All this ambiguity, what is it a symptom of?

[mogster]

Bhutto's cause of death disputed
Benazir Bhutto's supporters say the Pakistani government's account of how she died is "dangerous nonsense".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7163754.stm

There it is again. The Non Answer. The ambiguity.
This is a huge world shaking event and the answer to this simple fact should be clear, not an ambiguity.

More from the article:

The interior ministry said the primary cause of Ms Bhutto's death appeared to have been a knock on her head as she tried to duck through a sun roof back into her vehicle, and not bullets or shrapnel.

A surgeon who treated her, Dr Mussadiq Khan, said earlier she may have died from a shrapnel wound.

But Ms Bhutto's associates disputed the official account, saying the government was trying to abdicate its responsibility for her security.

"To hear that Ms Bhutto fell from an impact from a bump on a sun roof is absolutely rubbish. It is dangerous nonsense, because it implies there was no assassination attempt," a spokeswoman for Ms Bhutto's PPP party, Sherry Rehman, told the BBC.

"There was a clear bullet wound at the back of the neck. It went in one direction and came out another... My entire car is coated with her blood, my clothes, everybody - so she did not concuss her head against the sun roof."

Bumped the head, killed by shrapnel or a died from a bullet wound? That's a pretty wide set of options to (still) have one day after a world politician was murdered.

(Note btw how a good news source treats this ambiguity; by giving as many versions as possible, to enable the reader to make a desicion. That's a long article, diving into the disputed cause of death and attempting to show the full picture)

But this isn't the only ambiguity we live by. Most of our questions regarding Al-Queda/Bushco is still in limbo.
MIHOP or LIHOP?
That's an ambiguity. Very few still believe that Bush did his best to prevent 911 from happening, so that's as far as unity go regarding September 11. Our common knowledge of what happened that day.
Percepted scenario aside, I would say that both remanining 'versions' constitute a fundamental distrust towards the Bush government, and as such represents a sole answer in this post about ambiguity.

No WMD in Iraq? We can laugh at this, but polls show that a stunning number of people believes WMD was found. We don't, I hope, and that makes two versions of the story. How come?

Catch Bin Laden or don't catch Bin Laden - which of the options is a good thing? It's up for grabs, apparently.
Hard to believe? ;-)

The list goes on and on. Who's the American president, Bush or Cheney? Who's the boss? I'd say Cheney is the top man, but you never get a clear answer, only bits and pieces picked off the Underground on late nights.

Elections fraudulent or not? Well, it depends. Election 2000 has been churned thru the mighty internet machine enough times to make some sort of consensus come out. And Gore jokes about it, so that means 'he's telling us he thinks like us, but can't say it straight out'. No? It's all in my head then. But there's no trumpets blaring declaring Gore the winner, so how can I really tell? And Bush is still in da house.
Election 2004 is simpler to make a desicion about. Gore won considerably more than Kerry, or Kerry is more likely to have lost the election than Gore, but that does not exclude Kerry as actually having been cheated of his office. But, if Gore is the lawful president, Kerry would never have been up for election anyway?
Was people more sore about Kerry conceding than Gore conceding? Yeah, I think that's fair to say - 2004 was a different time from 2000, visually measured by the rapid progress from punch cards in 2000 to glitchy electronic voting machines in 2004, leaving no traces of your vote. Or the steep downhill of everything we believe in as democratic persons; no torture, civil rights, no surveillance etc. In 2000, the US hadn't started two wars and developed into a police state, so the stakes weren't that high.
I'd say that both elections were fraudulent, but if you asked me to prove it straight out ...

Back to the Bhutto murder; see how this already fans out into two realities, even with different causes of death?
In one version, Musharraf is the perpetrator. In the other version, Al-Queda is the perpetrator. Or is it both?
Why would an assassin first shoot then blow himself up?
Ambiguity.

As an afternote to illustrate all this strangeness, here's a pic.

This is the leader of Al-Queda in Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud. Or at least I hope so, because he's pictured in this Norw. article while at the BBC he looks like this:

Caption: Baitullah Mehsud has an aversion to publicity and photographs

It is worthwhile here to take note of the fact that Al-Queda has a Pakistan office branch where they meet the mass media freely to make sure their version of the story get through.

I'm gonna open another beer now, so I have one in each foot, for keeping balanced with the different versions.

:beer:

[tridim]

1. The song "Everything you know is wrong" has been running through my head a lot lately..

I'm fairly confident now that EVERYTHING that happens in this world is manipulated before it reaches our TV screens. It's only because of the Internet that we're starting to figure this out.

