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.

Scotland Yard: You'll Never Guess Who Killed Benazir Bhutto

timesonline.co.uk — They might have washed the scene after it was blown up but the boys in blue have only gone and worked it out!!! Go on, guess who. Experts have already begun to distance themselves from the Yard's findings which they describe as being based "for strategic reasons" and nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -12/+45FTA:

    [“Linking Mehsud to Bhutto’s assassination was done for strategic reasons and had nothing to do with the ground realities,” said Sajjan Gohel, an expert on Al-Qaeda.

    “Although Mehsud (the alleged Al-Qaeda link) has ideological sympathies with the Taliban, his influence does not extend beyond the tribal areas and he certainly does not have the resources to plan an attack in the centre of the country like the assassination of Bhutto.”

    But British and American officials, who have examined the transcript, say they believe it is genuine and share Musharraf’s view that Mehsud is behind most of the suicide bombings in Pakistan.]

    The Phantom Bin Laden MkII perhaps?
    • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -4/+19To be fair even Scotland Yard police officeres are peddaling backwards on this one to distance themselves too. It is British 'officials' who are speaking out on the evidence collected by Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard themselves are saying they are only there to find out how she was killed, not why and by whom.

      "Scotland Yard has insisted that its task is not to establish who killed her but only how she died."

      Despite this they have a very strange restriction placed on them: they can't examine the body.

      Those who are making the leaps of fantasy to justify or direct policy are British Officials. They are doing so by piggybacking intelligence despite their conclusions being contrary to expert advice.
      • obliviousfool, on 01/13/2008, -2/+12If they were supposed to find out how she died, but not who killed her, then the article has a pretty funny headline.

        Al-Qaeda ...the universal boogie man.
        • jrbrewin, on 01/13/2008, -0/+12my thoughts exactly. Al-Qaeda is fast becoming a term to just mean nasty person or organisation.
        • lintmonkey, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3If only she wasn't so free, she'd still be alive.
      • beasty_dave_Mk2, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6great, Carnivore's gonna be all over me from that last bit. thx
      • branjb, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3I have no proof or citation, but I can guess why they're not allowed to see the body. Probably because for one, she's a women, and even dead in their eyes letting a westerner see her naked would be wrong. And for second they probably are very against the idea of desecrating her body, which is what would happen.
    • barnseyboy12, on 01/13/2008, -13/+8The same Scotland Yard who did a bad job photoshoping evidence for the London 7/7 bombings? No thanks.
      (If you don't remember http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/250705doct ... )
      • Cl1mh4224rd, on 01/13/2008, -5/+8OK, seriously? Prison Planet? Come on...
    • Frost9999, on 01/13/2008, -5/+11Does Al Qaeda actually exist? The IRA were able to do plenty of damage, people did not doubt their existence. But random stuff just seems to get accredited to Al Qaeda, the catch-all terrorist organisation.
      • Commodore84, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2Where were you on Sept. 11, 2001?
        • Frost9999, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3I was at work. But that was 2001. Where is Al Qaeda today? Everywhere apparently... and before 2001 I had never heard of them.
        • TxAggie08, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1Really cause they bombed the USS Cole during Clinton's administration. You never heard about them before because they didn't attack INSIDE the US.
    • Memitim, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2In all fairness, we did provide al Qaeda with the greatest recruiting campaign that they could have wished for. I'd imagine that they have far more resources in certain areas than any of our intelligence estimates account for, particularly with just how bad our intel has been time and again in those arenas. Not saying that I actually believe this conclusion since these governments have lost all remaining credibility with me (a horribly bad state of affairs in a free, democratic nation, but that's another topic) but given just how much we have helped al Queda over the past few years I wouldn't rule out the possibility based upon resource availability.
    • Flakor, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5Didn't she say that Osama was dead? If thats true, perhaps they took her out to silence her?
    • MoClippa, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3They have been trying to pin this on Al Qaeda for a while. It all started with that Italian newspaper publishing a highly un-credible, and uncorroborated story, that had someone claiming to be an al qaeda captain and speaking for Zawahri. The US media and government, as well as musharraf ran with it, even though it was an obvious ***** link, and more official sources in Al Qaeda refuted it.

      Now they are alleging that some tribal leader with links to the al qaeda (though it doesn't state what those links are) did this, even though the evidence towards that is disputed. From what I understand, Mehsud was an Afghani tribal leader that was paid by the US through Pakistan, to battle the soviets. He also has links to the Taliban, which is not surprising, because when the Soviets sent in troops to quell the Afghan revolt in the 80s, you were essentially either with the soviets, or with one of the major tribal groups fighting them (loosely linked together by Taliban).
      He has a highly limited sphere of influence, and his links to al qaeda seem to be negligible as I have yet to find any evidence of maintained contact between the warlord and al qaeda.
  • Kinglouis3, on 01/13/2008, -24/+189Next thing their gonna tell us is that al-qaeda was responsible for assassinating JFK.
    • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -5/+16Unfortunately it is much worse than that. The new place they say they have popped up...

      - fresh after the Middle East visit which saw PM Olmert admit the there will be no peace without Gaza (the administrations, despite international condemnation, still went ahead and refused to invite Gaza) and Bush suggesting that a foreign force should police Palestine in the case of a handover, with economic aid in the form of western contractors (in which the non-included Gaza will be seen to be the reason for any breakdown in the peace process despite not being invited) -

      .....The new place Al-Qaeda has supposedly 'popped up' in was no other than today, in GAZA where they were nice enough to leave a calling card!!!!

      Joining the dots is becoming easier to do...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7185015.stm
    • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -4/+14Ooo...they've obviously been oiling the Al-Qaeda propaganda machine as of late. Another Uk newspaper is running another article today:

      "PLOT TO KILL QUEEN FOILED
      AL Qaeda terrorists posing as TV crews planned to blow up the Queen by smuggling explosives into last year’s Commonwealth summit."

      Buckingham Palace has refused to comment.
      Emmanuel Goldstein defintely seems to upping his tempo...

      http://tinyurl.com/2allve
      • anti-net, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah - but thats the Express, they don't bother printing real stories. Just lots and lots and lots of stories about Diana
      • BelXul, on 01/14/2008, -0/+3Dugg for suitable reference to Emmanuel Goldstein.
    • DesertDude, on 01/13/2008, -0/+11"Next thing their gonna tell us is that al-qaeda was responsible for assassinating JFK."

      Wait a minute there, you're saying Al Qaedah **ISN'T** responsible for that?
      • hiikeeba, on 01/13/2008, -0/+11Of course they are. They even cause Global Warming and milk to curdle.
    • jdepp, on 01/13/2008, -0/+8Al'Qaeda did for Princess Diana. And Madeline McCann. FACT.
      • MxSam, on 01/13/2008, -6/+2You're doing it wrong. It was the parents...
    • CarzorStelatis, on 01/13/2008, -1/+8I'm sure they'll convict bin Laden in absentia for the murder of Jesus any day now. Sentence: 2000 years of hard torture in Guantanamo.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/13/2008, -4/+2That's what Bush said! Are you telling me it's not true? You're a libtard moron!!!

      *I'd like to personally thank trolls for such great quips as: libtard, paultard, superliberal, fruit, tin foil hat, tin foil commando, basement dweller, and many others. Without you, there'd be a lot more people who were informed, instead of morons who wouldn't have fallen for your anti intellectual b.s.
    • MoClippa, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4Hey, Sirhan Sirhan was an Arab, lets put him into the Al Qaeda jar as well.
    • RoyLuhza, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1Senator Arlen Specter holds the key to the Kennedy assassination file, there is no reason at all why he should not charged as complicit, then his testimony should reveal what else happened and who else was involved… Similarly BB’s death should be seen as part of the same CIA Mossad trouble making false flag op factory, that is bombing Iraq and Afghanistan with car bombs and suicide bombs, when it is widely known, witnessed by the testimony of the former President and Prime Minister of Italy, who says everybody knows 911 was a CIA and Mossad op.

