“Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination: The CIA and Musharraf, Who is Guilty?

“Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination: The CIA and Musharraf, Who is Guilty?

By Fahim A. Knight

The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto represents and is indicative of everything that is wrong with United States Foreign Policy and it relationship with Pakistan. President George Bush solicited the ruthless Pakistani dictator President Pervez Musharraf assistance in 2001 in his so-called war on terrorism. The war on terrorism has blinded the United States in its ability to make reasonable and competent foreign policy decisions. Bush rounded up a bunch of third world nations promising them International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans; if they signed on and committed their irrelevant military forces to Iraq and Afghanistan as a show of solidarity in his war on terrorism. Some Islamic countries sided with Bush against their Muslim brothers, but it only deepened the hatred for the West and has fueled so-called Islamic militants to declare Jihad (holy war), which is war that has no boundaries.

The backing of Musharraf was a case of choosing the lesser of three evils; behind door number one stood Osama bin Laden, a former United States operative who was the CIA top front man in Afghanistan during the Soviet conflict, behind door number two stood General Musharraf, a dictator and an the only Islamic nation with nuclear technology and behind door number three stood Benazir Bhutto another Central Intelligence Agent provocateur; thus, Bush chose the strongman Musharraf who came into power via a military coup d'état in 1999. The CIA is only interested in what you can do for me today and right now Musharraf is their man; he even traded in his military dictator general uniform for western tailored made suits in order to look more presidential and less as an undemocratic dictator having ruthless political tendencies.

The assassination of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as stated above represents everything that is wrong with the United States relationship with Pakistan. President George Bush implored Pakistan and General Musharraf assistance in 2001 in Bush’s so-called war on terrorism. The United States Government was bent on deceiving the American people that Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda movement was enemy number one and was a threat to world security. Musharraf gave his support to Bush who in turn legitimized a rogue nation such as Pakistan for geographic, political, and strategic positioning. Bush wanted to use the nation of Pakistan in order to control the movement of Al Qaeda militants and Islamic fundamentalist from being able to freely cross the boarders of Afghanistan and Pakistan and assimilating into Pakistan, which to build external foreign support bases for Al Qaeda recruitment.

The author Andy Stern in his book titled, “Oil From Rockefeller to Iraq and Beyond” stated, “The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence services (ISI), is widely believed to have encouraged some 35, 000 Muslim radicals form more than 40 countries to come to Afghanistan and join the fight against the Soviet army. CIA strategist also flooded into the country to help plan the Mujahideen’s military operations and train its soldiers. Mujahideen and volunteers-‘Arab Afghans’-were fed a mixture of American military knowledge and Islamic law. The U.S. however, did not divulge that its real objective was the overthrow of the USSR, not just the liberation of Afghanistan from the Soviet army. Among the recipients of US arms and training was Osama Bin Laden, the ‘black sheep’ of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families, who came to Afghanistan in 1979. By 1984 Bin Laden was the head of the Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK), an organization channeling money, arms and soldiers from outside Afghanistan into the war. The MAK received substantial help from the Pakistani ISI, through which the CIA carried out most of its covert operations in the country.”

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that Musharraf was an international gangster and an international political crook who would sell his soul to the highest bidder. There is little doubt in this writer’s mind that Bhutto’s assassination was sanctioned and orchestrated from the highest level of the Pakistani Government—General Musharraf was either directly and/or indirectly involved in Bhutto’s assassination and as a puppet he takes his orders from Bush and the United States White House, which makes both governments culprits.

Musharraf is a criminal of the worst kind and there are perhaps two smoking guns either the United States Government—CIA., State Department and U.S. Intelligence apparatus were directly in complicit of giving the order to Musharraf and/or was Bhutto’s assassination just another indication of how lawless the state of Pakistan is, where the rules are made up by the various secular and sacred tribal and warlords factions. Did the CIA assassinate Bhutto in order to derail Pakistan’s elections process and/or did the potential, as well as the possibility exist as far as Bhutto unseating Masharraf as the new president of this volatile nation that was scheduled for democratic elections on January 8, 2008. Perhaps Musharraf had some unfinished business with the CIA and in lieu of the business Bhutto’s life became expendable.

Musharraf and the CIA had two viable culprits and star perpetrators which to point blame in the assassination—Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both organizations had the resources and expertise which to carryout such a well planned assassination attempt and the international community wouldn’t need much evidence or convincing based on the Western media portrayal and perception of these two so-called violent Islamic led and Jihad inspired organizations. Thus even, if the slightest notion of capitulation was implied relative to these two groups involvement in the assassination of Bhutto; very few from the West would question or doubt culpability and participation of these two so-called “radical” Islamic Muslim organizations and their ability to carryout an act of violence of this magnitude. They would be considered guilty by media deception.

