How quickly will people fixate on specific Bhutto conspiracy theories?

[Silent3]

Musharraf is definitely a prime suspect -- I certainly won't deny that. Al Qaeda is suspect. In my opinion, more remotely, even Bush could be suspect. Small groups or crazed individuals could be at fault too.

There's really not enough information for anyone to know right now. Perhaps good information will be elusive for a long time, even permanently.

Absolutely certainty in some people's minds about who's at fault, however -- I predict it won't take long for that to arise. For the ones who are quickly certain about who's to blame, the possibility that small groups or crazed individuals are at fault will categorically be dismissed -- because we all know (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS SARCASM) that some powerful THEM pulls all the strings in the puppet show we live in, and even pausing to think for a moment that crazed individuals ever cause any harm all by themselves something we must refuse to be so naive to do.

[chascarrillo]

1. It started less than an hour after she was assassinated

Just take a look around the forums. If it weren't so illuminating about these people's mindsets, I'd be outraged. Instead, I think it shows them as the crazy folks that they are.

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. I think speculation is fine as a starting point.

If it's also the end point, that's the problem.

If we discount ANY theory at this point it may cause us to miss important evidence. However, if we ONLY look at the evidence that supports our theory, we are not being responsible.

[chascarrillo]

6. Absolutely

I'm just saying (and I think you'll agree with me seeing your comment below) that we need time to see some evidence before attaching ourselves to a particular theory.

[Richard Steele]

9. Very well stated, Finnfan. I agree completely. nm

[maxsolomon]

2. i 'm fixated on her enemies as the conspirators,

rather than her friends.

generic & non-judgemental enough for you?

[Silent3]

4. It's certainly a reasonable place to focus the most suspicion

It's when reasonable suspicion quickly becomes evidence-free certainty that bothers me.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. If you already believe one theory or another,

then you will look for evidence that supports that theory.

We should do our best to look at ALL the evidence and follow it where it leads (rather than leading the evidence where we think it should go.)

[rucky]

7. No matter what really happened...

the official story in the US Media will be Al-Queda.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Look it was a lone gunman....it's always a lone gunman...

everything else is crazy talk...except maybe al Qaeda...it's OK to say al Qaeda did it.

I mean, it's not like Musharraf would kill or disband the Supreme Court to stay in power, right?

[Silent3]

13. Suspicions that it's NOT a lone attacker or Al Qaeda are completely valid.

What I'm talking about is the phenomena where one leaps from valid suspicion to certainty.

Knowing that shifting blame to a lone attacker or Al Qaeda is the kind of thing a bigger conspiratorial group would do becomes certainty that any attempt to assign blame that way is in fact evidence of that bigger conspiracy in action.

[seemslikeadream]

14. I heard the lone gunman guy is in Pakistan

[AntiFascist]

17. She was shot from two directions...

but likely it was a magic bullet.

[Beetwasher]

10. The Sad Truth Is, We'll Probably Never Really Know The Truth

All we will ever have is theories.

[Orsino]

11. About as fast as the word "conspiracy" will get tacked onto any theories...

...that recognize her powerful enemies.

[johnnie]

12. I'm guessing there were more than one person involved

By definition, it probably was a conspiracy.

[Silent3]

16. There's conspiracy, and then there's Conspiracy with a Capital C.

For some people, nothing major happens without seeing the Conspiracy of a large, shadowy organization behind the scenes that runs everything. And if not a Conspiracy quite so big, then at least hidden cliques within our government, other governments, or multinational corporations.

The result of this kind of thinking is a de facto certainty of the absolute inability of "mere" individuals and small groups to successfully kill famous people or cause great harm. If you immediately dismiss even contemplation of such things as "cover stories" disseminated by some secretive and more powerful Conspiracy with a Capital C, you're unreasonably shutting out perfectly plausible and real alternative explanations.

[Pathwalker]

15. I'm much more concerned about what the result will be.

I don't think it will be remotely positive.