      Blockbuster Video’s… Evidence of Revision 1-5… They were compiled from thousands of television news tapes, and detail neglected or ignored evidence on matters including the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy, respectively President of The United States, and United States Senator. Including evidence from the Los Angeles coroner that the shots that killed Robert Kennedy, were fired from a distance of between one and three inches into his head from behind and below his right ear, Sirhan Sirhan who was convicted for the killing was several feet to his front. The film has footage of the LA DA simply brushing that aside.

      President Kennedy was about to reduce the Vietnam commitment when he was murdered… his body was hardly cold when Johnson who succeeded him as president announced he was sending more troops… This video series dumps a bucket on Johnson …it says he was up to his ears in it. It series has taped testimony from a Deputy Sheriff in Dallas, who was one of the first into the Texas School Book depository after John Kennedy was shot… He witnessed the recovery of a rifle identified as a 7.65mm German Mauser.

      The news arrived here early Saturday, by Monday morning school scuttlebutt was adamant that his driver had shot him… The first item on the school’s agenda that morning was that no discussion of the crime would be allowed during class, and by noon of that day the weapon first stated to be a German Mauser had become a 6.65mm Italian Mannlicher Carcano.

      Arlen Specter signed the Warren Report, the official Kennedy assassination document… He should be hauled before a court of capital jurisdiction, and be required to explain why he neglected this and mountains of similar evidence… Like the photo taken moments after the first shot, with the startled birds in flight, with alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the doorway of the TSBD.
  • R1ng00, on 01/13/2008, -19/+122Do people actually fall for this ***** anymore?
    • SonnyW, on 01/13/2008, -5/+18Well, yes. Unless you hate freedom, of course.
    • DesertDude, on 01/13/2008, -4/+13If those people = Americans, then yeah, sure. This story will probably be disbelieved worldwide, except in America.
    • kesam, on 01/13/2008, -2/+8I suspect most people in Pakistan will believe Musharraf did it. Or his good friends, the CIA. Dragging the Scotland Yard all the way down there to "investigate" does seem a bit strange, doesn't it.
      • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5He was facing very real charges of a cover up. Bringing in Scotland Yard was an attempt to add to their credibility.

        Importantly, from the article, the actual detectives on the ground they have already made moves to distance themselves from the claims by British officials (a term which in no way excludes higher echelons of Scotland Yard or Special Branch) from links that are being made to Al-Qaeda. The intelligence boys doing the investigation have been quick to point out that they are only there to establish what killed Bhuto - that is not to say that their investigation has not been hijacked by these officials and, as the Al-Qaeda expert from the article points out, their 'strategic' reasoning i.e. personal agenda.
      • ibookfast, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5Once again, Al-CIA-Duh! strikes again!

        We obviously need more CCTVs, RFID chips in everyone, a new Bill of State Rights, corporate controlled media selling us news, FEMA family camps, etc.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/13/2008, -4/+3Notice how when it's obviously fallacious, "This article is possibly Innacurate" is absent.
  • Groovemaster, on 01/13/2008, -23/+191Al Qaeda is actually a codeword for "We're lying our ***** asses off and you gullible cretins buy it every time!".
    • banmaster, on 01/13/2008, -1/+17Its all a big game. And the game is called "Lets see what we can get away with".
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -3/+39Al Qaeda stole my bike!
    • jellygraph, on 01/13/2008, -2/+22Al Qaeda ate my homework!
      • andy3109, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3The new classroom excuse of the 21st century
  • RoyLuhza, on 01/13/2008, -16/+42Scotland Yard has not been credible for a very long time, since well before the London bombings... surely their people would be privy to the report that said Francesco Cossiga was a terrorist CIA asset while Prime Minister then President of Italy.

    He asserted recently that the CIA and Mossad were responsible for 911, that means the Pak connection to that crime, via the stooge who sent the 'smoking gun' money to Mohammed Attar got it from Paki Intelligence who received it from the CIA, were interested parties in the killing of a person who Condoleeza Rice had persuaded to return. Lotta big names, lotta big crimes the SY response is predictable.

    The Scotland Yard assertion that BB's murder was an Al Q plot is laughable... yet even if capital charges of corruption in a capital offense, ie a murder offense, were proven, then would the SY people be liable for death by hanging.
    • theright, on 01/13/2008, -11/+17Your mentioning of Francesco Cossiga is nothing but a prime example of the argument from authority logical fallacy. The fact Cossiga was President of the Italian Republic does not make every word he utters correct. More importantly, nor does it go any way to proving intelligence services orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. There is still absolutely zero evidence of intelligence service involvement. That's right. Zero evidence.

      The fact you believe the Mohamed Atta (note: not Attar) ISI wiring myth just goes further to show your misplaced faith in the puppet-masters of the 9/11 Denial movement and total lack of fact-checking abilities. The source of this claim was an article published in the Times of India on October 9th, 2001. The author of this article failed to provide any evidence of this allegation. Six years later, no evidence has surfaced, and no reputable news outlet has echoed the claim aside from citing the Times of India article, rightly referring to it as an "allegation". It's a baseless claim. If you look at the date of the article, it was published less than a month after the attacks took place. If I'm not mistaken, it took the FBI around two weeks just to iron out all the creases in the list of the hijackers' identities. Besides, the claim doesn't even make sense. At the time of the reported wiring incident, Atta was in the process of transferring funds out of the United States in small sums, not in. He had no need for $100,000.

      So to sum up, we're talking about an allegation made shortly after the fact, at a time of immense confusion and lack of information, which defies all common sense and logic, with no supporting evidence. Nevertheless, as you 9/11 Deniers so love to do, let's establish a motive and work backwards from there. Hmm... is this an Indian newspaper making allegations about the Pakistani intelligence services? Well, well. If you hadn't noticed, India and Pakistan don't have the rosiest of pasts...
      • ZenFountain, on 01/13/2008, -6/+13Coherent 9/11 troofer debunking is sure to earn you many a bury. What is the motivation for the Times of India, or any Indian newspaper for that matter to make baseless claims against Pakistan's intelligence service? You speak as though they are sworn enemies and India would have an interest in Pakistan losing foreign aid from America that's being used to...oh snap.
      • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -5/+13But the 9-11 commission did argue that the source of financing for 9-11 was not in their remit or of interest to them. Say that again to yourself. The people who funded 9-11 were not of interest to the commission. Really? Really really??

        If you want to dispute the Atta claim you must first of all acknowledge the failings of the 9-11 commission and before you make any claims about the causes or the perpetrators of the event, for your own integrity's sake, acknowledge that a full, new, independent and public inquiry is called for. Until that point who did what is a moot point and acting on any assumption drawn on its predecessor is rash.

        If you want to go pointing a finger and proportioning blame you at least have a responsibility to discover the facts first. This has not been done.
        • Tilon, on 01/13/2008, -2/+6Excellent rebuttal, sir. I should take a lesson from it.
        • theright, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5I hate to say it, but wrong, wrong and wrong again. The 9/11 Commission did not state the financing was "not in their remit or of interest to them." Quite the opposite, in fact. The issue of financing was very much within their remit, and it was very much of interest to them. What they did say, and I quote, from Pg. 172 of the final report, was the following:

          “To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund and operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.”

          As I'm sure you'll agree, this is a perfectly acceptable conclusion given the circumstances. Like it or not, al-Qaeda don't keep detailed receipts of their income and expenditures, then send them off with their tax return at the end of the financial year. A new investigation isn't going to change this fact. As the Commission Report stated, it is common knowledge that al-Qaeda has diversified financing, and I can assure you they didn't need $100,000 from the Pakistani ISI to carry out this operation.

          In case you're thinking of replying — as far too many people I've debated this issue with do — by shouting "nyah! look! right there they said the origin of the funds was of little significance!" please have another look at the passage. The Commission came to the — rather obvious, in fact — conclusion that the origin was of little *practical* significance. That is, knowing the origin of these particular funds, and henceforth pulling the plug on that source, wouldn't even make a dent in the organisation's financing as a whole, and would make no headway in preventing a future attack from taking place.
          • Albionshores, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. "

            Precisely. An assumption was made that it was Al-Qaeada despite the supposed hijackers turning up alive in the world. They then said that they weren't going to go into it because it was not necessary because Al-Qaeda has funds.

            THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO THE FUNDS.

            Rumours abound about Atta receiving money from CIA funded Pakistani ISI and they refused to go into it - even look at it!

            3:30 to 4 minutes Click & watch...

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84mx8oi1s_I

            Since then the FBI have confirmed the wired money-Atta connection!
          • theright, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1@Albionshores

            You continue to misinterpret the findings of the 9/11 Commission. I'm quite sure the Commission did look into the origins of the funds, and as stated, came to the conclusion that it's nigh-on impossible to come across those details. It was not stated that "they weren't going to go into it because [...] Al-Qaeda has funds." What they stated was that knowing the origin of the funds was of little "practical significance" because al-Qaeda had various sources of funding. There's no questioning the fact that the origin of the funds was of great importance.

            The video you posted features the same misinterpretation of the passage. Whether or not the man speaking is quoting from a draft version of the report, I'm not sure, but the final report was released in July 2004, and nowhere within does it state, as he claims, that "[the origin of the funds], after all, is a matter of no great importance." I've clarified this for you already. There is an astronomical difference between the implications of the terms "little practical significance" and "no great importance," and claiming the 9/11 Commission stated the latter is a flat-out lie.

            Going back to the ISI-Atta allegation, I'm sure someone in the US government or intelligence services did look into it at some point. However, I'm sure you'll agree with me that a baseless accusation about foreign intelligence services from an obviously biased source, with no supporting evidence or logic behind the allegation whatsoever, holds about as much weight as me, right here and now, suggesting Rosie O'Donnell bought the plane tickets for the hijackers. Are the Commission now obligated to investigate this allegation?

            P.S. I noticed you slipped a little "despite the hijackers turning up alive in the world" claim in there. Entirely false, I'm afraid. Cases of common names, mistaken identities, and errors in the FBI's preliminary list of hijackers' details. There were news reports — such as the BBC's, which has since been followed up by corrections on their blog —, but no one has come forward and no one will, because like it or not the hijackers are not alive.
          • garitar, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1@theright:

            "Going back to the ISI-Atta allegation... a baseless accusation about foreign intelligence services from an obviously biased source, with no supporting evidence or logic behind the allegation whatsoever.."

            That is ***** and you know enough to know better. The ISI chief was fired *ONE DAY BEFORE* the report in the Times of India because US investigators confirmed links between him and Umar Sheikh (the man who wired the $100k to Atta) .

            Keep distorting the facts though, you only make the "truthers" look more credible by doing so.

            Oh, and while you're at it, please elaborate on the "astronomical" differences between the phrase "little practical significance" and the paraphrase "no great importance" as applicable to sources of financing for terror attacks. I await your reply with bated breath.
          • theright, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1@garitar:

            Apologies for keeping you waiting with bated breath.

            Having delved a little bit deeper into the ISI-Atta allegation, it seems it was little more than a case of confused identities. It turns out the first news outlet to pick up on the $100,000 wiring allegation (minus the Pakistani connection, one should note) was CNN, who published the article "Suspected hijack bankroller freed by India in '99" on October 6th, 2001, three days before the Times of India article.

            It seems either CNN or the unnamed "U.S. Investigators" cited as the source of the information in the article mistook one of Saeed Sheikh's aliases — Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad — with the name of Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, an individual who is known to have had a significant role in the financing and logistics in the run-up to the attacks.

            If you compare the intelligence known about the individual in the CNN article with intelligence later discovered about al-Hawsawi (remember, this article came out less than a month after the attacks, amidst a dense fog of confusion and inaccuracies in news reports), you'll notice some stark similarities. The article cites sources as stating "Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Syed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11." In hindsight, we know this to be incorrect. Western Union printouts of the money transfers (available for free online as part of the prosecution exhibits in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui) show the recipient of the transfers, in Dubai, to be "Mustafa Ahmed". Also available as exhibits are the forms filled out by Mustafa Ahmaed al-Hawsawi (this time with his full name in plain text, clearly not to be mistaken with Sheikh's alias Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad) to open a Standard Chartered Bank Personal Account in Dubai, UAE in June, 2001. These transfers were, of course, covered in the 9/11 Commission Report, with al-Hawsawi being named as the recipient of around $26,000 in all.

            As for the $100,000, no record of such a wire transfer exists. Neither the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission, who both investigated the issue of financing with a fine tooth-comb, found any trace of such a transfer. All the news sources that have mentioned the alleged wire transfer cite other news outlets, or unnamed sources. However, in a classified (later declassified, with the transcript available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602muel ... ) testimony to Congress, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller stated the following:

            "Alhawsawi also maintained an account in the UAE that was opened at the same time and at the same location as the account for Banihammad. From June 25, 2001, through September 11, 2001 approximately $102,000 was deposited to this account."

            That figure fits right in line with the CNN article's claim of "more than $100,000," albeit with no connection to Pakistan or Saeed Sheikh whatsoever. The Pakistani ISI connection was added three days later by the Times of India, who obviously had a vested interest in making such allegations. I'm unaware of the reasoning behind Mahmoud Ahmad's removal as Lt. General of the ISI, although I doubt it was US pressure over this supposed wiring incident. Regardless, the timing of his resignation and the report in the Times of India is no coincidence at all. The Times of India article was written after his resignation, and it was at this point that the case of confused identities was compounded by all the unsubstantiated pro-Indian, anti-Pakistani propaganda exhibited in the Times of India article.

            As for the differences between the phrases "little practical significance" and the "paraphrase" "no great importance," I really don't see what you're so confused about. To claim the 9/11 Commission asserted the origins of the funds were of "no great importance" is a horrific attempt at building a strawman argument. There is no doubt uncovering the origins of the funds was of great importance, but the fact is it's an almost impossible task, and as the 9/11 Commission stated in their final report, the US government has been unable to do so. The phrase "little practical significance" is a reference to the fact that knowing the origins of the funds would have little practical use, as al-Qaeda are known to have a number of diversified avenues of funding. Knowing and shutting down the flow of funds from these origins would have had no practical impact on al-Qaeda's ability to carry out their operations. To assert the Commission stated the origins were of "no great importance" is not only false, but a grossly misleading misinterpretation of the Commission's report. It's these kind of lies and misrepresentations — bearing in mind a large portion of the 9/11 Denial movement have never set their eyes on the 9/11 Commission Report — that foster conspiracy theories and undermine the work of US investigators and members of the Commission.

            P.S. Me? "[D]istorting the facts"? Examples, please, or I look forward (with bated breath, no less) to you retracting that statement.
        • GhostyBoy, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1@theright:

          You said: "knowing the origin of these particular funds, and henceforth pulling the plug on that source, wouldn't even make a dent in the organisation's financing as a whole, and would make no headway in preventing a future attack from taking place."

          While what you say is true, you make the assumption that knowing the source of the 9/11 funds would be used for the purpose of cutting the link and/or stopping future attacks. What you don't mention is that those who funded the attack are implicated as party to the conspiracy, and should be tried and held accountable. To my knowledge no individuals have been publicly tried in a court of law and convicted of conspiracy to commit mass murder on 9/11, and it does not seem to be in the Bush administrations agenda to capture and convict any of the conspirators in court. If Bin Laden and Al Queda are responsible, is not possible for us to capture and convict at least one member in a court of law?

          You seem to be fairly eloquent and clearly consider yourself well informed on the topic of 9/11, so please indulge me.