But also those that have this type power to influence world thinking would find it equally and politically convenient to lay Bhutto’s death at the door step of Osama bin Laden because of above said sentiments and the real guilty parties and perpetrators are allowed to hide behind layers of deceptions. They then use the media (their propaganda machines) to reincarnate the likes of a Bhutto’s into innocent sainthood and at same time elevate her to martyrdom status with an objective of attracting an international following at death that she did not enjoy in life, which to further isolate Osama bin Laden, in particular and fundamentalist Islam in general, as culprits in this heinous crime. President Richard Nixon is book titled, “Seize The Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World” has an interesting chapter titled, “The Muslim World”

Tricky Dick stated, “Only two common elements exist in the Muslim world: the faith of Islam and the problems of political turbulence. Islam is not on a religion but also the foundation of a major civilization. We speak of the ‘Muslim world’ as a single entity not because of any Islamic politburo guiding its policies but because individual nations share common political and cultural currents with the entire Muslim civilization. The same political rhythms are played throughout the Muslim world, regardless of the differences between the individual countries. Just as all Western countries have parties that advocate the free market, the welfare state, socialism, the Islamic countries have groups that subscribe to the main political currents of the Muslim world—fundamentalism, radicalism, and modernism. This commonality of faith and politics breeds a loose but real solidarity: when a major event occurs in one part of the Muslim world, it inevitability reverberates in the others”

This writer wholeheartedly agree with President Nixon in one sense; no one on the Islamic side had to issue the order to kill Bhutto her visible Islamic contradictions and western modernity ideology as a Muslim woman that alone could have been enough to seal Bhutto’s fate because of a religion that is steeped in assigned cultural ranking for women and the antagonistic relationship between Islam and the West.

This writer has always believed that Islam is a very complex religion and the leaders of this faith, the—Mullahs, Sheiks, Imams, Emirs, Ayatollahs, etc., are fully aware that the theology of Islam can be perceived as having a duality interpretation to the Muslim, in which two believers can hear the very same khutba (Friday Sermon) at Jummah Prayer coming from the Holy Qur’an, but depart the Masjid as a fundamentalist with radical and political inspired objectives and/or as a Muslim who believes in the common interest that Allah (God) has bestowed for all humanity and seek to live in peace with Muslims, Christians and Jews.

The long and short of this discussion is that in reality no one had to issue the assassination of Bhutto, the Islamic zealots could have just perceived her as an United States agent bent on corrupting the traditional Islamic role of women in their Islamic society, which this alone would have been enough to get her killed by an Islamic zealot(s) acting independently of and without sanction of a visible political entity. Bhutto was also seen in the Islamic world of being a bit too cozy to the Zionist State of Israel and its leaders; thus, any number of these variables and factors could have been considered a powder keg and a time bomb ready to explode. But this writer smells smoke and where there is smoke, there is fire.

However, its is going to be difficult for the international community to accept what ever explanation Musharraf gives because of his conditional ties to George Bush and the United States Government (CIA). Bhutto’s assassination is another U.S. Foreign Policy blunder for the Bush administration and its allegiance to reactionary despots like Musharraf and Pakistani Government; there is no doubt that President Musharraf is a valuable international asset and a key player in that region of the world, where the United States have few friends.

Nixon goes on to state, “Pakistan—the only major U.S. strategic partner situated between Turkey and Japan—has cooperated with the United States in recent decades to support the Afghan resistance, as well as to facilitate the rapprochement with China in 1972. Though Islamabad’s policies sometime clash with ours—especially regarding nuclear proliferation—no other country has shown comparable courage I serving as a frontline state against Soviet aggression.” Musharraf had also aided the Taliban and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who had fought the Russians gallantly in a ten year (1979-1989) war and defeated one of the most technological war machines in the 20th Century in guerilla war tactics used in the mountainous terrain. Thus, make no mistake Afghan fighters were no match for the Russians because the Soviets had the ability to wipe Afghanistan off the map, but in a low level intensive conflict the rag tag Afghans were superior.

George Tenet, the former ex-CIA Director in his book titled, “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA” stated, “The relationship was complicated further by mistrust and resentment. The dominant thinking within the Pakistani officer corps was that the United States had unstated ulterior motives in Afghanistan, specifically the desire to keep the nation unstable and chaotic to discourage construction of oil and gas pipelines through both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The goodwill we had won in Pakistan by helping to drive the Russians out of neighboring Afghanistan had also been evaporated over the last dozen years. The Pakistani leadership for the most part felt that the United States had abandoned them, especially when we imposed economic sanctions on both Pakistan and India in the wake of nuclear tests. Simultaneously, the military-to-military relationship that had once been so strong between our two nations had been allowed to wane over the years. Once senior Pakistani officers had been trained almost exclusively in the United States.”

