Excuse me for not being surprised. I am however surprised that she got it before Musharraf did.

 

But the question now becomes "Who killed her?" The media is saying it was "An extremist". Let's examine that for a moment.

 

When the media says "extremist", that's really code for "Al Qada". Could it have been them? I suppose so. But why would they? What do they have to gain, and more importantly, what do they have to lose?

 

Since Bhutto was the populist choice, there was a not unreasonable possibility that she may have won the election. This would have put Musharraf out of a job. But is that good for them, or bad? Well Musharraf is very, very pro-US. That's actually the source of a lot of the peoples' hatred of him. Removing him from office would have damaged US-Pakistani relations and hindered the war effort. This would be good for AQ. On the other hand - Angry, disenfranchised youth are the prime recruiting ground for not just AQ, but for extremist groups of all kinds. This leads to further destabilization in Pakistan and more recruits. Allowing Bhutto to come to power would lower the anger level and dry up populist support for AQ.

 

It appears to be a reasonable case. But who else might have motive? Who else gains? Musharraf?

 

The bulk of the population of Pakistan HATES President Musharraf. They hate him so badly, that electing a woman who was twice removed from office for corruption is preferable. Musharraf has problems in every area imaginable. On one hand, he has the tribal leaders along the Afghan border, who really don't answer to anybody. On another hand, he has his urbanized citizens who strenuously object to his version of "democracy" (which basically amounts to a police state). Then he has the Taliban, who are still bitter over that whole "coalition of the willing" crap that put them out of business. Then he's got relations with India, which even during the best of times could be characterized as "less than ideal". And now, he has possibly millions of pissed off Bhutto supporters. This will force Musharraf to squeeze harder, further alienating the citizens.

 

Sooner or later, someone is going to give him a bad day. And I don't mean a "Oh darn, I accidentally ran over my cat" bad day, I mean a "SYMTEX bear hug" bad day. Despite what some people in Pakistan may believe, I don't think Musharraf was involved. Yes, he gains by eliminating a political rival, but he loses bigger by being forced into a defensive posture and locking down the entire country again.

 

What about the tribal leaders?

 

History has shown that the mountain people generally don't get involved in the political process. They might slit your throat if you come into their village, but they are unlikely to send someone down into the city to do it. Besides, it is far more important to engage in centuries-old blood fueds with the tribe in the next valley over than to get involved in international politics with a government that they really have very little contact with or use for.

 

The Indians?

 

According to Bhutto's autobiography, Musharraf in 1996 offered to conquer all of Kashmir and Bhutto told him to take a hike. If Bhutto had returned to power, Inda would have been the recipient of a far more moderate and reasonable Pakistan. Perhaps some faction within the Indian military-industrial complex might have benefited from her assasination, but certainly not the Indian government.

 

And finally, the one all of you conspiracy buffs have been waiting for and KNOWING was coming, we come to the Americans:

 

This all comes down to intent. If American intent is to stabilize the nation, reduce extremism and build nations, then assasinating Bhutto is not only a very bad idea, it's quite possibly the worst idea in the history of black ops. We're right up there with "Castro's exploding cigar" in terms of stupidity. However, if American intent is to further destabilize the region, then this would be a very good move. Because that's exactly what is going to happen. And whatever is bad for Pakistan is bad for it's neighbor Iran and the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And whatever is bad for the SCO is probably good for the US. The case could be made, but it all depends on intent.

 

It must be 1964, because segregated schools are in the news again. Read about it here.

 

Now, I generally avoid topics of racism. I don't buy the whole concept. I view it as yet another method of keeping the proles divided and weak. But this just gets my ire up.

 

Segregation has been illegal in Canada for decades, yet here we have a community not only in support of segregating themselves, but actively disrupting the very public proceedings that would give them what they (for some rediculous reason) desire. But it gets even more absurd.

 

The chairman...excuse me, the chairwomyn of the Jamaican Canadian Association, Sandra Carnegie-Douglas - one of the strongest voices in favour of this nonsense - actually had the unmitigated gall to jump into this fight after speaking at Miss Lou's funeral. Does nobody else find it ironic that one of the strongest voices in the pro-segregation movement is coming from a black woman who reveres such anti-segregation names as Miss Lou? I would call it hypocricy, but that would imply deliberate duality. This is clearly a case of irony.

 

And that isn't even the end of it.

 

This coalition is also asking for a seperate criminal justice system specifically for blacks. Yup, we used to have one of those as well. It was called a lynch mob.