Who killed Benazir Bhutto?

While there is no conclusive answer to who killed former Pakistani prime minister Bhutto, so far the only claim of responsibility has come from an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, who posted the claim of responsibility on an Italian Web site. Al Qaeda posted the following message: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahideen. (holy warriors.)"

Bhutto was an outspoken critic of Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups. Consequently, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups hated her for her rhetoric, for supporting secularism and for being a woman.

While we can't know for sure who killed Bhutto, on two occasions, Al Qaeda has also tried to kill Pakistani president Musharraf. This brings us to the state of emergency that was enacted by Musharraf in November to “defend Pakistan from extremists and terrorists.â€ï¿½ At that time the United States and much of the world criticized Musharraf and pressured him to lift the state of emergency and to resign as army chief, a position he held alongside the position of president.

Currently, the only force that can keep Pakistan intact and safe from the terrorists is the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military and president Musharraf know better than any outsider what it takes to keep Pakistan from failing and falling in the hands of terrorists and extremists. It is a mistake for the United States or any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan by pressuring the Pakistani government to take any action that Pakistan does not want to take. It should be left up to the Pakistani people to decide whether emergency rule stays or not, whether the president wears an army uniform or not and when and whether elections are held.

The wrong interference by the United States and the weakening of the Pakistani military's control over Pakistan may produce a repeat of the disaster that brought clerical rule to Iran. In 1979, the Shah of Iran was deposed when the military refused to back him and the country fell in the hands of religious fundamentalist who continue to rule the country until today. This must not happen in Pakistan. The United States needs to be more emphatic to the particular circumstances of Pakistan and not to pressure Pakistan to do anything that is a threat to the stability and security of the country. If president Musharraf abuses his powers it is up to the majority of the Pakistani people to stop him and not foreign governments. The Pakistanis have a long democratic tradition and are capable of protecting their rights and institutions. An example is when Pakistani lawyers took to the streets to demonstrate against the weakening of the judiciary.

While democracy is a great ideal, Pakistan is currently facing turmoil and the Pakistanis need a strong president, a strong central government and a strong military to keep order. This remains the case despite allegations that the Pakistani military has been infiltrated by extremist elements. The United States should take no action to undermine the power of the central government, the military or president Musharraf, who has been a great ally in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Currently, the Pakistani military has more than 100, 000 troops fighting extremists on the Pakistani/Afghanistan border at a minuscule cost to the United States.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Kamal Nawash


Jimmy Carter supposedly said "There is a breath of freedom in the MIddle East" when the Shah was deposed on the mullahs took over in Iran. I fervently hope we do not give Hillary, Obama, Edwards or even Jimmy another chance to make such a stupid statement

Posted December 28, 2007 by meadow

Mr. Nawash is very insightful and very accurate, particularly this part:

"It is a mistake for the United States or any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan by pressuring the Pakistani government to take any action that Pakistan does not want to take...The wrong interference by the United States and the weakening of the Pakistani military's control over Pakistan may produce a repeat of the disaster that brought clerical rule to Iran."

You probably noticed that all of the US Presidential candidates weighed in on this issue. However, there is ONLY ONE US Presidential candidate thatI believe shares Mr. Nawash's view... Ron Paul. here is a video of his reaction.


Posted December 28, 2007 by Dan

some wil say its muslims its arabs
big part it is.i can make a divrince between nonie darwish mister nawish
and mister zuhader jasser and radical

it appear we are winning in iraq
its growing in gaza and pakistan
and afhanistan
its time with our satelite F 16 and F 22 we track down kill them alllllll
befor they kill us

Posted December 28, 2007 by alberto gorin

The only thing the US needs to worry about is those nukes in Pakistan. If we can get them out, the hell with everything else - let al Qaeda take over; like Hamas they will self-destruct in a matter of weeks. Iran is not the precedent, since they had all that oil to allow them to get away with stupidity on a grand scale. Besides, Iran are Shia, and they are not Arabic.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Ron

I agree with this article. No matter what one thinks about the directions the government of Pakistan has taken, it is Al Queda that is the enemy and we cannot forget that in the quest to spread democracy. As a US general once commented when asked by the press why the US supported a certain Latin American dictator who opposed communism, "He may be an s.o.b., but he's OUR s.o.b." Mushariff is much better than that but we need to take the general's clear perception of where our interests are and help Pakistan achieve its goals as Pakistan has been helping us achieve ours; each in our own way.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Colin Barnhorst

Certainly there are many reasonable arguments and views to be had concerning the US interference with Pakistan. And while it is not for the US to have a say in who/what leads Pakistan, there is no arguing about the volatility of Pakistan and it's impact on the US and the greater Muslim world. The presence of nukes in any country (let all one with such great political instability as well as regional tensions)is a cause for concern for the entire world because of the very nature of the beast. Also, right or not, when a country is vested $10billion in you they do have a particular interest in what goes on with you. If Pakistan and Pakistani's do not want the "opinions" of the outside world, then they should rely on self sufficency alone, because there are strings attached to the receipt of aid. However, there is a necessity for outside aid and accepting it alongwith it's drawbacks should not be an issue of pride. The bigger picture and ultimate goal should be kept in sight.

Posted December 28, 2007 by SAhmad

How fortuitous for Musharraf that Benazir Bhutto, one of the few credible sources of opposition to his dictatorship, got killed. I'm not saying he did it. I'm just saying he's probably not all that broken up about it.