The United States and Russia both desired to control the opium (heroin) trade coming out of South East Asia. Yes, the war between Afghanistan and Russia was over dope—drugs (the poppy seed plantations), as well as strategic and logistical tapping into oil in the Caspian and Siberian region that needed to run oil pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States backed the Afghan rebels in this conflict (used Pakistan sovereignty to transport weapons to the Afghan Rebels), but the United States ultimate interest was not its loyalty to the so-called Afghan Islamic freedom fighters, but their objective was of vital national security, which was to secure the financial interest of the seven oil sisters—Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Royal, Dutch Shell, Gulf, and Texaco. These Seven Oil Sisters have merged in names and in corporate interest; THEY ARE THE SOVEREIGN DICTATORS OVER HUMANITY.

But in 2001 after the 911 hoax Bush promised Musharraf and the Pakistani Government more of the United States tax dollars in the form of international financial aid packages, if they would sign on to help the United States and the Western Governments fight so-called international terrorism. Musharraf signed his nation on to bring Bin Laden to justice who had set-up his militant infrastructure in the rugged mountainous regions of Afghanistan. Musharraf at that moment appeared to have betrayed his long standing allegiance to the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda freedom fighters, the soldiers he once supported against Russia in the name of a Pan-Islamic theocracy similar to Sharia Law and Wahabism found in Saudi Arabia.

But this writer believes that Musharraf is a double agent who enjoys the perks of being a United States puppet and at same time has taken a very passive position against Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the detriment of U.S. interest; thus, because many of his own Pakistani countrymen agrees with Bin Laden’s radical Islamic politics, and to oppose the Islamic Jihadist would possibly exacerbate a radical Islamic fervor in his own nation, which could compromise the stability of Pakistan. Musharraf in reality has no intentions of truly apprehending Bin Laden and he has to be very careful of the type of internal logistics he is providing to the West. He has already survived the Islamic bounty hunters in three prior assassination attempts.

Wikipedia on-line resource stated, “Bhutto was sworn in for the first time in 1988 at the age of 35, but was removed from office 20 months later under the order of then- president Ghulam Ishaq Khan on grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993 Bhutto was re-elected but was again removed in 1996 on similar charges, this time by President Farooq Leghari Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, after reaching an understanding with President Pervez Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007, after departing a PPP rally in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, two weeks before the scheduled Pakistani general election of 2008 where she was a leading opposition candidate”.

Bhutto returned to her native Pakistan after a nine year self-imposed exile in Dubai and the United Kingdom, but what information was she working with that assured her that she could come back to this violable nation without any political consequences? How were the conditions any different prior to her leaving and had she resolved the political conflicts that sent her into exile? These are the pressing questions that need to be assessed and evaluated in this Benazir Bhutto’s dilemma because most past political leaders from around world that were sent into exile voluntarily or involuntarily and had received political asylum, just did not walk back into their home country and resume normalcy. Thus, for the most part the players and the game were same and she had no new found powers to alter the eventual outcome, which was her untimely assassination.

Bhutto’s may have been a charming, charismatic and likable woman, but she had internal enemies that had not forgotten her corrupt and reactionary politics when she served as Prime Minister. This writer knows that her death is complex, but in many ways she sealed her own fate by trusting her security to the other CIA Agent—Musharraf and also her death can be seen as an act of betrayal by the United States Government and the Pakistani Government.

The Pakistani Government initially reported that Bhutto’s was shot in the head area, but for some strange reason they later recanted and reported that it were not the assassin bullets that killed Bhutto’, but she cracked her skull on the vehicle during the assassination commotion trying to escape the violence, as to minimize the role of the assassins and subconsciously imply that Bhutto’s cause of death was more self-inflicted. Moreover, in some delusional type reasoning this would absolve and exonerate the Pakistani Government of any official wrongdoing. But in accordance with Islamic burial and funeral customs only women are permitted to wash the body of a decease Muslim woman. It was reported by one of Bhutto’s closest companions that there were gun shot wounds to her head. This type conduct on behalf of the Pakistani Government clearly leads toward being suspicious of Musharraf’s behavior and the conflicting death reports.

According to Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent “TIMESONLINE” December 28, 2007 he stated, “Earlier that month two Pakistani militant warlords based in the country’s northwestern areas had threatened to kill her. One was Baitullah Mehsud, a top militant commander fighting the Pakistani Army in South Waziristan, who has ties to al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban. The other was Haji Omar, the leader of the Pakistani Taleban, who is also from South Waziristan and fought with the Afghan Mujahidin against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Ms Bhutto said after the attack that she had received a letter, signed by someone claiming to be a friend of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, threatening to slaughter her like a goat. But she also accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient security, and hinted that they may have been complicit in the Karachi attack. She indicated that she had more to fear from unidentified members of a power structure that she described as allies of the ‘forces of militancy’.”

The United Nations is spearheading a so-called independent investigation into the murder of Bhutto, but to start at the premise that so-called Islamic extremist and terrorist were the villains in this assassination has already compromised the integrity of getting to the truth. The United Nations since September 11, 2001 has become a political arm of the United States and has lost its credibility to function as a neutral and sovereign non-aligned international body that works in the interest of all international governments.