          I do not speculate on who the 9/11 conspirators were, but I do question the explanation of the collase. Controlled demolition seems to me the strongest hypothesis for the reasons behind the collapse. For your consideration:

          a) The buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. With tons of steel supporting the building it is unlikely that they would have offered virtually no slow down or resistance to collapse.
          http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/n ...

          b) Never before in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, yet on 9/11 it happened 3 times in one day.
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...


          c) Building 7 (Seriously, come on!) was not hit by a plane, yet still imploded at free-fall speed, straight down later on that day.
          http://www.betterbadnews.com/2006/04/11/popularity ...

          d) Up to six weeks after the collapse, pools of molten metal were found in the rubble of all three buildings, suggesting the possibility of the use of the compound thermate or thermite, commonly used in controlled demolition.
          http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Thermite- ...

          e) The name of the company that did the clean-up after 9/11 was called Controlled Demolition Inc. They were one of the very few companies liscenced to perform a controlled demolition, and they were key players in getting rid of the rubble (evidence) at ground zero. http://911review.com/coverup/groundzero.html

          Again, I don't assume anything. But the case for controlled demolition remains both strong and plausible, and the official account seems to offer an abundance of highly unlikely coincidences.
        • theright, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1@GhostyBoy

          With regards to the issue of funding, odds are that the funds used were not gifted to al-Qaeda with the express intention they be used to fund the 9/11 attacks. It's more than likely the funding came from a variety of sources, with none of the individuals or organisations providing these funds aware of how they would be used. If it was one or two individuals, and they were aware of the implications, then obviously these individuals should be brought to justice. However, as the 9/11 Commission stated in their final report, no one in the US government has managed to trace the origins of the funds. You can't argue with that, I'm afraid, and there's not a whole lot else you can do.

          With regards to your list of points:

          a) The buildings did not fall at that close to free fall speed. If you watch videos of the Twin Towers collapsing, the plume of debris that envelops the towers can be observed falling at free fall speed, much quicker than the main body of the towers. The upper sections of the towers do indeed meet resistance, although one must comprehend that we're talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of tons of building crushing down on the floors below. There is nothing unusual from an engineering standpoint about the speed with which the towers collapsed once they had reached global instability.

          b) Steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire before 9/11. Have a look at the Kader Toy Factory, for example. Since 9/11, the oft-cited by twoofers Windsor Building in Madrid is worth a look for the destructive force fire can have on steel. Large portions of the steel section of the building collapsed due to fire, and there's a good chance the entire building would have collapsed had it not been for the reinforced concrete core structure (note: none of the World Trade Center buildings had a reinforced concrete core). If you fancy a return question, how many steel-framed buildings have been hit by large passenger jetliners fully-laden with passengers and fuel at xxx mph? It wasn't just the fire that brought the towers down, after all

          c) 7 World Trade Center was not hit by a plane, but it was hit by an enormous amount of debris from two 110-storey skyscrapers that just happened to collapse across the road from it. The building was subjected to an enormous amount of structural damage (including a large gash in the South-East corner stretching upwards of ten floors vertically), had subsequent fires go untackled for hours due to a lack of water, was leaning precariously for a long time before collapse, and was evacuated long before collapse because everyone knew it was going to collapse. When it did collapse, it fell at nowhere near free fall speed. From collapse initiation at the penthouses to the ground, it took around 16 seconds

          d) There is no evidence to support the claim that *pools* of molten metal were found under the Pile weeks after the collapse. Reports of pools are more than likely mistaken assumptions. Nevertheless, molten metal was found amongst the rubble. The metal was most probably aluminum — of which there was a huge amount in the towers —, and which melts at a much lower temperature than other metals such as steel. The presence of molten metal goes no way to supporting a thermite/thermate theory

          e) Controlled Demolition, Inc. were hired to help in the clean-up operation because that's what they do. As for the "destruction of evidence" argument, please remember that work at ground zero began as a rescue operation. Put yourself in the mind of one of those rescue workers. Would you rather sit back, photograph the scene from all angles, carefully remove and catalogue each and every piece of rubble... or get in there and do whatever you can to rescue people trapped in the Pile? All the debris was sent to the Fresh Kills landfill site, where it was hand-sifted for human remains and pieces of evidence. A large amount of debris was kept, a lot of which was used in formulating the NIST report into the collapse of the towers, but as I've pointed out to someone else here, keeping all the debris would have been an entirely fruitless effort

          As for your final statement, I'm sorry but the case for controlled demolition of the towers is neither strong nor plausible. I assume you have already ruled out a conventional controlled demolition using explosives — you know, those kind that are completely invisible, make no sound, etc.? It seems you're more swayed by Dr. Steven Jones, who believes the presence of sulfur amongst the rubble is evidence of thermite/ate. Well, yes. That or, you know... drywall. This would be the same man who used photographs of steel columns cut diagonally by rescue workers using oxyacetylene torches as supposed evidence of thermite/ate charges. He still hasn't found any barium oxide, I'm afraid. That, and he's still failed to explain how these conspirators managed to rig the towers with thermite/ate. You know, considering the towers were 24/7 office buildings occupied by private tenants who wouldn't have been too pleased about their offices being destroyed and employees killed. That and how on Earth these conspirators were able to time these charges such that the towers collapsed almost uncannily like... an ordinary progressive collapse.
          • GhostyBoy, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Although I won't say I'm convinced (Building 7 collapse was nowhere near 16 seconds), I will say you make the most cohesive case that I have heard to date. It's too bad they didn't have you working at Popular Mechanics they would have done a lot better then the shoddy debunking they produced. I have a couple of other questions for you:

            In your opinion, was the failure of the entire U.S. air defense network a) a catastrophic failure of unprecedented proportions or
            b) an understandable failure given the unprecedented events

            And here is a question I have never heard asked by anyone that I would like your opinion on:

            If Al Qaeda suicide hijackers carried out the attacks, did they plan the twin towers collapse? Seriously, did they know that hitting the towers in such a way would start fires that would cause the steel to lose enough structural stability to ensure global collapse? Surely they could never have planned for the debris that supposedly knocked down building 7, but is it realistically possible for them to plan the destruction of WTC1 and 2 from the planes, or did they just catch an extremely lucky break on the destructiveness of the outcome?
          • theright, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1@GhostyBoy

            World Trade Center 7 did indeed take around 16 seconds from collapse initiation to pile of rubble. You may not realise this, as members of the 9/11 "truth" movement like to show a truncated video of the collapse which is around 7 seconds long. In truth, there were two penthouses atop the building, and the first of these collapsed around 10 seconds before the rest of the building. There are various videos showing the full collapse sequence, although a quick search on YouTube has failed to turn one up amongst the smorgasbord of twoofer videos.

            As for the issue of air defenses, I'm no expert on the matter, but I do know an excellent source of information on this topic is the three-part interview debunkers have conducted with "Cheap Shot," an Air Traffic Controller who was on duty at Boston Center while the attacks took place ( available at: http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs ). The interview gives you a real insight into how the air defenses were caught off guard, and the sheer confusion that followed. There was a number of communication issues, with different departments having issues sharing information, and inaccurate information getting thrown around. The fact that the hijackers turned off the transponders in the planes led to a whole raft of technical issues. The ATCs were then left with the option of assuming the planes would follow the same paths they had been (which didn't happen), or switch to primary radar and attempt to pick out the planes that way, amongst the thousands of other planes in US airspace at the time. Different departments operated with different navigation methods, so passing details of the locations of the planes along was difficult. Then above all else, there's the fact that no one was expecting this kind of thing to happen. NORAD's main focus pre-9/11 had been looking for incoming threats from abroad, and were caught off guard when a threat emerged from within. If I'm not mistaken, 9/11 was the first time planes had been used by hijackers as missiles on suicide missions. In most hijacking incidents the plane would just be diverted to an airport, with a fighter jet escort, and negotiations would take place on the tarmac. 9/11 was most definitely an unprecedented event as far as air defense is concerned, and the series of failures that took place on the ground and in the air that day, albeit unfortunate, are also understandable.

            As far as how al-Qaeda expected the attacks to unfold, I believe the best indicator we have is Osama bin Laden's statements in the 31st December, 2001 video featuring him, in which he states:

            "[...] we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."

            Of course, bin Laden did not know a great deal about the construction of the towers. He couldn't have predicted the immense heat from the fires would cause the steel trusses to yield, pulling the perimeter columns in and shifting loads to the point where the structure buckled and global collapse ensued. It seems the targets of the attacks were chosen for symbolic reasons above all else, and to a certain extent I guess bin Laden envisioned the Twin Towers standing crippled, the floors above the impact area teetering on collapse, looming over Lower Manhattan. Leaving the towers unusable and us to embark on the engineering nightmare it would have been to deconstruct the towers ourselves would have been the ultimate insult as far as he is concerned.

