Who killed Bhutto, and for what reason?

I think a very good case could be made that the hit was drug-related (as crazy as that may sound at first).

Consider my line of reasoning...

I suspect Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmad was behind the assassination. Ahmad is a drug lord, and Bhutto was clearly threatening to expose him for her own political gain. We see this in the video provided by Claymore -- a video that is now all over the Internet – the David Frost interview in which Bhutto says Omar Sheikh killed Osama bin Laden.

Bhutto gave this interview on 2 Nov 07. She does not name Ahmad Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmad explictly, but she cannot logically be referring to any other person.

When Bhutto returned to Pakistan on 18 October, a bomb exploded near her in Karachi, killing 138 people. Afterward Benazir wrote a letter and told her 19-year-old son Bilawal (photos) to read it in case she was killed. Benazir’s PPP Party said the letter will be read this Sunday evening (Pakistan time) near Benazir’s family's mausoleum in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh, near Larkana Pakistan. The letter is believed to contain Benazir’s suspicions of who was behind the October 18 attack, and who would want her dead. In the David Frost interview, Benazir says she already sent a letter to Musharraf in which she named people. Benazir says Musharraf asked her to keep quiet about this.

I believe, as does Nepos Libertas, that Bhutto signed her death warrant when she gave that David Frost interview. I believe that drug lords were involved.

Here's why...
____________________________________________________
Note: the information below is FACTS. I will clearly note when I shift into SPECULATION.

Note also: Gen. Mahmood Ahmad is not to be confused with Gen. Mahmood Ahmed who is currently head of Pakistan’s air force. These are two different people.
____________________________________________________

On 12 Oct 1999, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad was one of the generals that overthrew the elected government of Nawaz Sharif and installed Musharraf.

In return, Musharaff made Ahmad head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA).

Ahmad was head of the ISI for two years (October 1999 to October 2001), and was deeply involved in 9-11. While head of the ISI, he frequently visited neocons in the USA (e.g. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) plus people like Porter Goss, a Florida congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, and who co-sponsored the PATRIOT ACT. Goss was also co-chair of the Joint 9/11 Intelligence whitewash Inquiry.

On the morning of 9/11, Gen. Ahmad was with Porter Goss. Ahmad had arrived in Washington of 4 September, and remained until 16 September.

In early October 2001, Indian intelligence revealed that General Ahmad had ordered Omar Sheikh to wire $100,000 from Dubai to one of two bank accounts for Mohamed Atta in Florida -- the same state that Ahmad's friend Porter Goss is from. I don't know if this is true, and I don't care.

By that time, General Ahmad -- still with the ISI -- had become a drug lord, and worked with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (The Financial Times notes that Ahmad’s predecessor at the ISI -- Brig Imtiaz -- had tens of millions of dollars from heroin smuggling in a Deutsche Bank account. “It is believed that there are at least 30 Army and ISI officers, serving and retired, who have accumulated similar wealth through heroin smuggling.”)

To protect his drug trade, Ahmad strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The USA invaded Afghanistan to secure a UNOCAL oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea down through Afghanistan to a port in Pakistan. Ahmad raised such a stink about the invasion that Washington asked Musharraf to remove Ahmad as head of the ISI.

Musharraf obeyed, and fired Ahmad from the ISI on the night before the USA began air strikes on Afghanistan (7 October 2001). Musharraf replaced Ahmad with Lieutenant General Ehsan ul Haq as head of the ISI.

SPECULATION: At that point, Mahmoud Ahmad went underground and became a full-time drug lord for Afghan heroin. As such, he was tight with the CIA and Mossad, both of whom rely on the drug trade for much of their funding. (On 22-Sep-2004, Bush made Gen. Ahmad's friend Porter Goss the head of the CIA.)

Two months after the U.S. invasion, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was working in Pakistan, and was preparing to expose Ahmad’s drug trade. Therefore Omar Sheikh assassinated Daniel Pearl in Karachi (1 Feb 2002). Sheikh was convicted of this.

Omar Sheikh has been acused of working for the CIA and MI6, all of which rely on the drug trade for income.

SPECULATION: I suspect Omar Sheikh is also an employee of Mahmoud Ahmad, formerly of the ISI. Here’s why...

India and Pakistan both lay claim to the states of Jammu and Kasmir. The dispute has continued for decades, and periodically brings Pakistan and India close to war. Whenever the two nations approach a peace agreement, Pakistani militants set off false flag bombs in India and Pakistan. They do this because the dispute has become institutionalized, and therefore allows various people to use it for false flag operations (for various reasons).

In Claymore’s video, Bhutto mentions Maulana Masood Azhar, founder of the Jaish-e-Mohammed group, whose main goal is to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India. This group is the most radical of all Pakistani groups, and has carried out terrorist bombings all over India. It is the principal terrorist organization in Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Azhar founded it in 1999 when he was released from an Indian jail -- at exactly the same time that Gen. Ahmad was installed as head of the ISI.

SPECULATION: I believe the Jaish-e-Mohammed group claims to oppose any surrender of Jammu and Kashmir, but it is really led by (non-political) drug thugs that use the J & K issue as cover. As I said above, Mr. Azhar (leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed group) and Omar Sheikh (bag man and professional assassin) were both released from Indian jails at the same time Amad took over the ISI. I believe both men started to work for Ahmad as assassins and bag men, using the Jaish-e-Mohammed group as cover.