The U.N. investigation will not be an objective criminal inquiry, but it will seek to cover-up both CIA and the Pakistani Government roles in Bhutto’s assassination. How can the Musharraf and CIA investigate themselves?—they both have the same alibi, it was Al Qaeda and the ignorant masses will not question the UN findings because we have been conditioned to believe that the so-called terrorist are the “Axil of Evil” and we have already presumed them guilty based on our ill informed perception of Islam.

Bhutto miscalculated the ingenuity of her enemies and their resolve to see her dead, she was betting on the religion of Islam’s moral and ethical teachings serving as restraints on Muslim men who would dare kill a so-called innocent Muslim woman. But supposed the HIT MEN were hired for murder and the sanctity of the teachings of Islam would be a non-factor in the assassination decision making process.

There is talk that Bhutto’s nineteen year old son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari will succeed his mother and represent the Pakistan People’s Party when elections are resumed. In an online article titled, “Bhutto’s Son will Succeed Her as Head of PPP” hosted on a Internet website Patterico’s Pontifications stated, “Bilawal, who enrolled as a student at Oxford University only this year, is scheduled to read the will himself at a party gathering on Sunday. There is little doubt that he will be accepted by the party rank and file; the PPP has been an all-family affair in Pakistan’s dynastic politics since Benazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founded it 40 years ago. Bhutto had given herself the title of “chairperson for life” and her only previous public signal as to who she wanted her political heir to be occurred when she sent Bilawal to register to vote for the first time earlier this year.”

This writer wonders has this young man already been recruited by the CIA and will he follow the footsteps of his mother who was nothing but a political prostitute who sold her sold to the devil. How will the various radical Islamic antagonists view this inexperience sheltered petit-bourgeoisie want-to-be Pakistani leader? Will they set a bounty on his head due to the sins of his mother.

Fahim A. Knight Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight can be reached at fahimknight@yahoo.com.

STAY AWAKE UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN,
Fahim A. Knight

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

I say that Bhutto was at fault. She knew that people were out to kill her, no matter who. There were previous attempts on her life, where many prople died. Hundreds of people in fact.

Then she has to stand up from out her armored car, and present a nice clean target. How stupid can people get?

The mess in Pakistani politics is due to the continues mess in Pakistani politics, ever since independence. And probably a long time before that. Bush didn't create this mess, and he can't fix it.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Bush had the opportunity to change the course, but instead he chose to continue to use U.S. tax dollars to support a rogue nation such as Pakistan and Musharraf.

He has lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)in Iraq and continue to lie about Osama bin Laden's role in the 911 hoax and has chose a destructive foreign policy course relative to the Islamic world; and supporting Musharraf gives the impression that he sanctioned the assassination of Bhutto.

His father George H W Bush was a former CIA Director and I am quite sure he is well versed in the art of covert deception. Bush 's foreign policy will only lead to more "terrorism", but he has the choice to alter history. He has spent over 300 billion dollars and counting in Iraq, a war with no objective other than stealing oil.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

No man, assuming that the US can significantly influence the course of Pakistani politics is just not realistic.

And what the Bush Family, or the Clinton family, or the Kennedy family were planning has nothing to do with it.

We have to face it, Pakistan is an independent country. It is a big country. They have nuclear weapons. Their political system is a big mess. Their religious situation is a big mess. This mess is because of Pakistan, not the US, not even India.

Stay on topic, if you have anything to say.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Clinton and the rest of low level political operatives are nothing but pawns for the CFR, Trilateral Commission and Biderbergers.

The United States Foreign policy with Pakistan is not based on equals; I do not care how much sovereignty Pakistan claims; it is puppet government controlled by the White House. If it’s such a mess, why is the U.S. Government sending billions of my and your tax dollars to a government that is a mess?

The mess is the ineffectiveness of U.S. Foreign Policy to make rational decisions. The religion is uncompromising and it is the only defense, which to inspire oppressed people to fight the oppressor for freedom, justice and equality. Bush should be impeached and charged with sedition for violating international law and has made idiots and fools of the American people.

I leave you with a quote from Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) he stated, in his book titled, "Black Power: The Politics of Liberation"

"One of the strategies of racism is to confuse the victims into believing all their victories should be awarded to the oppressor. In the U.S.A., when Africans verbally attack capitalism they are told that they must be thankful to the U.S. capitalist system, which gives them the right to free speech. In this one sentence, Centuries of African struggle are obliterated. When Africans came To the U.S.A. speaking only African languages, their tongues would be cut out and held as an example to others. Did the system Change on its own or did Africans force the change, thru consistent, uncompromising struggle?"

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

Look, the Pakistan and India conflicts has next to nothing to do with the USA. They have mostly to do with Pakistan and India, which had complicated relationships within their societies for a long long time.