            In that sense, no, he wasn't betting on WTC7 collapsing. But then it's also important to note that WTC7 was just one of a large number of buildings in the surrounding area that were heavily damaged. The Verizon Building to the North, for example, suffered extensive damage, with large sections of the heavy masonry façade being destroyed. World Financial Center 3, to the West, suffered significant damage to it's heavy masonry façade from falling steel members, and had to be closed for months while repairs were made. The Deutsche Bank building, to the East, had large gashes ripped in the side, and was left unusable, still being deconstructed today. To the South, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was completely destroyed in the collapse of the South Tower, and for blocks around buildings were left with shattered windows and related damage.
      • hayzeus, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4Buried as excessively logical and coherent
      • garitar, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1I'm surprised you're familiar enough with the history of the of the "wiring myth" to neglect mentioning that, as reported by the WSJ on *same day* the allegations were published in the Times of India, the head of the Pakistani ISI was fired the day prior the after FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, the man US investigators believed wired those funds to Atta. Must have just been a crazy coincidence, huh?

        Sources:
        http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001294#isi
        http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.terror.i ...

        Score:
        Truthers 1
        Liars 0
      • RoyLuhza, on 01/14/2008, -3/+2The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled."

        Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries. This top secret document, consigned to the CIA's vaults for almost 32 years, was suddenly released to the public this week, during U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and on the eve of his trip to the Persian Gulf. Amir Oren Haaretz.com Jan 13 2008




        12 January 2007: …Podhoretz advocates a pre-emptive strike on Iran. The war hawks whose machinations post 911 caused the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and who now want the US to attack Pakistan and Iran, all on behalf of Eretz Yisrael or Greater Israel. Research Israeli and Mossad infiltration of US political and defense infrastructure, add Rupert Murdoch's proven track record of remaining blind to hard evidence against the Jews, while publishing fiction about Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden.

        Sibel Edmonds a former translator with a high level security clearance, says one well-known senior official in the US State Department was selling information to Turkish agents in Washington who were reselling it to black market buyers, including Pakistan. She claims that the FBI had knowledge. reason.com

        Countries such as Pakistan means Iran, more evidence of Paki and or Iranian nukes, sure evidence the Z’s are planning the biggest double cross since the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union, similarly on Zionist advice.

        August 30 2007, a B-52 Stratofortress, based at the Minot strategic air base in Minot, ND, against all rules and regulations of 40 years standing, loaded and flew off with six unrecorded and unaccounted for 150-kiloton nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Veterans of the US Air Force and Navy, with experience in handling nuclear weapons say that there had to have been a chain or orders from above the level of the base commander, for such a flight to have occurred. Several as yet unexplained deaths of B-52 pilots and base personnel occurring in the weeks shortly before and after the flight. CJ Coley ufomind.com

        The six nuclear tipped cruisers would have been intended for Pakistan or Iran’s arsenals, how many shipments were sent that were not discovered, see the traitors in the Defense Department arming the very forces against whom they are now calling for all out war, Iran and Pakistan. Israel has been supplying weapons to Iran since the days of Ollie north and Iran Contra. Believe that nuclear weapons have been on Iran’s shopping list for as long as Israel has had them for sale. see this shipment as meant to be used against the US invasion fleet.

        The Ashkenazi in the persons of Wolfowitz, Podhoretz et al who have infiltrated the Washington political establishment and the Pentagon, claim that war against Iran is winnable, in the same way their Ashkenazi predecessors in Germany convinced AH the invasion of the Soviet Union would be successful.

        This is what would happen… The Iranians nuke the US battle fleets with the Israel supplied weapons looted from US arsenals sending them to the bottom, the Turks form a Moslem alliance with all regional Islamic interests including Iran… they unite with the remnants of Saddam’s forces in Iraq, the Pakistani’s get rid of Musharraf and join the alliance. The Afghans go on the offensive in that land and suddenly US forces are stranded with no hope of resupply and no way of getting out, they either surrender or are wiped out.

        The Ashkenazi offensive on the Homeland commences and the mercenary forces that are already in place on the mainland, round up who they want to and it’s off to the FEMA camps for them for processing… to be killed. Attacks are carried out on the schools in Amish County and VA Tech style massacres, and the Ashkenazi chalk up another victory… War now against Israel.

        Patriots insist that the traitors who conspired with the Jews to commit the crimes of 911, and then waged devastating war against the innocent nation of Afghanistan in response, are brought to trial without torture nor coercion, in properly conducted courts of capital jurisdiction. Evidence can be gathered and interviews conducted, thus the entire WTC workforce will still be required to explain what their movements were on the day. Larry Silverstein the lessor of the WTC site was said to have been warned over the phone to stay away, then to have telephoned his daughter and told her not to come in.

        Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga says Mossad and the CIA, not Osama Bin Laden, did 911, he admits to being a CIA asset while Prime Minister then President, and to being part of the Operation Gladio CIA inspired terror network. He says intelligence services world wide are aware of the truth.
    • negativenancy, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Scotland Yard hasn't been credible since Sherlock Holmes died.
  • morningmatters, on 01/13/2008, -3/+79When Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister her government was the most corrupt in the world. The Bhuttos themselves have wronged so many people in the past that her killer could be anyone. The investigation must be extremely difficult. Blaming Al Qaeda is probably the best political move for Musharraf and his Western allies though.
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1They came to a conclusion pretty quickly. Sounds like some shared intelligence.
    • quraid, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2actually your opinion seems the best one to me. dugg.
    • arplayer2k, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Not to mention that when her brother was killed, a lot of people in Pakistan (and for good reason) thought hit was her doing. After all, the man who killed Bhutto's brother was promoted as chief of police in Pakistan within six months of the shooting. Reasoning? Her brother was speaking out about her and her husband's corruption, and wanted to take the party in a different direction.
    • 4ntigravity, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Comment dugg. Although people should realize that It's the people who are the victims of corrupt politicians and it wasn't always like this. Pakistan has more natural resources than Dubai or anywhere else in that region. It's beautiful and diverse, Yet unfortunately these ignorant politicians want to destroy the country with their greed. Thus anyone in the country is an equal suspect for Bhutto's assassination because most people wanted her to leave anyway.
  • gamer31, on 01/13/2008, -6/+194*Spoiler alert*

    It was Cornel Mustard, in the billiards room with the candle stick
    • UltraPenguinX, on 01/13/2008, -4/+12You're going to get dugg down, but this comment is hilarious regardless
    • smacksaw, on 01/13/2008, -1/+19Colonel?

      Corned beef with mustard? That sounds good.
    • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -4/+22Lol, close....
      General Musharraf, with a sunroof in the electoral booth.
    • GuacamoleSan, on 01/13/2008, -2/+13Oh dammit, i thought it was General Disarray in the strip club with the penis-enlarger
    • doctorfungi, on 01/13/2008, -1/+21Colonel mustard... that *****. I knew it.
    • tgc1, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2Wrong, it was professor Plum.
      • billtorpey, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure who did it, but I think it was done with the candelabrum in the study.
        • tgc1, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0Nobody got my Bill and Ted reference. Dammit.
    • 42Vindictive, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5Let me check the secret cards... Nope, sorry, it was Al-Qaeda. You lose. Wanna play again?
    • theelectricafro, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1After reading the title I was under the impression they were going to finger themselves, but instead they tried use the old alCIAda excuse. So instead of fingering themselves they can go ***** themselves.
    • BelXul, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"You're wrong, dude! It was Professor Plum! Can we go home now?"
  • afdlips, on 01/13/2008, -1/+18The person in the photo looks like weird al.
  • 4eloBek, on 01/13/2008, -9/+7ok we know that its musharaf killed her, what is the point?
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -7/+4
      We know you did not make it through High School either.
    • comet786, on 01/13/2008, -2/+6How the ***** do you know? Stop making up stuff.
    • Memitim, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, he killed his freely available out from an ouster and his chance for a power sharing agreement with someone so corrupt that he didn't even need to play the hinting game, just come right out and ask, "What's your price?" Once Musharraf lost the fight to keep everything for himself, getting Bhutto in on a power sharing deal was the next best thing.
  • treelovinhippie, on 01/13/2008, -10/+26I call fear mongering. If "Al Qaeda" did it, they would publicly say they did.

