Pakistan shows pics of shooting (Bhutto was shot in the head)

A Pakistani TV channel has released new images that show Benazir Bhutto was shot in the head before a suicide bomber set off explosives.

This according to Press TV (Iranian).

The other two stills showed one of the men wearing sunglasses and a dark waistcoat firing at Bhutto as she stood atop the sunroof of her bulletproof vehicle to wave to supporters.

Bhutto then collapsed into the vehicle before the second man with a white shawl over his head detonated the bomb, which killed Bhutto and 23 others.

The new footage was broadcast while government said Bhutto was killed when the force of the blast smashed her head into a lever on the sunroof, which fractured her skull.

Couple of things we didn't know (at least I didn't):

1. It was two different people. This to me is plausible as any well-planned operation like this needs redundancy. I can't believe the second guy still needed to take his own life after it was clear she was shot though. Then again, I don't understand fundamentalism.

2. Josh Marshall's theory about there not being enough momentum to fracture the skull still rings true for me. But even if that was the case, it means she must have been totally gone before the actual impact (to the car's sun-roof). Could be a way of saving face for the Musharraf government. Perhaps they jumped the gun on the earlier explanation.

•  Been Done

  Less than 20 Diaries down.

  by The Baculum King on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:03:36 AM PDT

•  Dead is dead. It doesn't matter how.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:05:32 AM PDT

  •  Don't you think we should

    know who killed her and why?  this is world stage important.

    by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:09:13 AM PDT

    •  It will be a miracle if we ever

      find out who was behind it. It was probably the Military.  They had the most to loose if she was elected. Bhutto was out in the open, all the time. You have to ask your self why? She knew there were people who would kill her, if they could. She gave them every opportunity to do it, over and over again.

      by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:15:38 AM PDT

      •  Yeah

        And Lincoln was stupid for getting himself assassinated.  After all, he knew people hated and despised him so he shouldn't have been in the theater that night.  Not to mention Kennedy!  What an idiot for being in an open car.  He should have known he would be assassinated.  It is usually the victims fault afterall. /snark

        by BDA in VA on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:23:54 AM PDT

        •  This is 2007, and this happened

          in a Country in turmoil. They alredy tried to kill her the day she came back.

          by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:27:15 AM PDT

          •  so?

            The blame still lies with the lunatics or government operatives that killed her.  

            by BDA in VA on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:35:14 AM PDT

            •  I agree. Now what happens?

              Thats the point I am trying to make. Do you go after the Military or the Gov? Or look for some outside group? And if stability is not maintained, this Country goes up in smoke. And we go into Pakistan and take over. Its their Country and we should have stayed out. But Bush couldn't help but send them a leader, and the People bought it. Now she is dead. Now Pakistan is in a mess.

              by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:51:41 AM PDT

              •  Blame Bush? That's a strech Owllwoman

                I don't believe the world is a perfectly peaceful place that only erupts where we touch it.  

                by breezeview on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:26:17 AM PDT

              •  Bush hates Plan B, never has them, never will

                h/t

                by deMemedeMedia on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 08:20:28 AM PDT

      •  It should be noted

        The Military is factionalized and barely controlled by  Musharraf, which is the real reason why Pakistian poses a serious nuclear threat.

        It is not the fanatics in the street that pose the danger, but the ones with access to/control of arms including WMD.

        by koNko on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

  •  Why it matters is Martyrdom. This really what

    this little phase is all about.

    Great link here is to get all the Bhutto news is
    http://www.gulfnews.com/

    Their archives on Bhutto is amazing. I can't seem to get a link in. If you are interested in a lot of the twists and turns try to Google; Gulfnews; Bhutto may return to Dubai and follow the links.

    by deMemedeMedia on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:34:31 AM PDT

    •  The Martrydom theory is what I think is central

      to this whole deal. Bhutto [the Pakistani Chalabi] had gained support to go form a 'pact' with Musharraf who came to power in 1999 to keep the US interests in Pakistan secure [air bases, pipelines, silk road, black sites, yada, oh and incidentally nukes]. She pushed too hard against Musharraf. Also, all that stuff about her was coming out like 3 EU countries wanting her tried for corruption and $$$. The 'deal' she was supposed to make with Musharraf  fell apart.

      She returned to give interviews and even sent an e-mail to Blitzer to make sure Musharraf was hung out to dry as the total villian if she were killed. Then she returns to Pakistan with all the threats on her life making herself an easy target by waving through a sunroof unprotected. [lots of family history of ensuring that the Bhutto 'reign' continues] She becomes a martyr, sinks Musharraf and guarantees that her son is the 'new USA-Brit' backed leader of Pakistan. As a martyr which requires a certain cause of death in Islam, she also erases all the bad money-blood stuff that she and her husband are notorious for.

      The Musharraf government can deny her martyrdom plan which basically ensures that the Bhuttos continue to 'reign' by saying she bumped her head as she fell.