This can't be fixed in a short time. It can be fixed in the long term, if and when people are not poor any more. Then they calm down.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Black Power. Nobody is Black in Pakistan. Get a grip.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

I have been to India and Pakistan and all I saw were Black people in skin color, not that it mattered. Truth is relative; the quote was meant to highlight that you can not define the means and terms of an oppressed people right to struggle. You are missing the point once again Pakistan is in a mess because US Foreign Policy toward this nation is a mess. Bush unconditionally supports a ruthless dictator just because he is obsessed with bringing Ben Laden to justice. Your arguments are not only patriotic, but they are foolish and baseless. I know you have them flags all around your house. I am burning one as I write this notation. I am honest and truthful and have not been duped by western propaganda.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

Pakistan was a mess before Gorge W Bush was born. The solution to making that country into something less troubled is up to the Pakistani people. The US, or the UK, can't fix it for them.

Why do you base things on skin color? It seems silly.

There must be a big market for Flag Burning Kits, I should get into that business.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Think you were the one playing the race card; my ideology exceeds the question of race. Race in my opinion is only an artificial barrier that keeps people divided. Thus since joining this site I have posted a wide range of political topics. I am often drawing into discussions by those who can not debate the facts and ordinarily they will emotionally turn to race.

I am a social scientist; we desire to be a little more empirical and scientific. I was just correcting you on your statement that Pakistan was not black and I explained to you what I saw in India and Pakistan based on United States classification of race these people would be considered black (I am only referring to skin color).

So my comment was corrective in nature and not a statement to be taken as being consumed by race. I do understand who benefits from racial internal strife and I understand the game they play.

The Bush administration had knowledge of Bhutto's assassination and until the United States changes its foreign policy (stop sending my and your Tax Dollars) course relative to Pakistan and Musharraf; it will only fuel more Muslim Militants to continue declare Jihad against the West.

He is the dumbest president of all times and that CIA agent provocateur Clinton that you continue to quote, he is no better than Bush. His CFR wife Hillary is a lap dog for the Power Elite.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

India and Pakistan are way outside the jurisdiction of the USA. What you see as a "race" issue does not apply there.

So I continue to say that your argument holds no value, that is what I mean by "silly".

The world is not after everyone with skin darker than Norwegians. Grow up.

The business interests in the world are after money. They don't care about skin color.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

It is even more silly; if you think that Pakistan and India doesn't have a majority black population; perhaps you are living in a twightlight zone and have no reality about this region of the world. You have been following them two CFR Agents Bill and Hillary to long. My article was titled, "Benazir Bhutto's Assassination: CIA and Musharaff, Who is Guilty?" I gave you facts and a critical analysis. You always give me emotionalism.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

If someone is under serious threat, like Bhutto, and then that person exposes herself to that threat, I say she was stupid. It was her own fault.

That has nothing to do with who killed here. But she was plainly stupid.

You see skin color, and then that justifies your argument. I still say that is silly.

And when someone does not agree with you, you call them "emotional". That is silly too.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

You are still stuck on skin color; thus, in cyberspace I do not know a person race or skin color nor those it matters. I seek out like minds regardless of class, race ethnicity, color, gender, etc. but most of you Americans are consumed with the question of race. Yes, your are emotional because I give facts on my post and I cite sources (documentation), but you always give me your opinion (no documentation) this is what makes your responses emotional. Now! find you two more new political heroes other than Bill and Hillary these two CFR agents. You know Carroll Quigley was his Georgetown professor who authored the book titled, "Tragedy and Hope" and his other professor Madam Albright are both Illuminist. They initiated him (Bill) for his later role as a low level operative. But I know you already knew this information.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

Paul Collins's picture
Member since:
14 January 2006
Last activity:
1 year 51 weeks