    I hate how the media constantly links any violence or terror attack to Al Qaeda... who were never actually an organization let alone a "global terror network" (don't believe me, research it... Osama didn't even mention the term Al Qaeda until after everyone in the media invented it and hyped it well after 9/11)
    • doctorfungi, on 01/13/2008, -5/+13I did research it, and funnily enough I don't believe you because you're wrong. Look up Jamal al-Fadl, a man who was convicted of the 98' embassy bombings. He confirmed that the name "al Qaeda" was chosen over it's alternative "Islamic Army" in 1989-1990 by Osama Bin Laden himself.
      Furthermore, two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation show that the organization al Qaeda was established in August, 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the term "al-qaeda".
      • dadioflex, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3I think the OP is correct insofar as there was never a global Al Qaeda network until the Western media hyped one into existence. The global conspiracy theory gave credence to a lot of marginal groups who suddenly had a massively inflated brand.
      • treelovinhippie, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4Interesting, will look into it. I got my information from "The Power of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis... great documentary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

        Actually, I think this might have been the guy they mention in the doco. So yeah the phrase must have been around, but it definitely wasn't this major international, organised terror ring.
      • treelovinhippie, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5Quote from wikipedia on "The Power of Nightmares":

        "The final episode addresses the actual rise of al-Qaeda. Curtis argues that, after their failed revolutions, bin Laden and Zawahiri had little or no popular support, let alone a serious complex organisation of terrorists, and were dependent upon independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad. The film instead shows the United States government wanting to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, and needing to prove him to be the head of a criminal organisation to do so. They find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden was the head of a massive terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda". With the September 11th attacks, Neo-Conservatives in the new Republican government of George W. Bush use this created concept of an organisation to justify another crusade against a new evil enemy, leading to the launch of the War on Terrorism."
        • branjb, on 01/13/2008, -4/+1Was believable until you used the word neocon.
        • Litespeed, on 01/13/2008, -2/+0If you actually watch the series, you will find that it is really an examination of how neo-conservatives and their islamic counterparts came about.
      • Tilon, on 01/13/2008, -2/+11988...isn't that about the time when the Mujahadeen existed, who were trained by the United States?

        Oh, wait...
  • GuacamoleSan, on 01/13/2008, -4/+12We are in fact getting information that Ronald Mcdonald might be behin-
  • THEROC, on 01/13/2008, -10/+6THE EVILDOERS KILLED HER!!
  • chrisinsocalif, on 01/13/2008, -4/+15I think al qaeda took my paycheck cause i ran out of other people to blame.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/13/2008, -9/+5"believes".

    and some lunatics "believe" the pink unicorn exists.
  • Alix7, on 01/13/2008, -24/+68***** Bhutto, she was a stupid corrupt ***** anyways.

    Was Prime Minister twice, and found guilty of corruption twice. Her entire family is full of thieves.

    Her father was found guilty by a military tribunal for corruption and her husband was nicknamed "Mr. 10%" because he personally received 10% on many types of government contracts (building schools, homes, commercial centers). The man was also alledgedly involved in corrupting the Pakistani court system and allowing the organizing crime community to thrive. ***** the entire Bhutto clan. ***** CNN for comparing them to the Kennedy's. ***** Wolf Blitzer.
    • mashedup, on 01/13/2008, -3/+8Alix7, Are you sure you're committed to this amount of *****? Some might say you've bitten off more than you can chew and have lost focus with your *****.
    • metamorfoza, on 01/13/2008, -7/+17Why is he being dugg down when he is right?
      Western world has shed crocodile tears over Bhutto. Her government was corrupt, and as OP said, she has been found guilty twice of doing so. West openly criticized her and no one gave a damn when Musharraf overthrown her. She was not as democratic as suddenly she appeared to be.
      I never understood diggs mentality.Why burying someone when his comment is perfectly al right (apart from the rant).
      • lotticasio, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4Its called short-term memory, apprently its a modern problem.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Erm... Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif, not Benazir Bhutto.
      • arplayer2k, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1The people that are digging him down don't know their heads from their ass's in this matter.
        • Litespeed, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1That's the core problem with Digg. Truthful comments can be buried by others who don't know what they're talking about.
    • smacksaw, on 01/13/2008, -3/+13I don't think she was the greatest elected leader ever, but COME ON. Look at the court system there.

      How about the "courts" at Guantanmo Bay? Because it's a court, it automatically is legitimate? I mean, let's be realistic for a moment here. Can you do that? Pakistan is tribal. Things don't get done by enterprising individuals or the fantastic civil service system. Things get done by honour and by tribes. Personal gain? Perhaps. But what person in that part of the world isn't corrupt or doing things for the benefit of themselves or to entrench the power of their tribes and families? You honestly think you can get things done only via transparent legislation instead of honorific gifting?

      Don't hate the player, hate the game. Or to use a word from your lexicon: ***** your ***** ignorant ***** post.
      • Alix7, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Who gives a *****? ***** you and ***** bhutto
    • truelier, on 01/13/2008, -3/+3umm Musharraf have never overthrown Bhutto... that was Nawaz Sharif who was overthrown... n damn all of em r friggin corrupt its about whos the least corrupt out of the bunch which so far have been musharraf and look how public is treating him.. country is a mess
    • ishwarchand, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1...and ***** you
  • theskyisblue, on 01/13/2008, -4/+18Why did they quickly bury her body without an autopsy, is the big question.
    • bjornski, on 01/13/2008, -10/+18Same reason we "recycled" the WTC wreckage before it was properly investigated.

      To cover asses.
      • theright, on 01/13/2008, -14/+12You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. All the debris from the collapse of the towers was sent to the Fresh Kills landfill site, where it was hand-sifted through for human remains and the like. Steel from the impact areas of both towers was kept, where possible to identify it, and used in formulating the NIST report into the collapse of the towers. You know, the extensive, 10,000 page document worked on by more than 200 reputable scientists, engineers and researchers that you 9/11 deniers ignore at the drop of a hat because it didn't come to the inane conclusions you wanted it to?

        Keeping every last ounce of steel would be an entirely fruitless act. Especially when the best the 9/11 deniers can come up with is sulfur (you know, drywall?). I guess I should ask: found any barium oxide yet? Didn't think so. Go read the NIST report. You might learn something.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 01/13/2008, -5/+6While I think most of the conspiracy theorists (certainly the 'bombs in the towers') ones are totally nuts, I don't think '9/11 deniers' is a particularly useful term. Apart from the Godwins Law-violating Holocaust reference (tragic though it was, I think the murder of 3,000 people hardly equates to the industrialised slaughter of 6 million+), I don't think any of the conspiracy theorists are denying that 9/11 happened, they are just questioning how it happened and who was responsible.
          • PaulPinfield, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4Correct.
          • TxAggie08, on 01/14/2008, -2/+2Give it about 50 years and they will be. They'll claim the footage from 9/11 was faked and its all a big lie.
        • PaulPinfield, on 01/13/2008, -8/+7It's good to see you swimming against the tide, theright. It will certainly make you unpopular, but it doesn't make you wrong.

          BTW, I do think there was a 911 cover up, just not the type that the truthers want to hear about.

          Keep up the good work.
    • Alix7, on 01/13/2008, -0/+29Her husband ordered the quick burial because that's Islamic law. Remember when that Saudi King died about a year or two ago? It's not uncommon for Muslims to be buried the same day they had died. Autopsies are fairly rare and are somewhat considered offensive towards the body (but still allowed).
      • comet786, on 01/13/2008, -0/+7At least someone here knows what they are talking about.
    • theright, on 01/13/2008, -4/+5As Alix7 said, it was at the request of her husband that she didn't have a full autopsy. Nevertheless, they did an "external" autopsy using x-ray, which failed to show up any bullets inside her, leading to the whole "it was the sunroof" fiasco shortly after the fact
      • chokeaduck, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Couldn't the bullet have gone THROUGH her?
        • ICanRead, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0Google or wiki and external autopsy. It's not an X-ray.
  • LokitheComplex, on 01/13/2008, -16/+17"Truthers" seem out in force today. Al Qaeda has been calling for her assassination for some time. I mean what would Jihadists have against a powerful Westernised woman advocating democracy with a questionable record on corruption.
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -8/+1She promised the US that they could sweep through the Upper areas of Pakistan to go after terrorists and she would give them a militray base. This ***** would have turned Pakistan into our third state in the Middle East. Look at her record.