For too many years the Pakistani government has done its best to keep the country in constant flux, with a constant sense of threat from forces like al Qaeda, while playing little games which seem more likely to make al Qaeda flourish in some areas. After all these years why hasn't the Pakistani government done anything about the 5000 madrassas in northern Pakistan which do nothing but teach kids how to recite Koranic verses and grow up to be suicide bombers? Why hasn't the Pakistani government done anything about the rampant corruption and criminality in its streets? No one can walk down a street in Karachi without fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom or outright killed. The middle and upper classes have been fleeing Pakistan in droves. Instead of embracing the rule of law and the promotion of rights Musharraf has spent the last year or so ratcheting up the threat alert and seeking to cut around the court system and anything else which might offer a check on his power.

Now, Musharraf has the perfect excuse to extend his grip on Pakistan's government, to extend the reach of his crooked friends into what's left of Pakistan's coffers, and to control opposition.

Where was the security for Benazir Bhutto? Yesterday one journalist spoke of how she was searched at least four times on her way to a Bhutto rally, but this suicide bomber got through without a problem. How did someone with a gun and a bomb make through the "tight" security? The Bhutto people are saying they begged for more help and it wasn't given.

It looks like Musharraf and Al Qaeda both got what they wanted out of this deal.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Carla

Posted December 28, 2007 by Montedoro

If people with little common scenes could not see what was coming her way, then they ought to wake up. Because she was out spoken against terrorism especially Al Qaeda, and Taliban, she had put herself in great danger. If you listen to Nawaz Sheriff, you hardly hear him condemning terrorism in public, may be behind closed doors yes. I recon if the combined efforts of the West can't disarm Pakistan of it's nuclear weapons, then it's only a matter time that unimaginable could happen, knowing the nature of Islam/Muslims. In the name of Islam they can kill innocent people without a second thought. See what happened to Poor Benazir Bhutto and there are tens and hundreds of people blown up by Islamic suicide bombers almost every day mostly in Muslim countries.log on www.thereligionofpeace.com www.faithfreedom.org

Posted December 28, 2007 by surj

If President Musharraf had a handle on the country and the terrorist this discussion would not need to take place. Although the President is between a rock and a hard place, he should be fighting the terrorist with the 100k strong military to destroy these monsters. There is no appeasing the terrorist with words. They live by actions alone. Therfore, military action is the only solution here and anywhere else they hide. They had Afghanistan, but that wasn't worth continuing to fight for. They have pretty much lost Iraq because of the coalition forces. They now have their sights set on Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. I agree that the US should not step in UNLESS we are asked by President Musharraf. As for Iran in 79, that would not have been allowed to happen if we had had a US President with a backbone. Unfortunetly, many more people will die before any resolution can be made in Pakistan. If the US is asked to step in and help, and we do, the terrorist will move on to Syria. They will continue to look for their OWN country unless we (the entire civilized world)continue to follow them wherever they go and destroy them.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Dan F

While I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly the view that the US should not interfere in Pakistan at this time, I must say that your piece contains material inaccuracies as well as material omissions.

You suggest that the state of emergency proclaimed by General Musharraf was due to the his need to "defend Pakistan from extremists and terrorists" In truth it was done to enable him to preserve his power, his unconstitutional service in the dual roles of army chief and president and to avoid an election.

You counsel faith in the people of Pakistan who, you assert, "have a long democratic tradition and are capable of protecting their rights and institutions." You cite as an example the recent instance "when Pakistani lawyers took to the streets to demonstrate against the weakening of the judiciary." In fact Pakistan has a violent and unstable political history, one where there has been a series of military dictators interspersed with a few elected regimes usually overthrown by the military. The situation in Pakistan seems to be one where the minority of fanatics have a large degree of control, exercised through violence, protection by the tribes in Western Pakistan and infiltration of both the Army and the security apparatus. Couple that reality with the utterly irresponsible way in which Pakistan spread nuclear technology and its aggression towards India and you have a very dicey situation. What was notable about the recent actions of the Pakistani lawyers was that they acted at all to protect the judiciary. It was the extraordinary nature of the action not its aspect as an ordinary part of a democratic state that was notable.

Your assertion that Musharraf "has been a great ally in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban is also inaccurate. He has been a reluctant ally and one who has engaged in a double game, seemingly an ally, but in fact an enabler of both the Taliban and al Qaeda.

I remain in agreement with your general point that the US should leave Pakistan to the Pakitstanis, but not for the reasons you present. I think that most US recipients of your essay will have reactions similar to my own.

Posted December 28, 2007 by David

Salamo 3alaikom:
Very interesting ???
is any of you has Sharon as a middle name ???????????????????????????????????
Salamo 3alaikom

Posted December 28, 2007 by 3adel

Yes, but the Pakistani people don't like America and Israel.

America for them and for us represents the Third Reich of our time.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Khalid

While democracy is a great ideal, Pakistan is currently facing turmoil and the Pakistanis need a strong president, a strong central government and a strong military to keep order. This remains the case despite allegations that the Pakistani military has been infiltrated by extremist elements. The United States should take no action to undermine the power of the central government, the military or president Musharraf, who has been a great ally in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Currently, the Pakistani military has more than 100, 000 troops fighting extremists on the Pakistani/Afghanistan border at a miniscule cost to the United States.