Ok,Fahim knight, you gave a strong, detailed argument here. I was on public transit when I read this article by Gwynne Dyer on Benazir Bhutto.
This martyr was no saviour
Bhutto
had too big a stake in the status quo to be a real force for democratic change
Gwynne Dyer
Benazir Bhutto did five years of hard time in prison, much of it in solitary confinement, after her father, Prime
Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was overthrown and hanged by the worst of Pakistan’s military dictators, General
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.
But she liked her privileges and luxuries and was never a very effective politician.
I got to know Bhutto a bit in the mid-1970s when she had finished her degree in comparative government at
Harvard and was doing graduate work at Oxford. She spent much of her time in London, in a grand flat she kept
just off Hyde Park.
If you knew a lot of people in town who took an interest in Middle Eastern and Subcontinental affairs (I had been
studying at the School of Oriental and African Studies) and you weren’t too old or too boring, you were likely to end
up at her flat, at what I would call a party.
A fairly decorous party as those things went in 70s London, with everybody showing off their sophisticated
knowledge of the region’s politics.
The hostess was well informed and quite clever, and she obviously had money coming out of her ears. We knew
her dad had been prime minister of Pakistan before Zia overthrew him in a coup, of course, but she was neither a
serious scholar nor a budding politician.
She seemed more American than Pakistani in her style and attitudes. And beneath the Radcliffe veneer, she also
seemed like thousands of other young upper-class women from Pakistan and India floating around London at the
time, who called one another girlish nicknames like Bubbles and seemed destined for a life of idle privilege.
Then Bhutto went back to Pakistan in 1977, just about the time that Zia had her father sentenced to death in a
rigged trial. He was hanged in 1979, and Benazir was thrown into jail.
When she came out, she was already head of the Pakistan People’s Party her father had founded, and by 1988
prime minister. She was only 35.
She served as prime minister twice, in fact, 1988-90 and 1993-96, and was removed from power both times on
corruption charges.
The charges have never been proven in court, but the evidence of kickbacks and commissions, especially to her
husband, Asif Zardari, whom she foolishly made investment minister, is pretty overwhelming.
The real problem was that she never seemed to have any goal in politics apart from vindicating her father by
leading his party back to power.
At the start, she was hugely popular, but she wasted her opportunity to make real changes in Pakistan because
she had no notion (beyond the usual rhetoric) of what a better Pakistan would look like.
Pakistan is already pretty good for her sort of people, so it should not surprise us that there was almost nothing to
show for her years in office.
If she had become prime minister again, which was a quite likely outcome of the current crisis, there is no reason
to believe that she would have done any better. Her assassination just makes it harder to solve the crisis at all.
Ex-general Pervez Musharraf, who had himself “re-elected” president in October – and imposed emergency rule in
order to dismiss the supreme court judges who would have ruled his “election” illegal – is totally discredited and
unlikely to last much longer.
The most probable outcome is a new period of military rule under a different head, simply for lack of a good
alternative. The vast majority of Pakistan’s politicians, and of the people who run pretty much everything else in
the country apart from the armed forces, are drawn from the 3 or 4 per cent of the population who constitute the
country’s traditional elite.
It is a very shallow pool of talent made up of people who have a big stake in the status quo and a huge sense of
entitlement. So long as that remains the case, it is absurd to imagine that democracy will solve Pakistan’s
problems.
I admired Bhutto’s courage and I am very sorry that she was killed, but she could never have been Pakistan's
saviour.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
news@nowtoronto.com
http://www.etreasurespublishing.com/Paul...

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Thank you Paul. Very Good article written by Ms. Dyer, I applaud her courage to offer a critical analysis of Ms. Bhutto's life.

She delves into her bourgeoisie and privileged life style and yet Ms. Dyer makes it crystal clear that this so-called Pakistani "savior" had many contradictions and she did not believe Bhutto had the ability to elevate Pakistan politically, economically and socially. This article was timely and factual.

However, unlike my discourse I delved into the motives for assassination. For example, touched on the Taliban, AL Qaeda, ISI, Musharraf, United States Government, etc. But Paul, I must say I did appreciate her perspective. It was refreshing and thought provoking. Thanks for sharing this with us.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

Actually, Dyer is a man. Call me emotional.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

What ever the person gender it does not matter, I appreciated the scholarship. Thus, unlike you, it was real academic and well researched. That's the best you got? What about the content of the article. I think Paul wanted my perspective. He did not ask for yours that should tell you something. Now! You have lost this debate; go get some new information from those two CFR agents Bill and Hillary. You see that Patriot Bill Clinton yesterday--come out swinging and defending his wimp wife. How in the hell can you be commander in chief and you are crying and emotional because the world is in a mess. Politics is tough business. Can you imagine her sitting across the table from Hamas and the Zionist they will show her no pity.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

in your "I am right, you are wrong." replies. Is making someone cry, make you feel good? Or even just imagining making someone cry, make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Also "You have lost this debate". And "That's the best you got?" Seem very juvenile to me.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

I have posted a sizable amount of post relative to Freemasonry and if I am guilty of a theme that would be the one, but not race. Thus, I have attacked this subject from many areas and direction. Perhaps you should go back and re-read them. But I do think people on this site are intelligent and critical thinkers; although some may beg to disagree with me; intelligence requires people to hear both sides of the debate and argument. Also, most of you George Bush flag waving conservatives aren't saying anything anyway. But parroting the same old dead views, people desire to be engaged in meaningful and thought provoking ideas. Like Don King says "God Bless America" we live in a country of free speech which allows you and me to freely discuss ideas without governmental sanctions. I am a strict constitutionalist, I will fight and die for the rights this sacred document grants us all as Americans.

Stay Awake Until We Meet,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Is one of the greatest documents ever. But you didn't answer my question, about the phrases you repeatable use. Or did it make you cry, cry, cry?