This is why the group is much more violent than most politically-oriented groups. The top thugs silence anyone who threatens to expose or muscle in on their control of the Afghan drug trade. An example was American journalist Daniel Pearl, who was assassinated in Karachi (February 1, 2002) when he got close to exposing Gen. Ahmad’s drug lordship. Pearl was liquidated, as was Benazir Bhutto, and for the same reason. The assassination of Bhutto was identical to the Jaish-e-Mohammed group’s usual style of assassinations. I believe these were drug killings, not political killings.

On 1 October 2001, the Jaish-e-Mohammed group claimed responsibility for a terrorist strike against the Jammu and Kashmir assembly in Srinagar, in which 35 people were killed. On 13 December 2001, the Jaish-e-Mohammed group claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack on India’s parliament. Sixteen days later, Pakistani security forces arrested Masood Azhar. On 14 December 2002, a three-member Review Board of Lahore High Court ordered Azhar released.

Question: how does a terrorist like Azhar get released again and again, unless he’s a drug operative with lots of connections, lots of money, and lots of dirt on politicians?

In her election campaign, Bhutto said she wanted to begin economic cooperation with India. She said the Jammu and Kashmir issue would resolve itself once Pakistan and India moved closer. To diffuse Pakistani militants, Bhutto helped circulate rumors that Maulana Masood Azhar (leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammed group) was a turncoat, and was working for Indian intelligence on the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Bhutto also threatened to expose Azhar’s boss, the drug lord Ahmad, as she hints in Claymore’s video.

Bhutto’s charges were not unfounded. If, as I suspect, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Azhar, and Mr. Sheikh are drug thugs, then they are non-political, and will work with Indian Intelligence as the situation requires. Hence Maulana Masood Azhar is not technically a “turncoat.” He’s a drug thug.

SPECULATION: I believe Azhar became frightened when Bhutto circulated rumors about him being a "turncoat" -- for reasons I'll describe in a moment. I also believe that Azhar’s boss (General Ahmad) wanted Buhtto removed before she exposed him as well.

Ahmad has loose connections with Musharraf, since Ahmad was one of the generals that helped install Musharraf in 1999. However, Ahmad has acted independently as a drug lord for six years. Musharraf realized that Bhutto was in danger from Ahmad, but I don’t think Musharraf was involved in the plot. When Bhutto was assassinated, Musharraf silently sat by her hospital bed for a long time. This suggests that Musharraf was sad that things had come to this, but was not overly surprised.

Awakened Goyim pointed out that Bhutto would hold Musharraf responsible if she were killed. I believe Bhutto was referring to Ahmad, the now-independent drug lord who is loosely connected with Musharraf. I doubt this was a plot by the Musharraf camp itself.

Why did Bhutto threaten to expose General Ahmad? Because Ahmad no longer had fully active connections with Musharraf. By exposing him, Bhutto could say she wanted to clean up corruption in Pakistan, meaning the Afghan drug trade. Bhutto was corrupt, but she had little or no connections with the drug trade. Her desire to clean it up was probably sincere. She wanted to work with Bush and Musharraf, not with rogue drug lords.

WHO WAS THE ASSASSIN?

SPECULATION: If, as I’ve speculated, Ahmad uses the Jammu / Kashmir conflict as a front, the assassin was probably someone from the radical Jaish-e-Mohammed group. I believe this group is led by a gang of drug thugs, but some of its minor members are politically oriented, and really do want Pakistan to have Jammu and Kashmir. I believe Ahmad and his drug thugs consider the minor (politically oriented) members to be useful idiots.

SPECULATION: One of those members was a patsy who Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Azhar, and Mr. Sheikh had whipped into a frenzy. This patsy became like Lee Harvey Oswald. He was told that Bhutto intended to give away Jammu and Kashmir. He was psychologically manipulated into becoming a “martyr.” (Drug fiends never blow themselves up to stop someone from exposing them.)

When Bhutto circulated rumors that Azhar was a "turncoat," she threatened to bring down the entire Jaish-e-Mohammed group (which she mentions in Claymore's video). This would cause lower-level members of the group (the politically oriented useful idiots) to become enraged. They would have killed their leader, Azhar, who (I suspect) is really a drug operative. Clearly Bhutto had to be silenced before she exposed the entire drug trade. This exposure would not have hurt Musharraf, who would probably like to be rid of Ahmad, plus Azhar and the other rogue drug lords anyway. Besides, Musharraf removed Ahmad from the ISI six years ago. I suspect that everyone in Pakistan would like to be rid of these murderous drug criminals.

CIA CONNECTIONS

The CIA was indirectly connected with the Bhutto assassination, which does not necessarily mean the CIA was responsible. The CIA is connected because it uses the same banks for money laundering that Ahmad and other drug lords use all over the world. In the same way, the CIA was connected with the JFK assassination, since the CIA used the same banks the Meyer Lansky gang used. It is easy to make the (erroneous) leap from “connected” to “responsible.” Sometimes this leap is founded. Sometimes it is not.

It's possible that by threatening the Pakistan / Afghan drug trade, Bhutto also threatened the CIA's drug trade -- but I don't have any opinions on that one way or the other.

So the way I see it, when Bhutto gave the David Frost interview, the threat was not to Musharraf, but to Ahmad and the Pakistan / Afghan drug trade.

If (I say IF ) I am correct, it might explain why so many recent bombings seemed to target ISI people, as kula.kundalini points out. The drug lords are outside the ISI, and are only connected with certain people inside it. It’s the same way with the CIA. Drugs lords will liquidate anyone who gets in their way. When we overlook their role, we become confused by all the complexities.
__________________________________________________

Thanks for reading.

Submitted by Abdul Alhazred on Sat, 2007-12-29 09:10

• Abdul Alhazred's blog
• Login or register to post comments
• 302 reads
•