Dear Kamal,

You would have more credibility if you just did not copy the talking points faxes of the administrations.

Our own Intel people have told us that the Pakistan military is playing both sides. Sure they chase after the bad guy a little bit, but they fleece us for a fortune in the process, which they clearly intend to keep doing by manipulating a 'dangerous' situation.

The Paki military was the biggest nuclear proliferator in history and this has been hidden from the American people.

Bhutto showed incredible irresponsibility for her own lack of protection. Standing up through the moon roof like that was beyond stupid. She should have had a professional security staff in charge of her safety and she would still be alive. With all the money that her husband robbed they can certainly afford it.

Would appreciate a little more indepth reporting from you rather than being a transmission belt for your financial supporters. You have all the symptoms of a front group with what you have been sending out and we need another front group like we need a hole in the head.

Read the quotes below. You are not providing any knowledge. You are just telling folks what to think. We are bored to tears over all the people, front groups, etc...telling us what to think when they have an axe to grind that of course they don't disclose.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Jim


Rather difficult to know what really happened when so far away, but here is my take for what it is worth. Having to go by what I read; not what I saw.

The most logical explanation is that Bhutto did die when her head hit the turning knob/lever of the sun roof. The gunshots missed, but the concussion from the bomber sent her into the lever. Struck her in the temporal lobe. Worst place it could have hit her. Docs said the x-rays showed no sign of bullet or shrapnel penetration, yet her brain was oozing out of the hole. I know that is ugly, but think they did the best with what they had. Supposedly they didn't even have a pulse to work with.

Do I think the radicals were behind it. Yes. Put whatever name you want on them. Have seen it in most religions. It is not a Muslim only occurrence. Sometimes you have to say that enough is enough. Has anyone considered that what is happening in Iraq is because of such as this and it is not the "surge"?

I do not know what holds for Pakistan. Expect you know far better than I. Would declare martial law even though that is not popular, which is as should be. Am not Pakistani. It is for them to decide whether to work together or kill each other.

Not sure about the nukes. All it takes is for one to fall into the wrong hands.

What do I know?

Posted December 28, 2007 by Mart

I applaud your logic, and agree that a strong Pakistani military working WITH the civilian government is best for Pakistan and America. We in
America are all for giving Pakistan money to fight extremists for the benefit of Pakistan and America. I am very sorry about Ms. Bhutto's death, I thought she was and would again be a great leader. THere will never be another like her.

Posted December 28, 2007 by John

What rock did you crawl from under to tell The USA what to do? You just had to try to be something you are not and that is intelligent enough to tell Our country what to do. But u have planted your seed of mistrust already. Other than the nukes let them blow each other up over there until hell freezes over. We have lost too many good men and women fighting the fanatical minority of Muslims.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Tom

Posted December 28, 2007 by Emerson

What a crappy piece! Such writings inspire these generals to disregard & disrespect the country's constitution and its democratic processes AND overthrow democratic governments, in the name of the people. We have seen this happen, over & over again, BUT has it done any good? They take over under the pretext of cleansing evil but eventually thet get mired only in protecting and preserving their sel interest.

Its sad to see people like Kamal Nawash vouching for these democracy killers. Kamal, you can forget my vote if you stand for office the next time!

Posted December 28, 2007 by Imran

I agree completely with Mr. Nawash's article. We must support President Musharraf! Some of the comments here talk about "democracy". Bull! These people are religious extremists wanting the overthrow of an effective government that is controlling the very forces that want Pakistan to spiral into chaos. You guys have nukes, for the love of God! You must protect them at all costs from the islamic nuts that want them in their evil hands.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Vince DC

I agree to most of what you said.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Maged

Dear Mr Nawash, We cried when we heard of Ms Bhuttos murder but were not suprised. Watching her speak to her people and the world at large, we got the impression that she knew her time was limited. This courageous woman, a leader in every sense of the word, put herself deliberately in harms way to get her message out. An educated beautiful and talented woman such as she could have lived in safety anywhere but instead returned to her home. Who killed her? Probably miscreants who want to create a world at war, but that could be any one of dozens of evil groups. Our condolences to the family of Ms. Bhutto and to all peace loving people the world over. I couldn't agree more that Pakistan needs to solve it's own problems. Help should be given only if asked for and then in very small carefully considered doses. We must guard against creating yet another " Iran" syndrome where the "solution" becomes worse than the original problem. The extremists want to inflame emotions and generate irrational reactions that they can then use as an excuse to " strike back at the aggressor". .... I have one question perhaps you can answer. Why does radical Islam have such hatred of women? Do Muslim men despise their mothers and sisters? Thank You and God Bless your efforts. Sincerely,

Posted December 28, 2007 by Margaret

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? People who benefit most from such turmoil : Defense, Oil, and Pharmaceutical cartels......Sales of defense products shoots up, oil prices go up, and pharmaceutical contracts escalate.....these cartel nourish from wars, terrorists, and assasinations....get it my friend ?

