Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime Minister, was assassinated yesterday, December 27, 2007. She was warned before returning to Pakistan that she would be assassinated. Yet, the Bush administration pressured Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to allow her back into Pakistan. The official Pakistani government (a dictatorship under Musharraf) is blaming al Qaeda and the Taliban for sending the suicide bomber who killed Bhutto.
This all raises questions. The U.S. has wanted to get into Pakistan. The U.S. has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan to Pakistan's immediate northwest. Bob Gates wants 7,500 more stationed there to fight the Taliban. With troops in Afghanistan, if the U.S. puts troops in Pakistan, it can surround the Taliban and al Qaeda on the Pakistani border with Afghanistan and "secure" Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Then, it can turn to fighting Iran with Israel. At least this is what it looks like on paper.
Of course, the U.S. wants to secure corridors for oil pipelines throughout the region and to control the oil fields. That's the strategic goal, or the global "prize," as Dick Cheney has termed it.
So, why does it appear that Bhutto was set up? Look at how vilifying it is. Look at how the Western corporate mass media, the Empire's mouthpieces, are decrying the assassination. Look at how it makes al Qaeda and the Taliban look to be the sort in need of being exterminated. It plays right into the hands of the propagandists and psychological-operations people doesn't it?
For some background, Pakistan has an intelligence service called the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). On 9-11, Pakistani lieutenant general Mahmoud Ahmad was the head of ISI. In late August 2001 just before the 9-11 attacks, Porter Goss and his later co-chairmen, Florida Democratic senator Bob Graham, along with Arizona Republican senator John Kyl, were in Islamabad, Pakistan, meeting with Pakistan's dictator president, Pervez Musharraf, and General Ahmad and others. On 9-11, those same members of US Congress were in Washington having breakfast with General Ahmad.
It has been reported that general Ahmad ordered a money transfer of one hundred thousand dollars to Mohamed Atta of al Qaeda who was the supposed lead terrorist in the US supervising the 9-11 attacks.
Keep in mind that Porter Goss had been ten years in the CIA dealing directly with covert operations. When it later came out that George W. Bush had been briefed by the CIA some five weeks before 9-11 that al Qaeda was planning to attack the US by commercial airline hijackings, Goss called indignation of people "a lot of nonsense" that the president knew about the attacks but those attacks were still easily pulled off while US fighter jets were far away in war games or ordered to sit on the ground (highly unusual) until it was too late.
Porter Goss was the Director of Central Intelligence (September 24, 2004–April 21, 2005) when that office was abolished. He remained on as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
For some more Bhutto-assassination questions, here's an interesting article. "More Questions Than Answers - Updated," by Cernig. The Newshoggers. December 28, 2007.
Cernig asks the question why Musharraf pardoned Baitullah Mehsud in 2005 if Mehsud was and is al Qaeda. Musharraf is now blaming Mehsud for ordering Bhutto's assassination.
Pakistan has "intelligence intercepts" indicating that al Qaeda was behind the killing of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, the Interior Ministry said on Friday.
..."We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination," ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema told a news conference.
Are those "intelligence intercepts" on the order of the Yellowcake Forgery? Why in the world would anyone automatically believe Pakistani intelligence when it has such a long history of lying? Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Pakistan is guilty of gross misallocation of funds from the U.S. It was to spend funds fighting al Qaeda but instead beefed up security against military rival India. Even that you ought to consider taking with a large grain of salt. Isn't it more of the U.S. imperial plan for the area? Wouldn't Pervez Musharraf already be gone otherwise? Isn't he really still a puppet of the U.S. oligarchy and globalist plutocrats?
Just remember the terrible earthquakes that hit Pakistan. Remember all the freezing and starving people in the mountains. Do you think they've all been restored to better conditions than before? Then think about the billions spent on nuclear weapons, U.S. jet fighters and other weaponry, and the generals living the highlife. Who can trust people with such results?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)