      It is probably has a few twist in there with the CIA, ISI, SIS, oil, etc. but I just think that is what is happening with a lot of bells and whistles and the usual 'Taliban-AQ' seasoning.

      by deMemedeMedia on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:51:04 AM PDT

      •  Really convuluted, isn't it?

        Thanks for post.

        My cousin who lives in Europe told me that the husband was the one supposedly who took the money out of Pakistan.  Is this simplistic, or is it like everything else lately - one needs a research assistant.

        by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:28:14 AM PDT

•  I haven't seen the other diary -

  so I was informed.  Considering the importance of the story - it doesn't hurt to have more than one diary up.  Up to diarist if she wants to take down - I wouldn't.  I have taken a diary down because another person wrote about it earlier and called me on it.  Frankly, I though my diary was better - and am sorry I took it down.  Plus I don't peremptory orders.  

  by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:07:34 AM PDT

  •  I Cleverly Hid It

    In the Recent Diaries list.

    And I disremember ordering anybody to do anything.

    by The Baculum King on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:11:43 AM PDT

    •  Did I say you did?

      I was talking about another diarist.  I didn't realize you were the one who wrote the other diary.  :)

      by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:24:24 AM PDT

      •  btw, I went down and read your diary

        and comments - thanks.

        by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:21:28 AM PDT

•  *Breaking* CNN headline news

  just announced that Pakistan government has agreed to allow the PPP to exhume Bhutto's body for an autopsy.

  by Orj ozeppi on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:12:22 AM PDT

  •  Linky-link

    Re: exhumation of Benazir.

    by Orj ozeppi on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:44:50 AM PDT

    •  What does Sharia have to say in re:

      Exhumation?
      Post mortem?!

      Aloha .. .. ..

      by dolphin777 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:47:19 AM PDT

      •  Well, according to

        Meteor Blades' couple of comments, it appears to be acceptable under certain circumstances (tho I have no first-hand knowledge of their laws/traditions)

        Salaam .. ..

        by Orj ozeppi on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

•  asdf

  I am a little surprised that there aren't several more diaries on this subject.

  I also love how people spout off propogranda as if they know something. I have seen everything from Bhutto is worse than a terrorist to she was the hope of Pakistan.  Maybe people should investigate more rather than parroting the one article they may have read about her.

  by BDA in VA on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:19:34 AM PDT

  •  If you take Musharrif{sp}

    out of the picture, that leaves the Military in control of the Country. Thats not good. I look to what will keep Pakistan under control, so we don't have to get involved. And Bush is just licking his chops waiting to get involved.

    by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:24:41 AM PDT

•  The suicide bomber was necessary

  to make sure "Al Quiada" (sp??) was blamed.

  by glitterscale on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:47:49 AM PDT

  •  Links, please. n/t

    by koNko on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:01:36 AM PDT

    •  I have no links

      I am just surmising that if I were Pakistan's ruler, and I had Benezir Bhutto shoved onto my plate, then I would have to take care of the problem some way.  It should not be MY hand on the trigger, you understand.  And I pull all kinds of security scams so that security is extremely iffy allowing all the violent factions a shot at the woman.  And she is targeted firt thing when she comes into the country.  But it didn't get her but killed a bunch of her supporters.  (Apparently the deal with Condi did not include providing security for Benezir.)  We suspect that the army is riddled with extremists.  We suspect that the Taliban and Al Quiada want to imbalance the region so that they can take over.  The latter especially want the western influence removed.  Musharraf has to balance all of those factions.  And the army from which he sprang seems to have its own agenda.  He can take money from us, but he can't roust out the extremists.  But he can, since he controls all parts of Pakistan's government, he can "allow" Benezir to be a target.  And he can remove evidence (the site was washed down) and he can claim the killing was done merely by the bomber.  (He holds control over the Pakistani news media.)  So that tells me he has a vested interest in the killing however it went down.  He is the victor.  (At the moment.)  All of those warning about instability may only be watching his next balancing act.  He has surfed that roiling sea through the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

      The truly sad thing is that some Pakastani people are generally very likable and truly not terrorists.  But they have their haves and have nots and they have their fundamentalists.  And what is horribly scary - so do we.

      by glitterscale on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:48:17 AM PDT

    •  Follow the story for the going back to at least

      the USSR in Afghanistan and it the whole tale in a hand basket.

      by deMemedeMedia on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:55:32 AM PDT

•  On Huff Po she had the xray up

  or mri up of her skull.  It seemed strange to me, there was only 2  photos shown to the media, an mri of the brain and spine would show what happened and it produces hundreds of images.  

  The xray  showed a circular hole in her upper back skull.  There are a couple of questions I have with this and they are: 1) if this is Bhutto's xray or someone elses?  2) where are the other mri photos which would show clear images of the brain and spinal cord?  The first reports were a bullet went through the neck and severed her spinal cord which would caused instant death.  The spinal cord wasn't shown on the image provided to the press.

