The bomber's accomplices (2 guys with AK-47s) reportedly started shooting before he blew himself up, and a spokesman for her political party said the bomber was shooting as well according to The Times of London. There's no telling when she might have been shot. For that reason, I think you need to post a link to where you got the information.

 

From what I understood on the news this morning on CNN, she didn't die from the blast, but rather was shot in the neck during the ensuing gunfire.

Not long. If this turns into a civil war it could easily draw in Iran and Russia and make a mess of things quickly.

 

I'd say its not long before an attempt is made on Musharraff.

I think even worse would be for India to join the fray, especially since Pakistan and India both have nukes and hate each other.

The bomber's accomplices (2 guys with AK-47s) reportedly started shooting before he blew himself up, and a spokesman for her political party said the bomber was shooting as well according to The Times of London. There's no telling when she might have been shot. For that reason, I think you need to post a link to where you got the information.

 

It was all over TV on that statement. But I agree it's too up in the air right now on what happened, when and where, once things calm down a bit we will understand everything a bit more.

I think even worse would be for India to join the fray, especially since both Pakistan and India both have nukes and hate each other.

And India will not be happy if radical elements gain control of Pakistan. The world doesn't need those two at each other's throats, that's for sure.

And India will not be happy if radical elements gain control of Pakistan. The world doesn't need those two at each other's throats, that's for sure.

 

Not just India. If radicals gain control of nuclear Pakistan, the whole world will tremble.

Not just India. If radicals gain control of nuclear Pakistan, the whole world will tremble.

 

This phrase may make some Americans shudder, but THAT might warrant a pre-emptive strike.

CNN has video from GEO-TV here.

 

She gets in the back of her Land Cruiser and seemed to have cleanly left the site of her final political rally, but the vehicle left slowly because of the crowds.

 

In the meantime, Pakistan --- which has been on the verge of revolution for some time now --- is convulsing.

 

Speaking of India, that government's spokesman made a very interesting point today: violence such as this is "not only anti-democracy but also generates instability." (quote from CNN.com.

 

Another interesting note: She was assassinated at a park named for Pakistan's first prime minister, who himself was assassinated in the same location in 1951.

This phrase may make some Americans shudder, but THAT might warrant a pre-emptive strike.

 

I'm with you on that one, Pep.

The lede from an October Newsweek article has come to my attention, and it has information that should be considered.

 

Benazir Bhutto was worried she would not survive the day. It was, for her, to be a moment of joyous return after eight years of exile, but also an hour of great peril. Just before she left Dubai for Pakistan on Thursday, Oct. 18, Bhutto directed that a letter be hand-delivered to Pervez Musharraf, the embattled Pakistani autocrat with whom she had negotiated a tenuous political alliance. If anything happens to me, please investigate the following individuals in your government, she wrote, according to an account given to NEWSWEEK by her husband, Asif Ali Zardari. Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister, then proceeded to name several senior security officials she considered to be enemies, Zardari said. Principal among those she identified, according to another supporter who works for her Pakistan People's Party, was Ejaz Shah, the head of Pakistan's shadowy Intelligence Bureau, which runs domestic surveillance in somewhat the way M.I.5 does in Britain. Shah, a longtime associate of Musharraf's, is believed by Bhutto supporters to have Islamist sympathies. And Bhutto had boldly challenged Pakistan's Muslim extremists, declaring before her arrival that "the terrorists are trying to take over my country, and we have to stop them."

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Also, a rally by the party of Bhutto's main ally was also attacked this morning --- three dead, 17 wounded. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmMvad3rbqxYCQzGILosXgWc8VSA

 

This is one big mess.

This will cause a civil war.

This phrase may make some Americans shudder, but THAT might warrant a pre-emptive strike.

 

I was wondering the same thing.

 

Before we say, "Yep, let's do it," how do you do it? We aren't talking about one sight and one missle here and the idea that we get them all with a pre-emptive strike is more dangerous than diplomacy.

Al-Qaeda tried knocking her off in October.

It is known that they have likely infiltrated the Pakistani security as well.

Personally, I don't think Mushereff sp? is involved.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

Before we say, "Yep, let's do it," how do you do it? We aren't talking about one sight and one missle here and the idea that we get them all with a pre-emptive strike is more dangerous than diplomacy.

 

I am with you, I think the first thing we would need to do was infiltrate as many CIA and special forces operatives in there as possible in order to get a full accounting of what they have and where they have it. If they have mobile batteries then we need to know that too. Get solid information before striking. Information is ammunition.

 

I would figure that most of their arsenal will be missile based, thankfully I don't think they have ICBM capability, but they could still rain havoc on nations friendly to us. If they have bomber capacity I would suspect that we would be able to take care of that without too much trouble, air superiority has not been an issue for the U.S. in some time. With the F-22's coming into service the upgraded F-15's and the F-18 Super Hornets I think that any bombers they could send skyward would soon be heading in the other direction.

 

The only reason I would hesitate with diplomacy would be that if an extremist government came to power I don't think they would be willing to treat with us and it would give them more time to get the nukes to terrorist groups.

 

I am all for diplomacy when not dealing with religious fanatics. However when the fanatics have nukes, I want them bathed in fire as quickly as possible. May be cold and heartless but I am not of the mindset that "decency" is worth the risk.

Where would you do a pre-emptive strike? Pakistan has 11 missile sites, 22 sites for the development, research, production and testing of nuclear weapons, a chemical weapons facility and a biological weapons facility.

Where would you do a pre-emptive strike? Pakistan has 11 missile sites, 22 sites for the development, research, production and testing of nuclear weapons, a chemical weapons facility and a biological weapons facility.

 

I frankly don't like the idea of it coming to that. Our military is tied down enough right now, the last thing we need is something like this. Any strike on a nation like that would be a massive undertaking of precision and timing. I don't think we could do it alone. Air Strikes alone couldn't do it, but they would have to be a start.

 

I really hope Musharraf can keep it from degenerating though. The last thing we need is Pakistan falling into utter chaos.