Posted December 28, 2007 by Ed

any knowledgeable and intelligent person knows what al-qaeda really is, and most likely the perpetrators behind that "claim of responsibility" are the same ones who wish for particular regions of the world to remain under chaotic situations and not experience something more tolerable and moderate. the same thing happened in chechnya when maskhadov was killed as well. i smell a rat and see a pattern...may Allah swt help us all.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Humus

I personaly am catholic, but orginisations like yours are
much needed in the crazy world in which we all live. Thank You for making
the world a better place by teaching understanding and compation. We
all deserve to practice the religion we choose and a safe place to
practice it. We also deserve the right to defend ourselves aginst the
extremists and radical of the world.

Posted December 28, 2007 by Andrew

So per your suggestion, Pakistan Millitary should be ruling the country forever??? We have seen so many termoils in Army's ruling, lets try the Civilian Governments now.....Please??????

Posted December 28, 2007 by Ash

Posted December 28, 2007 by AHMED

Posted December 28, 2007 by Isidor Farash

Conclusive? All the evidence points back to Musharraf and his
military hunta that pulled their security detail out of the rally moments before the attack!!! Where are you guys sleeping??? Pay attention!

Anyone can send a fake e-mail around. And since when do thinking people
take seriously 'intel reports' from regime's like Musharraf's?

The Musharraf Hunta is the olny force to fear in Pakistan... This is
not about so called 'extremists,' it's about military dictators and their
backers who just murdered a rival that threatened their program. This
is why the man in the street in Pakistan is blaming the right

Posted December 28, 2007 by Arthur

When so called Islamic !! revolution took place in Iran, I was 16 years old, I saw all aspects of the revolution which was everything but islamic. Shah of Iran killed 200 prisoners over the course of 37 years he ruled Iran. Most of those prisoners were involved in killing Iranian soldiers. After relovution Khomeini killed more than 50,000 Iranian political activists in less than 6 years. Most of them were among Khomeini supporters during revolution.
Khomeini intorduced Terror and Islamic foundamentalism to the world.
People of west still don't know how dangerous the mullahs of Iran are.
I admire people of Pakistan who are fighiting against Terrorism.
I amdire President Musharaf. Pakistan needs a strong army to face terror and alQuada.
Hilarry Clinton wants to play the role of Jimmy Carter during Iran Revolution.
Carter's democracy in Iran caused execution of 50,000 people by Khomeini.
Do not let history repeat.
I am Iranian my heart is deeply wounded by terrorist rejim of mullahs in Iran.
I am muslim and 100 % agree with what is wrriten by Mr Kamal Nawash.
I respect Pakistan and its people we are naighbour.
God Bless Benazir Bhutto !!
she was first muslim female politician who lost her life for the people.
God Bless President Musharaf ! I pray for his success in fighting against alquada.
It is rediculous after all these terror incidents people in the west talking about democracy in Pakistan.
I want to tell them, thank you, we had enough democracy !!! in Iran after so called Islamic revolution supported by Jimmy Carter !!!
We had enough democracy !!! in Iraq after US attack which gave power to popets of Iran's mullahs in Iraq government.
enough is enough !!
I was deeply shock when I heard the news of assassination !!
Benazir Bhutto was brave woman and we will never forget her.

Posted December 29, 2007 by Edaalat

While I agree that we should jump the gun on pressuring General Musharaf, he needs to move the country back towards democracy.

Posted December 29, 2007 by Andrew J

Posted December 29, 2007 by Edip Yuksel

Hello Edip Yuksel !!
If you don't mind I would like to reply to your note below:

You wrote:

"In the paragraph above a diabolic propaganda and disinformation screams. Mr. Nawash accuses the US of not supporting the Shah and thus unknowingly contributing to the rise and victory of mullahs in Iran. The author either lacks elementary knowledge about the subject, or he is intentionally hiding and distorting the facts. What led to the theocratic fascism in Iran was not the USA's lacking support for a corrupt dictator, but to the contrary, USA-Inc's support of a dictator and his corrupt and oppressive policy led to the mullah's victory in 1979. For those whose knowledge of history cannot go beyond 1979, I would like to recommend the following key words to google: Iran, Musaddiq, CIA, 1953, and coup."

My reply:
Your knowledge about Iran's Shah and mullahs revolution in 1979 limits to google search !!
With all respect you are completely wrong. US was supporting Shah of Iran but they were not happy as Shah founded OPEC to increase oil prices, therefore as soon as Islamic revolution started US found good chance to give a lesson to Shah, Jimmy Carter pushed Shah aside by critisizing him and indirectly supporting Islamic movement !! as results of Mr Carter's democracy Mullahs executed more than 50,000 Iranians after revolution.
please do not limits your knowledge to google search.
Unlike you, I do believe muslims do need friends like Nawash.

Posted December 29, 2007 by Edaalat

The fact that either religious faction has taken a solid side in regard to killing people is a sad truth to either faith! It is the teachings of both faiths to respect and let live in peace the path of each person the way of life! It is in life we learn to respect each other! Violence and murder by either religion is to disrespect the word given. The rath of GOD shall become them in either case! Not one religion is true that selects to murder another human being! That choice is meerly a fanatical selection! Any man that has a child should look into the childs eyes and wish for life in that child beyond our own! To defer from this is not in GOD's eyes! Look deep in your spirit and see what you set as an example for your children, will it benefit your GOD and child? If not then you should beg forgiveness and repent! Peace is the only true form of life, You can not force others to convert so why not be passive and accept the world as it is? Jesus speaks in basic words as does Allah! It is your own task to listen and respond in the word of GOD to respect your neighbor and life, to do otherwise is an insult to GOD! 1 True GOD!