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Maybe I should spell it out for you. The comment on the Constitution does answer your question. Thus, any language or terms that I have used, which you find as disagreeable speech, it is protected under my/our First Admendment Right under the U.S. Constitution.

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Well I find your language juvenile. And your debating skills infantile. Your not any kind of teacher. Just someone with a keyboard and lots of time. Your just being really, really weird Mr. D-.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Ms. B--Bladerunner and you are just a cry baby and you are just talking to hear your self talk. Now! You want to be a bit intrusive this is not chattel slavery; I am not under the slave master's clock or his modern day plantations. My time is my time and you know nothing about whether I teach or anything else. What is that you want to know about me? I think the term "weird" is relative.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

I will not be responding to your blogs anymore. I'm realized that I'm not having anything close to a discussion with you. And this may not ever change. I wish to tell you though that I feel that you are very disrespectful of others, and thats what pissed me off in the first place. I don't wish lower myself to your level anymore. And I still don't think TDG is your best platform.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Good. Now! You are crying again and now like a child you say "I am not going to play with you anymore". I deal from a perspective of intelligence; thus, it is very disrespectfully to call someone and inferred insult relative to their name. You owe TDG audience an apology for your low level dialog. If you play with fire you will get burnt. It is not for you to ban me from TDG.

I try to post meaningful discussion pieces, which to make a contribution to the forum. People from around the county and the world have posted by Blog information from the TDG site because they find the scholarship interesting and thought provoking. But why do you want TDG to ban me from the site, am I the only one that write and say things that are controversial?

I have followed all TDG posting guidelines and I believe this forum likes information from various intellectual scopes. But if I have offended you then you have my sincere apology.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Just about every blog you've written has involved race with one or more of these factors; african americans, race, skin color, segregation, and religious-racial ideology. You can't have it both ways. And argue that someone else is being in someway racist. And be the one who first brought it up. Its called "Loading The Argument".

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Were you the one implying a couple weeks ago that I should be removed from the site? Sir, talking about the topic of race does not make a person a racist. I personally think America needs an open and honest conversation relative to race as it pertains to historical injustices (310 years) and reparations for those injustices. You do not have the authority to tell me what I should write on this is not chattel slavery, I am free and your paternalistic implications have a racist overtone. If you want to debate me on racism and white supremacy I open for that the discussion. But you weak debaters and cry babies, the first thing you throw out is race. My above posted topic was not about race, it was about Bhutto's assassination and the political situation relative to Pakistan. I must admit I did get a good laugh at your response, it was foolish and baseless. I might change my name to Fahim X after Malcolm X since I am being labeled a race teacher.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Because I'm a women. And no matter the color of our skin, men have treated us as chattel and slaves. Maybe thats a reason that Bhutto was assassinated. Muslims tend to treat women like garbage. I think I'll call you Fahim D-. Because there are a few things you still need to learn in my class!

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

You can not define me; this is what chattel slavery attempted to do for 310 years; you appear to be angry and but I am against all forms of discrimation including sexism. You do not know enough to teach me, but stay on this site and learn from a real Man. No. You can keep the "D' for yourself and any other insults you may have for me. I like the X because it is defiant. So, you can refer to this man as Fahim X. How does that sound to you? Lastly, Christians and Jews have treated women even worst, but you want to single out Islam. I wonder why?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Because your hero's seem to be, and Bhutto was Islamic, and so is the country she wished to rule again. As for being a real Man? I don't know, just because you say you are does not make you one, but I'll still think of you as Fahim D-. As for teaching me, I don't take instruction from those that belittle others and never can be wrong.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

No. You threw out Islam because of your own bigotry and lack of tolerance for people that might differ from you. You forgot that It was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholas who were Christians and fundamentalist and non-Arab that created domestic terrorism right here in America. But in your Eurocentric worldview you would like to paint all Muslims with one brush and one stroke. I know plenty of Muslims that believe in Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Qur'an and they are not mean-spirited terrorist. They are decent Arab Americans and I do not have to agree with their Islamic religion and accept their Muslim tenets, but I am tolerant. Bhutto’s was not a Muslim she was an Islamic contradiction. I reject your insults and you can where the D for yourself, but I think the alphabet B is more suited for you.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

Does it seem to you, bladerunner, that Fahim is here mainly to agitate ?