  It is hard to believe the Pakistani government is spinning this when there were many eyewitnesses to what happened.  The focus is on Musharrif and he is trying one of Hitler's ploys, that is: if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.

  by Sandy on Signal on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:54:44 AM PDT

  •  I have a few squeamish feelings about Huff on

    this one as she and Bhutto have a history that goes back to Oxford back in the days.
    Just sayin'

    by deMemedeMedia on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:58:17 AM PDT

•  There's an additional link in Floridadems

  diary that has John Bolton (yes, that John Bolton) blaming US Foreign policy for her death.

  Now what's that all about??? Not that I disagree as I think this has Rice's fingerprints all over it but what is Bolton trying to accomplish??

  This is getting stranger & stranger.

  by flatford39 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:22:16 AM PDT

  •  Wonder that myself. Bolton appears to be

    pushing away from Bush. I sure hope they don't nominate him for VP.

    by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:29:21 AM PDT

    •  Angling for Sec. of State?

      Maybe Rice is preparing to step down in order to spend more time with her shoes?

      Maybe Bolton is setting himself up to be part of the Ghouliani Cabinet?

      by sxwarren on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:57:19 AM PDT

•  I've seen the tape

  and though it's of low quality, it appears to show the shooter actually riding on her vehicle with his gun hand supported on the roof.

  A very serious security and suspicious lapse

  by Zwoof on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:30:20 AM PDT

  •  Heres the video

    by DJShay on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:08:50 AM PDT

    •  It appears that two different guns went off

      The flashes from two different guns appear on the screen...so 2 assassins and then a suicide bomber? How terrible!

      by Temmoku on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:00:25 AM PDT

      •  It really is starting to look

        like a coverup.

        by DJShay on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:19:23 AM PDT

    •  The music adds a nice touch.

      Sick.

      by bdbd on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

  •  Different story involved here with different view

    http://www.dawn.com/...

    You can also click on the news in pics button and find a set of pics.

    by Big Nit Attack on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:50:30 AM PDT

•  A well coordinated event ties up loose ends

  I can't believe the second guy still needed to take his own life after it was clear she was shot though. Then again, I don't understand fundamentalism.

  The bomb could have been detonated from a distance. The bomb carrier may have been told he was a back-up but was more than that. He was also a way to make sure the assassins did not talk if they were caught.

  by OHdog on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:57:54 AM PDT

  •  And.

    Suicide bombers tend tovexecute thier missions, particularly whhen they expect to get a better deal in the next life for doing so.

    by koNko on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:04:49 AM PDT

    •  IIRC: Redundancy is a AQ signature?! n/t

      by dolphin777 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:49:59 AM PDT

•  Osama and the Bomb

  Months from now Bin Laden will get his hands on the bomb, say good bye to Tel Aviv.

  by xjac on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:38:41 AM PDT

•  this is why

  I stopped posting here because people read it on your diary then steal it and re-post as if they found it..

  by kerryblogger on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:55:44 AM PDT

•  Understanding fundamentalism

  Then again, I don't understand fundamentalism.

  Please let me take a crack at it. Bhutto's assassination is a good example of religious fanaticism taken to its logical extreme, and the "moral" motivations of religious terrorists. The common assumption is that religion helps make people good, but religious terrorism proves the opposite. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or injured in the previous assassination attempt as well as this successful one. Why such a pointless and terrible loss of lives, why inflict so much pain and grief onto their families?  A natural human motivation is to live in peace, freedom, prosperity, and safety. A big part of that is caring about others, because we are a social species - if we help others to be happy and safe, that increases our own happiness and safety.  But religious terrorists violate their own human nature by desiring the opposite.  They wilfully and gladly wreak death and destruction onto their own country and people, taking delight in inflicting terrible pain, grief, and suffering. They don't care about people's rights or freedoms - they think it's a good thing for people to live in fear and oppression. They think it's right to kill innocent people for the "glory of Allah", and they selfishly expect to be rewarded for doing that and for being a martyr.

  This proves that religion can cause people to lose their natural morality and human compassion. It tends to make people morally bankrupt, and this tendency is probably made worse the more devout one becomes. Religion can twist people so much that it actually turns evil into "good" and good into "evil."  Of course, many people defend religion and say that the terrorists are simply abusing Islam, and that terrorism has nothing to do with religion. I disagree. The terrorists are simply taking their religious beliefs to their literal, logical conclusion. After all, religious "ethics" are often the opposite of true humanist ethics, which are based on achieving the most good for the most people. Instead, with religion, God comes first and people come second, the afterlife is more important than this life, obedience and suppression of desire are virtues, good deeds are done to please God and go to heaven and not because you want to help people, and so on. All of that is a very primitive and barbaric form of "morality," another ironic example of how religion keeps us on the level of animals, even while it teaches that we're divinely created and special to God.  Also, religious beliefs serve to strongly justify evil actions, giving divine approval to them. This allows terrorists to actually carry out their attacks with confidence and even joy. As Blaise Pascal said: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."

  by choice joyce on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:20:48 AM PDT

  •  Good post but I believe that

    many of the "fundamentalist" leaders, no matter the religion, are in it for the power and money and use the believers for their dirty work.

     

    by xanthe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:31:23 AM PDT