Posted December 29, 2007 by Unbiest

Posted December 29, 2007 by Nek

Posted December 29, 2007 by Akir


How do you know so much about Pakistan. I am impressed

Posted December 29, 2007 by Mohammad

Conclusive? All the evidence points back to Musharraf and his military hunta that pulled their security detail out of the rally moments before the attack!!! Where are you guys sleeping??? Pay attention! Anyone can send a fake e-mail around. And since when do thinking people take seriously 'intel reports' from regime's like Musharraf's?

The Musharraf Hunta is the olny force to fear in Pakistan... This is not about so called 'extremists,' it's about military dictators and their backers who just murdered a rival that threatened their program. This is why the man in the street in Pakistan is blaming the right EXTREMIST...MUSHARRAF!!!

Posted December 29, 2007 by Artforjustice


Mr. Nawash how dare you critisize Iran. Ayatollah Khomani freed Iran from fascisim. You are not a muslim Mr. Nawash. You should side with your own people. No one supports the Palestinin people as much as Iran. You should be ashamed of your self.

You are just another Sunni who hates shias

Posted December 29, 2007 by Ali

Thanks again for the nice comment.
I am a bit of a amateur historian.
We all are subjected to mass amounts of detail information. I manage to identify what is likely to become important and retain much of it for long enough to post on a blog.
I really try to be 100% accurate but likely fall short a percentage of the time. I'm not sure the professionals are 100% accurate either.
I try to read a lot about religious history. Some references sound outlandish but turn out to be true. What interests me most are the cross-references, which match (or are close to matching) and tend to verify (or prove false) certain common beliefs.

Posted December 29, 2007 by Isidor Farash

Happy New Year brother! Are we speaking of AH 1429 in two weeks or AD 2008 next week? (Ok, just kidding.)

I do agree with one caveat: the idol they are building to Saint Benazir Bhutto bears little resemblance to Prime Minister Bhutto. As PM, she was not pro-Western, pro-woman, or anti-Islamist in any significant measure. She certainly espoused anti-Islamist rhetoric recently, and perhaps she would have helped in that regard as PM again.

It will be hard to stamp out Islamism in Pakistan. This is the only country in the world whose existence is based solely on Islam. Iran may be ruled by the mullahs but its Persian core has a proud history. Egypt has a distinct political tradition. Iraq has a distinct political tradition and is the cradle of all civilization. Even the present Saudi Caliphate includes most of the ancestral homeland of the Arabs. The Indus River within Pakistan has a proud history of early civilization too but that is mostly Hindu. Pakistan simply happens to be the Muslim majority part of the British colony of India, and it is not even all of that since Bangladesh became independent.

I agree entirely that the US should stay out. If my childhood home had been a democracy, my sister and I would have killed each other. (I tend to believe she would have been the martyr and I the victor.) Sometimes you need a firm hand on the wheel.

Peggy Noonan's column in today's WSJ suggests that there will be at least one significant crisis in the next presidential term and she begs Iowans to nominate a reasonable person this week. She excludes both Hillary and Huckleberry from this.

The Islamists may have unwittingly done the world a favor by helping remind Americans that we need a leader with some sense.

Posted December 29, 2007 by AEC

Dear Kamal Nawash,

Thank you for your thoughtful and well written article. I found it enlightening and will consider your ideas.


Posted December 29, 2007 by Alexandra

What can be done to show these suicide bombers how wrong they are and avoid killing them. I am worried that others who are not extremists will fall with them. I know some who are good and decent people, and I worry for them. You should know what can be done. What?

Posted December 29, 2007 by Robert

You are so right. This is such a tragedy that they were able to get to her. But what was she thinking, sticking her head out of the armored car and going outside in such an unstable atmosphere? This is really not explainable. It was a suicide mission for her to campaign this way in Pakistan.

Now it looks as though Iran and Pakistan will be an Islamic and nuclear block. I'd be pretty scared if I was Indian.

You know SO much about this issue, I read all your stuff: can you please address why Islamists have not yet come to blow up a movie theater in NY or LA? It would cripple the US economy. Why haven't they set off something in a mall yet? What is the reason? It would be (for them) relatively easy for them to do and would absolutely set the economy here into a tailspin.