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

No. This site is too valuable for me to come on just to agitate. I have posted legitimate topics for discussion, but social agitating is not always a bad thing. But what are you inferring; your comment is loaded. The truth does agitate false hood. I will not bow to emotionalism, if the owners of the site thinks I have violated or compromised the rules, I am quite sure they will let me know. But you are probably agitated because you can not out think nor out debate me. Do me a favor gather the best minds that you have and send them my way; I was taught by a master teacher who gave me Supreme Wisdom.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

P.S. I do like Fahim X; it has a ring

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

I was asking another person. You Fahim are not the only person in the universe. Get used to it. Don't be emotional, and don't be intimidated. Even when people ignore you.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

bladerunner's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
3 weeks 9 hours

Fahim is never wrong. We are always wrong. I know that I feel agitated. But I'm not crying:)

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Why does truth send you two whiners into a frenzy? I do not mean to agitate you all, but I do stand firm on my positions. I believe that I am making an intellectual contribution on the site and also believe there are a sizable amount of people that access the Daily Grail and they too think I am adding something to the forum. But you two sound like Bill and Hillary Clinton. She has the nerve to want to be our next president and she was crying like a baby just like Bladerunner (prototype of Hillary) and Earthling (Prototype of Bill) you run out to defend her just like that CFR agent Bill Clinton did for his cry baby wife a few days ago. We need a true Commander in Chief; we do not need some softy who gets emotional and break down like a wimp. We should send both these CFR agents packing and retire them to Arkansas.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
3 days 13 hours

What makes you think I support Hillary or Bill? My quote below makes fun of Bill, if anything.

As to the original question about Bhutto, I still say she was foolishly optimistic, and got herself killed. Who shot at her, whether or not the shooter hit her, or if it was just the explosion - I know about as much as you do. Which is nothing. I don't know, and neither do you, Fahim Knight.

----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
22 weeks 2 days

...that bin Laden was the direct reason, as she reckoned that he had been murdered already.

But there indeed are some occult movements acting behind the scenes if we are to pay attention to what Sibel Edmons has to say'.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Good observation. However, I think her murder web and the motive of her assassination were a little more entangled than just the statement she made relative to Osama bin Laden being dead (not to say that the statement could not have gotten her killed in that complex world). I smell a big smoking gun and some covert behind the scenes involvement and my article were written to evoke outside the box thinking and discussion of all the possibilities.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
4 hours 32 min

I thank posters for keeping relatively civil in the discussions above. However, once the same post and reply have done 5 rounds, I think maybe it's time to just quit it before things get worse (due to frustration etc).

Fahim: thank you for your in-depth postings here on the site on various topics. I would request though that you show a little more politeness, and humility in your replies. We appreciate open minded thinking on this website, but that also means expecting debate and criticism of your opinions - accusing people of issues with race, being emotional, and being intolerant of differing views, is quite simply boorish behaviour. Those you are debating in this thread have been posting here for close to a decade, making this site their virtual second home - so it might be nice to engage them with a little less hubris. You obviously are a person of intelligence and deep thinking, so please take the time to *listen* to others and reply in an appropriate manner. Thanks.

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Thank you kindly for giving me the opportunity to post on the TDG, I have really enjoy the various dialogs and the intellectual stimulation from the other minds on the site. I will continue to abide by what ever rules you have set; I accept that I am only a guest and you have the authority to determine the course of your site. But if I can speak with honesty, I was a little taking back by your post this morning because it appeared to be aimed totally at me, but the criticism could have also been applied to others who have treated me in the exact manner and fashion that you accused me of doing to them.

Some of the responders have been less courteous and respectful toward me; I think your instructions could have been applied to us all, as opposed to somewhat singling me out. For example, Bladerunner was very disrespectful by calling me something other than by name and you notice, I was the one that offered her a public apology on the site, but they seemed to have a covert motive to have me removed and banned from the site.

I am the new kid on the block and I want to be (and will be) respectful to your long time core audience, but they enjoy being critical of some of my ideas and that is fine, but the minute I respond back, some of them immediately began to accuse me of being intolerant. Moreover, based on me reading some of your material on the Graham Hancock (MAAT SITE) and your book "The Guide to Dan Brown's The Solomon Key" which I recently purchased the book. I view you as a highly intelligent scholar and I also read your response to one of the public critiques relative to your book. I know you understand the rules of debate and can appreciate a good clean debate; even if people are at different ends of the pole and argument.

I too consider myself a scholar and one of the criteria of being a good scholar is the ability to be empirical and respectful of peer review (a debate is a two-way-street). You understand as a scholar when you write something for public consumption; it is difficult to anticipate what the critics will say about your work. Thank you I will continue to abide by the guidelines of TDG.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
22 weeks 2 days

You know Fahim, sometimes people, even within a family, will get into arguments, even name calling, but they will still stick together on the long run.

Those people are good chaps ans I am sure you are too.

Sometimes, people just don't understand each other simply because of the emotion of memories, ideologies and so forth.

The matter remains though that it does not mean they fundamentally hate each other.

So long as people can laugh after a good name calling bout, and everybody can go on to the next conversation, outside of the emotions of the previous one.

Ideally though, and I say this as a general principle, emotions would never get in the way, otherwise subjects are automatically personalized. Subjects should remain on the table and for them to be critically examined, no undue value should be attributed to them other than what they hide one way or another.

There is no such thing as truth having value absolutely speaking.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
6 weeks 5 days

Advice well received.

Fahim