouldn't because there is no one in the States who 1. Has any bearing on the vote anyway and 2. Actually cares. You have shown the world that you are apathetic to your own government. How can you understand what the situation is there?
        • Myonosken, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Kennedy ring a bell?
      • JimSwarthow, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2sure her progressive ideas and the mere fact that she was a woman w/ a 'big mouth' and her own ideas (egad!!) gaining support in a fundamentalist muslim country populated by radical Islamists wanting her dead!dead!dead! had nothing to do w/ her assassination. riiight, keep tellin' yourself that, bozo.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1"...in a fundamentalist muslim country populated by radical Islamists..."
          You really have limited resources don't you?
          • JimSwarthow, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1no more limited than yours apparently.. or did you mean to post and not really say anything? - don't think this event/assassination is related to islam? don't think pakistan is primarily muslim? don't think the place is infested w/ radical islamists? let's hear it.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3says the Pakistan expert fandyboy. Nobody knows ***** yet, including you.
    • VeryBoredNow, on 12/27/2007, -7/+3So Kennedy was probably taken out by the Taleban ..right? You're an idiot.
    • furcht, on 12/27/2007, -5/+3ain't religion great?
    • max420, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Well, we are talking about a country who's official religion is Islam, and I do believe they follow Sharia law.... sooo I am guessing she was probably killed because she was a woman vying for power. Sure its political, but heavily fueled by religion. savages.... all of them.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1No, they DON'T follow Sahria law. It was not "fueled by religion". Yes, you need to read more.
        • jlharrity, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1all of them. sweet. rash generalizations rule.
        • JimSwarthow, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1so you don't think the assassination of an extremely influential and progressive islamic woman who had a very good chance of becoming president of the islamic republic of pakistan, a country w/ the 2nd largest muslim population on earth, had nothing to do w/ religion? are you fkn serious? 12 years old? or just an argumentative dope?
  • gbudavid, on 12/27/2007, -28/+7Politics is Tough
    Also The Media spoon feeds the Morons about the stuff that really matters You know like Dead Dogs White deer Whether Portland Oregon will get two flakes of snow on the same block so they can Headline Blizzard 07 ...
  • digguse, on 12/27/2007, -27/+20Hundreds senselessly die in Pakistan....Yet another senseless killing
    • williamdyer, on 12/27/2007, -9/+5Follow the CIA money. It may be "senseless" but it isn't without impetus.
      • ilves7, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1that country is messed up before the US got involved. You don't think this type of stuff wouldn't be going on even IF there was no US involvement?
    • boflaade, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Just how do you die sensibly? Is this an American thing?
  • pintomp3, on 12/27/2007, -12/+28her death will have a major impact on pakistan's political scene, i hope things don't get too much worse.
    • crazydiode, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2who's the number 2 in her party? no one knows outside of Pak. that is the state of PPP. I dont think elections will take place as scheduled...
    • bigfinger, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Her death will have a major impact on the whole middle east political scene.
    • mugicha, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Congratulations on your keen insight Captain Obvious. Please keep us posted when you have another breakthrough.
    • mrmet08, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Can someone please tell me why this woman is being celebrated? She accomplished nothing while in power and seems no different than every other corrupt leader in her country. Because she was a so-called muslim leader as woman does not alone mean she should be celebrated. Yes, it's sad, but, again, she accomplished nothing.
  • SLuM, on 12/27/2007, -27/+86Under her corruption and the rape of citizens was rampant, not saying that this is justified though.
    • 786digger, on 12/27/2007, -5/+37No one has the brain enough to read up about that though ... because she's a woman - she's automatically the "answer to a country's woes" ... doesn't matter if she was as evil as hell ...
    • danconia, on 12/27/2007, -3/+30Yeah I'm glad to see someone at least mention this stuff. A lot of the corruption was traced right back to her so just because she opposes Nutcase Musharraf doesn't mean she's automatically some sorta of saint. Kinda reminds you of the US, huh? Pick a corrupt official or you might get stuck with a military dictator...
      • SLuM, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Musharraf has done a lot more for Pakistan as a dictator than Bhutto ever has done as a PM on both her terms. In fact I don't think Musharraf is too much of a bad guy if you look at how he's holding the country and trying to revitalize the economy.
      • openpaledot, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2The rivalry extends beyond just Musharraf to two families, the Chaudhrys and Bhuttos who both have been fighting over a power grab of Pakistan in the last century.
    • Thayer75, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Sources? I'd like to read more about this.
    • Narrator, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Charge ...
  • RavagesOfTime, on 12/27/2007, -14/+146So, now what? And honestly, who didn't see this coming as soon as Bhutto returned?
    • davdev, on 12/27/2007, -1/+13I am personally shocked it took this long. Though there was an attack on her motorcade on the day of her return. If I were running a death pool Bhutto would have been high on the list
    • joot2112, on 12/27/2007, -1/+13I agree - this has to be the least surprising assasination ever.