Thank Gore for the Internet.

[mogster]

2. No doubt politics penetrates to a greater degree now

It's the 90's noise machine refined. It is very harmful for a population to not have access to facts, especially when they are about matters relating to personal security.

[Karenina]

3. 3 words: NEW WORLD ORDER

Translation: The ends justify the means.

[mogster]

4. I agree

But even the NWO is an ambiguity, despite a groundbreaking change of everything that used to be politics back in the 80's/90's. Some people use the term, others don't. And even among those using the term it may contain everything from the nazi type of NWO to a mere change of doctrine. That is very descriptional of the NWO paradigm itself; every know term can contain every value you want it to, it's up for grabs. Democracy is what you mean it to be, not a defined set of circumstances. Freedom is not necessarily freedom like we used to know it, but a promise of something that could happen, if we only wait for the wars to have their effect.

[EFerrari]

5. Hi, mogster. Part of it seems to be generated when competing stories

are put out by competing principals.

Take this NYTs article re the CIA tapes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2554433

This version, which is demonstrably wrong if one has been paying attention, favors Bush/Cheney in the info war. It contradicts the version told by that former agent who was making the rounds not long ago, as well as the narrative that takes shape when you read Paul's timeline.

It's signature Cheney, imho. And it isn't too much of a stretch for me, anyway, to think that having screwed up the Bhutto matter completely, our government is now mystifying the death. Have you ever noticed the Pakistani government behaving in this way in the press? I never have. But BushCo behaves this way all they time.

[mogster]

7. That's an interesting example

I wonder sometimes if the whole torture-doc publishing has Cheney's prints on it

In one corner, Valerie Plame Wilson & co and in the other Porter Goss.
At the same time as the torture scandal broke (or actually right before it broke), the Wilsons and many more CIA-related people were trying to lambast Rove-Cheney because of the NIE, which proved that Iran's nuclear ambitions was a sham. Plame Wilson had just revealed she worked on the Iran issue. And it meant something, they were willing to go to prison to get the NIE published.

Any official personell operating undercover studies the Plame case with most interest, I think, as it really represents a be or not to be for anybody who takes their job seriously and still has not turned into crooks. If your carefully built network of people can be taken down by a mere political whim, without warning to at least give people in dangerous positions a chance to escape, it will make it difficult to recruit new people for dangerous positions.

I find it hard to believe that these two events is not related; one that portrays the CIA and their work in a positive way--but harms Bush/Cheney/Rove---and then the torture scandal, which reminds us about the real CIA, NWO version.

In fact we're seeing another ambiguity here; the two sides of the CIA. Or the whole intelligence community.

It is interesting to note the role of Valerie Plame Wilson as an agent; she worked through a store front, Brewster and Jennings, on the Iran program, collecting information. She is a beautiful woman with a handsome husband, they're the perfect agent couple. This is the old George Smiley version of secret agents, if you've read any Le Carré. On the other hand, we have the torture-secret prison CIA represented by the revealed tapes. The black ops, which operates outside any law, any human dignity. The back alley brutes. This is the modern CIA today, or at least where it's going under Bush, there's no way of knowing. But at least we can say that the CIA the Bush govt. wants to show to the world is the ugly version, no limitations.

[Toots]

6. It is the Definition of Fox News.....Balanced....

Makes no difference what the truth is, just that many sides are presented...

[mogster]

11. That's interesting

We get all the versions, but none are conclusive. You can say this about the OP subject too, I guess.
Have we lost the ability to draw conclusions and act upon them, I wonder?

[magellan]

8. Ambiguity keeps the masses divided and bickering over what's true

It injects mistrust and a feeling of helplessness. It's a symptom of a failed democracy.

[mogster]

10. Yes, that's a very good point

If we don't know, how can we really do something abot it?
And it has a timeline too. Sometimes we get to know, but only when the event itself is old and has lost a lot of news value.

[IDemo]

9. My take (from a LBN thread) on Bhutto and the lies

The evidence is overwhelming: she died of gunshot(s), and they lied, clumsily.

Or not?

Beyond trying to prevent her status as a martyr, could Musharraf's people actually have wanted it to be known that they lied about the cause of death? By doing so, they may well been trying to send a message: If we lied about this so transparently, then our political enemies will never know for sure how much complicity we had in the attack or how safe they will be in the future. Almost an implicit threat.

[mogster]

12. What does not rhyme with the Musharraf scenario

Is the suicide bombing. The fact that both a shooting and a bomb occurred at the same time is confusing. I don't know how to interpret that.