Posted December 29, 2007 by Carole




Posted December 30, 2007 by Moiz

While slightly off topic, the recently released tape-message, purportedly by Osama Bin Laden deserves mention. It reveals that even if the Al Qaeda ("Foundation") group was not directly responsible for Ms. Bhutto's death, even if the Pakistani military was directly complicit, all that means is that the Pakistani military junta has been in league with Al Qaeda.
Bin Laden also stated: "We intend to liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea," he said, threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction. . . .We will not recognize even one inch for Jews in the land of Palestine as other Muslim leaders have."
These statements should come as no surprise and they are not unique for the personalities involved in the region. However, in the past, Bin Laden has not obsessed very much on the Israel controversy. At times, he has glazed over it or merely stated that his group objects to the repressive treatment of Arabs by Israel.
Why now? Has Israel recently become more repressive?
Not at all. Bin Laden has selected this point in time because it appears as if there may be a compromise peace settlement pending.
And at then end of the day, Al Qaeda's true enemy is not the Jews, or the Americans, and not even those Arabs and Muslims--who favor compromise over calamity. Al Qaeda's true enemy is COMPROMISE itself, in any form or variation.
As such, Mr. Bin Laden is not only living in the past, but is living in a fantasy past, which includes all sorts of revisions of history. Which is why he can't live in the present and certainly not in the future. The "present" is not so easy to manipulate as the past.
Jews (by in large) live in the future. Their lives are not at all perfect and often leave much to be desired but they compensate emotionally, by dreaming of (and actually designing) a future wherein the world does not see them as the eternal enemy of both God and man.
The 0.2% of the world's population who consider themselves Jewish, herewith reach out to the 99.8% all others--to join them in a better future. A future where the world does not need to squander its resources fighting and killing and dying. Frankly, with only about 14-million Jews living in the world, we can't spare any more casualties. Of that 14-million, 5.3-million reside in Israel. According to Bin Laden, those 5.3-M Jews do not belong there and have no rights and therefore must either leave or die. Why is this concept not unique? Because it is a similar sounding concept to that which was earlier adopted by Adolph Hitler. Which is another reason why Jews prefer to obsess on the future rather then the past. The past (almost any era) has not been a happy place for Jews to ruminate.
One day the world's oil will either be used up or rendered obsolete. Ironically, there is a decent possibility that the scientist who obsoletes crude-oil will be from the 0.2% of the world's Jewish population. At that time, mysteriously, the "Arab cause" which has been roundly supported from all corners of the globe since about 1907, will drastically dissipate. When that day happens (and it may be sooner then many people think) it would be much better for all involved if the world's varied cultures found some accommodation for each other. This will require compromise. Those who see any form of compromise as betrayal, are themselves engaged in the act of betraying the future of humanity.

Posted December 30, 2007 by Isidor Farash

Salaam Alaikum
Let us use Quran and make it simple
2:213] Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed. And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another. And Allah by His Will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.
The ignorance of muslims,christians ,& jews that want to increase the hate between each other do a dishonorable service to there faith and themselves. The sense less killing that go on in the USA,Pakistan,Iraq and other places on the planet shows non of us has a great grip on our faith. If we did wars would not go on.The Ignorance is equal. I would not be writing if things were great.Pointing fingers can point back. Let us learn to respect each other . Let us stay out of Pakistan and pay attention to New Orleans,Detroit,Washington D.C.,Houston,Cleveland,and many other cities that need the money we spend on the Bush Crusade which is like the crusades of of europe into the middle east. Let us crusade in helping build our country.
US Army Ret..
Muslim American

Posted December 30, 2007 by Hassan

Posted December 31, 2007 by Anonymous

"The Pakistani military and president Musharraf know better than any outsider what it takes to keep Pakistan from failing and falling in the hands of terrorists and extremists. It is a mistake for the United States or any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan by pressuring the Pakistani government to take any action that Pakistan does not want to take."

I'm inclined to agree with that. To a limited extent.

I also appreciate the point Colin Barnhorst brought up ("He may be an s.o.b., but he's OUR s.o.b." - posted December 28, 2007).

However, I'm old enough to remember the time when American policy involved supporting corrupt "presidents" and generals in Latin America. The policy made sense, in the short term, but it also earned America the reputation for supporting corruption. Later, this gave people with dubious beliefs and motives a rich vein of resentment to mine at the grassroots level.

That said, I don't think we run the risk of repeating the 'banana republic' mistake in Pakistan. President Musharraf has been accused of corruption, but so has Bhutto. I get the impression that "corruption" is an accusation-of-choice in Pakistani politics, as "communist sympathizer" used to be, and "racist" is today in America.

Musharraf certainly hasn't done everything possible to rid Pakistan of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups. I'd be concerned if he had. As a leader of Pakistan, he is responsible for the welfare of Pakistan. Getting rid of terrorists is a good long-term goal, but it will probably take time and finesse: which I think Musharraf may have.

Pakistan, like any country, is a culturally, socially, economically, and politically complicated place. I think that Pervez Musharraf is in a better position to understand what works and what doesn't in Pakistan, than any combination of American Senators, or even a consortium of American college professors.

Finally, although I think that America should not interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan, I certainly think that this country should engage with Pakistani politics. I see one country's government telling another's that it would prefer to deal with this or that candidate as a natural part of international relations: and that America's presumed encouragement of Musharraf to form a political bond with Bhutto isn't interference - it's negotiating.

Posted January 01, 2008 by Norski

Musharraf has been an uneven ally. We cannot trust him so much. For one, while Butto said she would start bringing the madrasas -- which teach hate, etc. -- under control and have more public education, Musharraf has done little or nothing. We are in a very bad situation there. I agree that we cannot "order democracy" there, but we should not assume that the murder of Butto was not without inside support either. It is not a nice place, is it?

Posted January 02, 2008 by Jarrow

Posted January 02, 2008 by Isidor Farash

Posted January 02, 2008 by Bashy Quraishy

Mr. Quraishy:
Mr. Nawash is likely not going to reply to your question. Nothing personal but he rarely answers questions posted.
Here is his contact info:

Free Muslims Colation
1050 17th St. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036

202-776-7190 or 301-905-6438

[email protected]

Media relations: [email protected]

Contact President Kamal Nawash
E-mail: [email protected]

Posted January 02, 2008 by DATA

I don't have time to explain to you my anger or try and argue with you what the quran teaches us. I was wondering how much the Pakistani government paid you to distribute that article.