      Puppet Leader.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4So Benazir Bhutto would have been a puppet leader allowing the US to use Pakistan's military bases? What's Musharraf then? Whose airspace and bases did the US use to invade Afghanistan in the first place?
      • TxAggie08, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Musharraf probably would be dead if it wasn't for the US at this point. He certainly wouldn't be in power.
  • bazwilliams, on 01/13/2008, -4/+10I read the punchline of the article and stopped reading the rest. Digg comments are far more informative.
    • lotticasio, on 01/13/2008, -4/+4If Ron Paul was president he wouldnt dream of recommending BIG law enforcement being sent in to investigate murders, instead free markets would take over, allowing thousands of private investigators do the job faster then big law enforcement or at worst, allow the cast of CSI - Miami to straighten things up and be finished with it in 45 minutes.
    • branjb, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5I hope that was sarcasm.
  • blackdude, on 01/13/2008, -9/+5Al-Qaeda get paid to do ruthless *****, then take the blame for it. So who paid Al-Qaeda this time?
    • lotticasio, on 01/13/2008, -2/+9The west did, heroin is just so delicious.
    • comet786, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0Maybe because people want to destabilize Pakistan. But in my opinion Pakistan is doing pretty good right now. It could have been much worse.
  • nkonstas, on 01/13/2008, -2/+6And I thought it was a Brazilian electrician that did it...
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707 ...
  • maxshanly, on 01/13/2008, -12/+7Benazir Bhutto stood up for human rights. She stood up to oppression. She stood up to dictatorship.
    But I bet the she wished she never stood up to wave.
  • GrayV, on 01/13/2008, -4/+26I can't believe nobody's blamed Iran yet.
    • BenBenMan, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Triple post?
    • xlar54, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2Did you know?

      Iraq = Al Queda
      Afghanistan = Al Quaeda
      Iran = Al Queda

      Al Quaeda is the government's code word for "Next Target"
      • Tilon, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1Al Qaeda = Al Qaeda

        Turrorists don't have mothers, they reproduce through mitosis!

        Al Qaeda blew up my bridge! Al Qaeda shot my homework!
  • GrayV, on 01/13/2008, -14/+4I can't believe nobody's blamed Iran yet.
  • GrayV, on 01/13/2008, -14/+4I can't believe nobody's blamed Iran yet.
  • metamorfoza, on 01/13/2008, -5/+13Digg me down all you want but Mucharraf is not a stupid leader/dictator/general (call him whatever you want) . He would lose so much by assinating her, and current situation on the ground proves it so. I am not saying that Al Quaida did it, but Mucharraf surley is not the one to blame, but maybe muharrfs 'enemies' (whoever that is). He is not stupid to realise the consequence of assination of the main oppostion leader in a pre-election period.
    Also, wake up people, Buttho was not as popular as she appear to be. Her govrement was corrupt and she was not less or more democratic then Mucharraf.
    As I've said before. Western world shed crocdile tears over Buttho. West didn't liked her. Pakistanis didn't liked her, Hell, on the end, no one gave a damn when Mucharraf overthrown her.
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -6/+0It doesn't matter.
      Lay Dumbass who voted for Bush already heard the story he wanted to hear from the News.

      Sheep.
    • brainboy77, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2maybe it was a suicide bomber that was just sexist. nah, it was definitely al quaeda/CIA.
  • GrayV, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4(My Return button stuck on at an unfortunate moment.)
  • WolfHook, on 01/13/2008, -7/+15I'm sick of being treated like a child. I want all of these lies torn down and the world to be a better place, so sick of it.
    • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -2/+7That's sadly a childish want.

      You got to learn to look through the lies.
      Look into it's soul and go with your gut, unless you had a lot of dairy that day.
    • tillerman00, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Hold on, I'm sending over a box of tissues.
  • truelier, on 01/13/2008, -7/+0I am trying to see the link between Al-Qaeda accused while fingers being pointed at Baitullah Masud. Fod god's sake these stupid son o bithces SY and all da govts need to ***** get a lesson of distinguishin different groups n ppl... Baitullah Masud in no way is on Al-Qaeda's payroll and yet accusing him makes them think its ok to say Al-Qaeda did it... What a bunch of retards.... While I believe Baitullah Mahsud would be the most reasonable assasinator where in da fukin world does Al-Qaeda come into play... What is the argument Baitullah Mehsud does not have anough sources to carry out the attack... r u fukin kiddin me..... every single person in tribal area has access to gun n bombs n even rocket launcher n its at most 2-3 hr frm the assassination spot so how many more resources u need... n the Lal Mosque incident where they stood up against the entire Pakistan Army in Pakistan's capital ... Baitullah Mahsud had sources for dat but not for a simple assassination... wat r we fukin stupid ?!?!?!?!
  • WolfHook, on 01/13/2008, -1/+6The Sunday Express have deleted that Queen story, funny!
    Anyway, cached link for all those interested. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:87LrE28SSMQJ: ...
  • ICanRead, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Does anyone know the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
    • niviche, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Yes. I don't know if you can read French, but you might know somebody able to translate this article for you (sadly, it is not available on the English version of Le Monde Diplomatique's site). There is a big difference, and there is actually a war being waged between Talibans and Al Qaeda:
      http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/07/SHAHZAD/1 ...
    • branjb, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4Taliban is specific to Afghanistan. They have ties to Al-Qaeda, but they were more of a government structure that ruled over the clans in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is almost more informal, because there's plenty of groups and divisions/cells of them that all go under the same banner name, but really don't have anything in common (resources, people, etc.).
  • Kcaj, on 01/13/2008, -8/+6Am I the only person who seriously just... does not care? :/ I mean, I'm not retarded or anything, I do care a slight bit about world events and such, and the secret political agendas behind this kind of stuff, but I've long ago stopped caring so much. Essentially, I assume that even if the entire world goes "to hell in a hand basket" that my daily life and routines will go entirely unaffected (for the most part). I seriously do not see any benefit to pondering on this kind of stuff any more, or even being alerted about such events occurring.

    If I were a caveman, living in a cave, would some other caveman (or woman) being elected "king of the cavemen" a thousand miles away, that, I'll never see face to face, and who holds no actual authority over me, matter to me? If I were a caveman, would what happened yesterday half a world away effect the way I hunt animals or how I live my life? Definitely not.

    World news just seems like a bunch of worthless drama to me, and then, I have friends and family members who become so obsessed and entirely consumed with things that are happening (which in no way involve them, or even remotely concern them) that I have to question if all this abundance of "information" available to us, collectively, does more harm than good.
    • comet786, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1You have to realize, the world is a global village now. Pakistan is a pivotal country and what happens there affects the world (indirectly at best).
    • Memitim, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3That's nothing to feel bad about. Hell, I wish more people leaned toward that extreme than the other, where they think that crazy brown people with funny accents are waiting about every corner to blow up their SUV full of screaming kids. These international events certainly have importance, but nothing that you should be getting your panties in a twist about. Rest assured that if you, a member of your family, a friend, or pretty much any person that you have ever met gets murdered, it will most likely be done by one of your countrymen and not some vague organization from thousands of miles away.
    • byrdgang, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Realistically, there's not much that will impact you directly other than, say, what happens at work, school, etc. The vast majority of things won't directly impact you, but news organizations still report on them. If you think about it, even the president won't have much impact on you specifically (unless, for example, you had a friend or family member in Iraq). Do his tax cuts really help you out? Hardly, if at all. You likely won't notice any more money in your pockets.
  • pintomp3, on 01/13/2008, -0/+5al qaeda killed her? they must have hated her freedoms too.
  • HumanRecall, on 01/13/2008, -6/+4So Benazir Bhutto bumping her head (allegedly)among the first bogus reports SHOT!, shrapnel from explosion, etc Still all lead as the end result Al Qaeda come one !!!! I'm really surprised they are not at this very moment blaming Al Qaeda for the reason MSG and Trans-Fats are still in our FOODS !! ......Or Global Warming = Al Qaeda

    This Shtick is getting very old ! Al Qaeda = everything/problems in the WORLD !!
    • Kcaj, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2Yeah, it seems like a universal scapegoat.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 01/13/2008, -6/+4This is the same police force that shot an innocent Brazilian electrician mistaking him for an Asian suicide bomber (well hey, they were both foreign-looking ) and invaded and then virtually demolished the homes of two innocent Muslims - shooting one of them in the process. Oh and they actively campaigned for Parliament to extend the period terrorist suspects can be held without charge to THREE MONTHS, breaking the generally accepted rule that the police should stay out of politics. I would sooner trust the word of Bush Jr than trust the Met Police.
    • mikemx, on 01/13/2008, -5/+2I wish they'd turn up at your door and give you the treatment.
  • mediasloth, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4You're all wrong. I can exclusive reveal whodunnit:

    http://scottdouglas.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/benaz ...