    • RajMahal77, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8In the heart of hearts, I really wished that this wouldn't have happened. I honestly thought that fate, a miracle, or by her sheer force of will that she would make it through this thing alright. It still came as a shock.
    • chamanbuga, on 12/27/2007, -0/+10Unfortunately to say it was not unexpected. She had many enemies, both political and civil. Everyone has political enemies, and in a country as violent as Pakistan it becomes quite life threatening. I think it is safe to say that everyones' life is on the line when they are in politics, unless they are like Altaf Hussain who is protected by the British government in London while he terrorizes the streets of Karachi. Nevertheless, it is also important to remember that she was an absolutely horrid PM who stole milllions of dollars for her own workings transferring money to her own swiss accounts, and killed many of her own political opposition. Her and Nawaz Shareef have literally thrown people into the brick baking ovens. It is sad generation for Pakistan, not day, when every single leader of theirs is corrupted stenched with a history of money looting and blood.
    • B3000, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Umm... Apparently she didn't.
      • joot2112, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1She was aware of the danger, but she accepted the risks because she believed her cause was worth it. She stayed there even after the attack in October that was aimed at her and killed 139 people.
    • Zuljin, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Yeah, it's terrible, but I'm also surprised this didn't happen even sooner.
  • peaceninja, on 12/27/2007, -19/+14this is awful news...I was really excited about her increasingly getting more support
  • saturnx8, on 12/27/2007, -25/+13i was waiting to hear"blame america..." thanks for not disappointing me.
  • Nocturnalis, on 12/27/2007, -40/+12"Oh I forgot, Jamie Lynn ***** Spears is pregnant and Mike Huckabee is hunting birds. WTF!!!??????"

    This is all American media really cares about. 16y/o girl pregnant... how to I explain to my kids. This is nothing new and has been going on for years. Isn't there a ***** movie out now too called Juno about the same *****. And this movie gets raved reviews, for what?
    • lacronicus, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3At least the majority of americans can keep their tabs in order. Unless that was supposed to be about this article...
      • Nocturnalis, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2It was a response for alphaterminus but this thread took off so fast that it ended up way under where it was intended to be.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Because it's a good movie? I don't know where you're going with this.
    • ilves7, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1how is this related to the article?
    • Claude1971, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1uh nut case?
    • max420, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Its related to the article because the OP was complaining that this was the first place he heard of it. This should have been breaking news on CNN and MSNBC the moment it happened, but it didn't because American Media is retarded.
  • dunderballer, on 12/27/2007, -50/+10I am so sick of the F*ed middle east. Instead of being involved in their problems, we should start another country somewhere where we would offer refuge to those who want peace. I am so freaking sick of it.
    • pintomp3, on 12/27/2007, -6/+29pakistan is in south asia, dunderhead.
      • Tarl, on 12/27/2007, -12/+4http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
        "Opinions vary as to what countries make up the modern definition of the Middle East."
        Nice try, "dunderhead."
        • xerexes1, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Middle_east_gra ...
          And according to Wikipedia: The Middle East defines a geographical area, but does not have precise defined borders. The modern definition of the region includes:Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, the Palestinian territories, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Egypt, with its Sinai Peninsula in Asia, is considered part of the Middle East, although most of the country lies geographically in North Africa. According to international media, North African nations without Asian links, such as Libya, Tunisia and Algeria, are increasingly being called North African. Other countries that are sometimes included in this definition are those of the Caucasus region (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia), Cyprus, Afghanistan and North Africa (the Maghreb), Sudan, Djibouti, and Somalia.
          • Tarl, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Read your own link.
            "does not have precise defined borders."
            And my source is at least as valid as yours. That is if you didn't edit it first. ;)
      • Tarl, on 12/27/2007, -12/+1To the ones digging me down: Yeah, whatever. Don't let facts cloud your vision or anything.
    • geekchic, on 12/27/2007, -1/+19I think you need to get a map out and look at where Pakistan is - and more importantly based on your comments, where it isn't.
      • dunderballer, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
        i am wondering if you are getting dugg up because you should follow your own advise. More likely you are getting dugg up out of ignorance. The G8 includes Pakistan in its definition of the Middle East while the State Department's 1958 definition does not. It is arbitrary.
    • orlyfactor, on 12/27/2007, -1/+14Where do you propose we start this "other country"? The moon?
    • chetanw, on 12/27/2007, -2/+17Ahem.. Pakistan is not in the "F*ed" Middle-East.
    • alphaterminus, on 12/27/2007, -13/+3Nevertheless, pintomp3, Pakistan is tightly related to Middle East policy.
    • malykii, on 12/27/2007, -5/+25We did when we decided to create a country called Israel out of thin air.