A tyrant is a tyrant no matter how you want to justify it. I grew up in the USA and received an MA from the University of London but your arguments are counter to everything the quran teaches us. The quran instructs us to rise against tyrants and oppressors not defend them because of short term gains (so you can live in the West).

Posted January 03, 2008 by Suhaib

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia Washington, DC

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia calls on the Bush Administration and US Congress to initiate a prompt and unbiased international investigative tribunal to find out who was behind the barbaric assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister, Benizar Bhutto, on Dec. 27, 2007.

Ms. Bhutto was among the very few popular non-sectarian Muslim women who call for democratic reforms, for the eradication of the root causes of religious extremism as well as for the transformation of archaic intolerant Muslim institutions that teach hate against women, religious minorities and non-Muslims.

The international community, especially democratic societies, must stand up and prevent victory for tyrannical Arab and Muslim regimes who opposed democratic reforms and liberation for women.

Investigating the assassination of Bhutto could lead to findings that may prove embarrassing for Western democracies; but not to do so will only increase the power and threats of dangerous groups and the absolutist ruling elites who are determined to rule the world with the sword.

Ali H. Alyami, Ph. D.
Executive Director, The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

[email protected]; www.cdhr.info

Posted January 03, 2008 by Ali

Mr. Suhaib:
I just wanted to point something out.
You wrote:
"The quran instructs us to rise against tyrants and oppressors not defend them because of short term gains . . ."
You know, if a lot of people were agreed, they would not need to "rise-up," so to speak. The "oppressors" would most certainly find themselves bowing-down (and not one shot need be fired).
The problems begin because of the intense and multiple divisions within the human family.
If I asked you what you preferred flavor of ice cream was, you might say strawberry or coffee, or anything else, which would be of no offense or threat to me or anyone else.
As the questions get more serious, the answers become more potentially divisive.
To the point where (obviously) even fellow Muslims vehemently disagree on multiple fronts.
From there the divisions widen. Christians (who also can disagree with each other) are one step removed from the Muslim community. Atheists are further removed and so forth, until we get down to murderers and violent criminals, who are at the maximum level of social isolation.
But we humans find it difficult to agree on almost everything. Even simple matters, such as the fact that Kings have no worthwhile place in the 21st century, finds us at odds with each other. And here is the paradox: Royalty and tyrants have the net-effect of reducing the total level of debate and confusion. Yet, they can easily cause the fewer debates to become grossly more severe. During times of great tribulation, human-nature finds us deferring our wills to tyrants, who offer the (possibly illusionary--yet still strangely comforting) advantage of reducing the number of items we need to bicker over. People often don't care what they need to think or promote, so long as they are singing the same songs as the local army and police.
Hence, they don't feel particularly comfortable with those songs changing very often because changing songs inevitably mean that the private citizen will be caught singing the wrong tune.
This world offers tremendous resources, enough for all to live comfortably. The first decision we have to make is that we wish to be comfortable in and among each other's company. Until we humans can naturally agree on some simple premises, sadly, tyrants and robber-barons will control us and maybe, that is the best we deserve. Replacing one tyrant with a different one would only be a temporal relief. Or, Donald Trump in pace of John Corzine. Until we change ourselves, our leaders will continue to disgrace us, as they reflect the disgrace inherent within our hearts and minds.
The Pakistani government did not pay Mr. Kamal for his opinions. Mr. Kamal has a relationship with the Saudi Royal Family, who (from time to time) has him impressed in the same way that a movie-star such as Jack Nicholson might impress a limo driver.
Mr. Kamal is a lawyer and fairly smart but I don't always agree with him. I have considered a few of his articles poorly reasoned and said so. But I never question his motives, as he probably risks his life to bring us this open forum. Even if he were corrupt, we would not be able to know that, based on his opinions.

Posted January 03, 2008 by Isidor Farash פרש


Good response my friend. I guess because Kamal Nawash has waited so long without send out a blog article, we lost many of the regular bloggers who used to post. In any case, keep writting, I am sure more will start posting as time goes by. I sent kamal an email telling him to do new post regularly.

Posted January 04, 2008 by Buraq

Dear Mr. Kamal Nawash,

I am writing to you in your capacity as the President of the Free Muslims Coalition against terrorism. I share with you the rejection of all forms of terrorism. This is in fact the reason I feel compelled to write to you.

As you certainly have been aware, the mass murder committed on 9/11 has been designated as an act of terror and was attributed to 19 Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, acting under the orders or incitement by Osama bin Laden. Yet, a growing constituency both within the United States and Europe doubts that the this crime was committed by Muslims. The allegations made against the 19 alleged hijackers, whose Arab-sounding names were publicized by the FBI and mass media,
have been unsubstantiated. Permit me to list the lack of evidence:

1. The US government has refused to release the original passenger lists of 9/11 on which the names of the alleged hijackers and passengers would appear. Various lists have been circulated by mass
media, none of which has been formally sourced to the original list.
At the Moussaoui trial, copies of copies of socalled passenger lists were released, none of which are certified or authenticated. They do not bear any signature or the name of the issuing authority or airline.