    Obviously it was Sir Alex Ferguson at Man Utd, when he heard Benazir had signed for Chelsea.
  • max4077, on 01/13/2008, -6/+3Why has Scotland Yard, a British Organisation, rushed to far away Pakistan to investigate this? The reason is clearly related to the large Pakistani population and its influence in Great Britain. A demographic which unfortunately, has proven its capacity to be just as corrupt, violent and fundamental as their home countrymen. As long as they are involved, you can expect chaos, blood and lies.

    Needless to say that there are British of Pakistani origin which have accomplished much for themselves and have the genius and vision required for a brighter future in all of South Asia. Unfortunately they are shouted down and/or killed by their own people.
    • Albionshores, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5Or maybe because Scotland Yard has a world wide reputation, right or wrong, and Musharraf was keen to gain credibility and to be seen to be not dismissing the people's concerns that it was orchestrated.

      If you think Scotland Yard sent a Pakistani delegation of Pakistani appeasers to investigate this crime to address a homeland Pakistani population and its influences in the UK you are sorely mistaken and barking up the wrong tree. Scotland Yard on the ground, from the article, have even distanced themselves from these claims. The people at work here are ministers and high echelon officials - as learned from the article.
      • max4077, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1President Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso might like to have Scotland Yard at his beck and call, but I doubt he enjoys Musharraf's privilege.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1Or maybe, since MI6 helps to ops for the CIA in the US, and the US does ops for England in their country -- this is another group of NeoCon operatives in Scotland Yard, helping to give the ***** that the Media is going to print.
      • max4077, on 01/13/2008, -2/+0And don't forget that both Scotland Yard and the CIA are infested with jackasses on the ISI payroll.
  • ibeetle, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I want to see Al Qaeda get better videos. They need to hire the same ad company that came up with the Geico ads.
    This Al Qaeda operative is not a professional spokesperson so we hired a professional politician to speak for them.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2If you they used a better video camera - available almost anywhere, we would be able to see the glued on beard.
  • Wholekernalcorn, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2Yes...lets get the UN on it...They know how to do these sorts of things so well...
  • oojamaflip2006, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2I think this is the one time that the phrase "no ***** Sherlock" applies.
  • HeartlandUSA, on 01/13/2008, -5/+2This is one of Murdoch's propaganda rags which often prints political BS for the purposes of Israel, Britain, & the US governments. What we need is a true independent investigation of the assassination.
    Scotland Yard is run by the neocons, who want their paid-for dictator Musharraf to stay in power while blaming the global boogy man Al-Qaeda to fuel the neocon's endless war on terror.
  • katorga, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3Makes sense to me. Bhutto's death was not in Musharraf's interest, and greatly in the interest of AQ and the Taliban. Both organizations have infiltrated the ISS and could pull this off. If the ensuing political turmoil drops the country into complete anarchy - AQ and the Taliban take over.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, sure. After Musharraf arrested the judicial system to combat extremists, and Bhutto actually named the people who would be used to kill her in a letter just before her death... I don't think anything suspicious has happened.
  • slackjawedyokel, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2Musharraf is a dictator and a thug.He will do anything to keep power.Al-Queda may have been the hit men but Musharraf ordered the hit on Bhutto you can bet.
    We should have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq.Pakistan has nukes but Bush is too stupid to see where our real enemies are.Meanwhile we must pretend that Musharraf is a friend while he is stabbing us in the back as often as he can.
    • truelier, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0well if pakistan had oil we would be in pakistan wouldnt we...
  • offspring06, on 01/13/2008, -4/+1Who benefits the most from this assassination? I'm going to say President Musharraf.
    • truelier, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1ahan... rite... so the only person who had the power and desire to make things better for musharraf to gain control of the country he should get her shot... yup totally makes sense
  • coudboule, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3Jack the Ripper?
  • bharadwajharish, on 01/13/2008, -2/+0Al Qaeda Dugg this from my Login ..attack ...
  • JonTheGoose, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1Halo 3 killed Benazir Bhutto.
  • mannymix03, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1For some reason I really doubt al-queda did it, but there is a slight chance. Just because her being a woman in power.
    • ad33lshahid, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2People act like this was the first time Benazir was trying to vie for power. She had been prime minister twice before, and nothing has changed. If al qaeda hates benazir its not because shes a woman, but because they see her as a pawn of america.
  • nastronomical, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3Bin laden had a bounty on her head! why are people shocked or surprised? Lemme see a women ruling a islamic country infested with radical islamic jihad what could possible go wrong.

    Enqueue the liberal "wanna be cool by sarcasm" beta-males who will yap, bitch and moan.... and still cannot find Pakistan on a Map.
    • robberry, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3"Enqueue the liberal "wanna be cool by sarcasm" beta-males who will yap, bitch and moan...."

      As I've pointed out to you before, a "beta male" is not a weak male, but the second-highest rank in a pack below the alpha. (Which should be obvious, given that beta is the second letter in the Greek alphabet, next to alpha which is the first.) The beta serves the role of an enforcer, a lieutenant, or a vice president. When the alpha is deposed, the beta is also the one who steps in and becomes the new alpha. By definition, there is no such thing as a "weak variety" of beta male. Your use of the term as an insult demonstrates that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and the fact that you continue to make this mistake after others have corrected you indicates that you don't *want* to know what you're talking about. That being the case, I see no reason why anybody should pay attention to what you have to say.
    • ad33lshahid, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2how come if bin laden has a bounty on her head, she gets killed but if america has a bounty on bin ladens head--- we cant even find the guy?
    • Lionidas, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0Duh! It's the one with the letters "P a k i s t a n" scrawled across it!
    • ICanRead, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0Prove "Bin Laden" had a bounty on her head.
  • phrozted, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3My mom was one of her best friends in college--taught her how to make brownies and swing dance. From what I'm told, she was a deeply compassionate woman, a serious humanitarian, but above all she adored Pakistan. No matter her errors in governance, we didn't when she was alive have the luxury of being picky regarding Pakistan, nor do we now have a freer hand. Bhutto was Pakistan's last best hope. Period.
    • truelier, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1she was pakistans last best hope true but only because the other alternatives r so much more worse... n yah i agree she made errors in governing but juzz cauz she was so young when she was in power n she had to deal with military people twice her age... so everything that went wrong wasnt juzz bhutto's fault in the two terms she served but dammm she crossed the line of corruption like theres no tomorrow... wheres the love for the country
    • ICanRead, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0She and her family believe they are the rightful heirs of Pakistan like some monarchy. They think the kids are supposed to go back and forth as Prime Minister.
      They threatened to split off their home territory if they lost.
      Her father split East and West Pakistan apart. b/c East AKA Bangladesh had more votes. He caused much of the discord between the Eastern and Western parts.

      I don't care how educated she was. She was an elitist who was basically power hungry. It was shown by her actions and those of her family.

  • jhails, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1If Scotland Yard says its so, then it must be true. They wouldn't lie would they? neither would #10 Downing Street either? Or the White House Or CNN or Wolf Blitzer or Mushareff or ***** it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.