2. The US government has not produced a single boarding card stub from the four flights allegedly hijacked by Muslims. The Final Report of the 9/11 Commission of Inquiry does not even mention the existence of boardind cards in connection with boarding process on 9/11.

3. No person has ever testified to have actually seen any of the 19 alleged hijackers board any of the doomed aircraft. In fact, no person has testified to have seen any passenger - or for that matter crew member - board any of the four flights.

4. There exists no CCTV recording of the boarding process.

5. None of the alleged hijackers' bodily remains have been
positively identified. The US government has shown no interest in
obtaining comparison specimen from the alleged hijackers' families in order to positively identify their remains.

All in all, there exists thus no evidence - whatsoever - that Muslims had participated in the crime of the century.

I urge you, therefore, to join the 9/11 truth movement that is demanding a new, independent and thorough investigation of the events of 9/11. I believe that due to the fact that you represent a Muslim organisation, you should attempt to redeem the harm caused to Muslims by attributing to Muslims this odious crime. The same attribution was made in London on 7 July 2005, again a case in which I believe Muslims were wrongly condemned.

As a person who has engaged in a thorough research of the events of 9/11, I feel confident in the facts I reported to you above and remain to your disposal for any further information, questions or observations.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland

Posted January 04, 2008 by Elias

Hassan, Let us use Quran and make it simple, You quote Sura2:213 "Mankind were one community...." You Muslims are clever to quote some mild suras to gullible Westerns which makes them feel as Islam is peaceful. But what about Sura 8:12 "And when Allah revealed to the Angles saying,I shell be with you. Give courage to the believers, I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Infidels. Strike off their heads, smite the end of their fingers". Sura 8:13" This is because they defied Allah and His Apostle. He that defies Allah and His Apostle shell be sternly punished(we said to them)Fell our scourge. The torment of the Fires awaits the unbelievers". Would you say that sounds peaceful? Majority of Christians and Jews DON'T have a hatred of Muslims where as majority of Muslims have the hatred of Christians and Jews(all unbelievers)You say "Let us learn to respect each other" I do agree with you, but it is the Muslims more then Westerners who MUST LEARN how to respect unbelievers and their places of worship in Muslim countries, don't you agree? have you read Quran? read Sura 9:29, Sura 9:111
Sura4:34 Sura 111, Consider yourself lucky that you are living in a civilized country and society, otherwise Muslims won't be smuggling themselves in the West.Now you are retired go and live in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia for one year and see how good Islam is? log on www.thereligionofpeace.com

Posted January 06, 2008 by surj1936

Suhaib, Tell us what does your Quran teaches you? I think if you had a MA from the University of London, you should have little sense no to accuse Mr kamal of getting paid by Pakistani Government for the article, without any concrete evidence on you part. The Quran instructs us rise against tyrants and oppressors not to defend them of short term gains(so you can live in the West)Tell us the Exact Sura, would you, please.log on www.faithfreedom.org

Posted January 06, 2008 by Anonymous

Elias Davidsson,... 9/11 has been designated an act of terror and was attributed to Muslims.I ask you then what was it attributed to? War games? Oh, sorry I forgot it must be Israel's hand behind all this.In all my life I have never heard such a redicolous thing.Let me ask you that,Would you rape you wife one evening and then in the morning you go to all your neighbours and tell them that your wife got raped while you were asleep? Tell us why would USA want to destroy there own WTC? Have you heard cockpit and mobile phone tapes from those planes? For the first time you may learn some thing when you log on www.thereligionofpeace.com

Posted January 06, 2008 by Anonymous

I am a Christian subscriber to your online articles. As to your subject article, I have never read a position that I agree with more than this! I absolutely agree with your position that the Bush administration should leave its hands off the Pakistani President. I agree that President Jimmy Carter must share a major part of the responsibility for the fall of the Shah of Iran and that President Bush's ill advised interference risks a similar calamity in Pakistan. Unfortunately, both President Carter and President Bush have a view of world politics colored by their experiences in the rural southern United States. We have seen ample evidence that this view is incorrect. I sincerely hope that our next President, due to take office approximately one year from today is more enlightened about the political situation in the Islamic world, and takes steps to deal with it intelligently, not foolishly.

Posted January 09, 2008 by Albert

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

England has almost surrendered to the Islamic wave having more than 130 new mosques built in 2005 and proposed 100 to be built in 2006 - in 2007 the count was 843 prayer meeting places with howling/wailing towers across England.

So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!

Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on.

Perhaps sometimes, the end does 'not' justify the means.

Posted April 13, 2008 by Pat Riot

Posted November 15, 2008 by Suffering Groups

Musharraf was misunderstood and a victim of terrorist propaganda

Posted March 20, 2009 by Anthony Ibegbuna

Is it true, this war got started because your Muslim diplomats were killed in Oregon in 1997.What the Muslim diplomats did to those two teenage girls was wrong.I know the true story, I use to work in a undercover FBI building down town Portland Oregon in 1997. I knew they were going to kill the Muslim diplomats at that gas station. I knew it before it happen.The world sucks, and I am looked up in a mental hospital. I never tell

Posted September 01, 2010 by 2nd Lt

How did you Muslims find out, that the New York senate had your diplomats kill in Oregon in 1997, is that why the Muslims did what they did on 9-11?

Posted September 01, 2010 by 2nd Lt