Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

I drop all topicality arguments, my opponent has convinced me he is topical, and that topicality is not a voter in this case. I drop argument II., it should not be voted on (for pro or con). This round should be judged entirely on the likelihood of Musharraf plotting to kill Bhutto. http://www.reason.com... This link shows that Islamic parties will likely lose votes, and that the PPP, particularly Amin Fahim, have benefited from her death. This supports points 2. & 3., that the Peoples Party has gained in her death, and that extremists are possibly behind it. It directly supports my arguments that PPP will receive a sympathy vote, and shows that although her son is the head, someone else (who is relatively unknown, Amin Fahim) will take over, thus showing that there are potential motives for people within the PPP to have her killed. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... The PPP was the only major opposition party that did not announce it's total boycott of the election (if the country remained in a state of emergency). Clearly her party had more cordial relations with Musharraf than the rest. This article also asserts that Bhuto and Musharraf agreed to a power sharing deal, so again, Musharraf had little to gain by trying to kill one of his few allies. http://icga.blogspot.com... Here is a non-wiki link on the PPP not being part of the All Parties Democratic Movement. http://centersight.blogspot.com... It is clear that Bhutto and Musharraf were forming a coalition, which is evidence for my earlier claims. I provided a link earlier that showed Musharraf's approval is down, and this goes with my assertion that Musharraf planned on supporting Bhutto in exchange for keeping some of his power. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Musharraf has the most to lose from Bhutto's death. As he clearly would have recognized, much blame could easily be placed on him, reducing his power and stability. The article supports this, asserting that he has lost influence and credibility. It is unlikely that Musharraf is a dullard, he has arised to be a general and a president, so he obviously would have recognized that Bhutto's death would be bad for him. The article also briefly asserts that the attack has the appearance of one of the Taliban. Thus, this article supports points 1. & 3. http://www.lgs.edu.pk... Here is a link on some basic Taliban beliefs, and how they oppose the West and its values (which is whatt Bhutto represented). http://www.csmonitor.com... You claim that I have no evidence that religious extremists are behind this, however your own link asserts that "Baitullah Mesud, a Taliban commander in Waziristan, had several times openly threatened her life". http://centersight.blogspot.com... This link affirms that Baitullah Mesud, part of the Taliban, is suspected highly by both the Pakistani and US government. My previous link shows he wanted her dead. You attempted to counter this with a link that I will discuss later, however, the link you provide only says that we should not assume that Al-Qaeda is the source of all problems. However, Mesud is asserted to be part of the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda, which are not the same group (albeit similar). Your links: http://www.npr.org... Your link shows that people within the PPP have accused the government of rigging elections, it does not prove that such happened. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. http://www.abc.net.au... This link does not prove that a top analyst does not think Al-Qaeda is behind it, he asserts that we should have a complete investigation before we make conclusions. I disagree in that we should figure out likely suspects, allowing us to focus an investigation and discover more quickly what occurred. Also, I am talking about the Taliban, your analyst is discussing Al-Qaeda, and although the two groups are related, it is foolish to say they are the same. http://www.csmonitor.com... The Abbas quote only mentions that security is lacking. All this link proves for you is that security is lacking, which means that Musharraf did not do enough to protect Bhutto, not that Bhutto was most likely killed by Musharraf. Abbas also says that "What is evident is a complete lack of command and control". This only proves more that Musharraf needed Bhutto to stay in control, he was already losing his power. http://www.npr.org... YOur link asserts that Bhutto was "threatening" protests if Musharraf did not retire from his military post. He retired from this post well before her death, thus making this link irrelevant. Conclusion It is clear from my links that the Peoples Party has benefited in Bhutto's death. They will receive a sympathy vote from her death, allowing them to win. Lesser known members, such as Amin Fahim, have gained a spotlight from this, and so have benefited. It is possible that the assassination could have been ordered by someone within the PPP to ensure victory, or that Bhutto knowlingly continued on in dangerous conditions, thus being a martyr for her party. Musharraf's approval has been down (link, Round 2), and he clearly wants to stay in power. The US is forcing him to do things democratically (see link below), so a deal with Bhutto is necessary for him to have any power. He clearly would have anticipated the problems of killing Bhutto (as my link and arguments show). My links also show that Bhutto and Musharraf were essentially allies. Although things were tense at times, they clearly were willing to share power(hence power sharing deal). The PPP is the only major opposition party not to be allied directly against Musharraf, showing that they are willing to co-operate. While Musharraf may have motives for eliminating other party leaders, it is clear he could only lose by having Bhutto killed (and I've given a link to support this). He loses one of his few allies, and likely the election as well. Even the US government is supporting their cooperation. http://news.bbc.co.uk... You provide one link that shows that Bhutto threatened protests if Musharraf did not step down from the military (which he did). I have given three on their cooperation, as well as logic as to why Musharraf needed Bhutto. I assert that Taliban involvement is also very likely. I have given you a link on Taliban mentality (although it is common knowledge). They are against the West, and so would oppose a pro-western leader like Bhutto. Mesud had threatened Bhutto's life on several occasions, and both the US and Pakistani governments believe he could be responsible. Considering this general Taliban mentality, anyone in the Taliban could have been responsible, and this is far more likely than Musharraf ordering Bhutto's death. Finally, the debate is not whether Musharraf in part caused Bhutto's death, but whether he ordered it (or deserves the blame for it). To win this debate my opponent must prove that Musharraf is the most likely candidate for having Bhutto killed. I have proved that the PPP (especially certain members of it) have much to gain in her death. I have shown that the Taliban also seeks Bhutto's death. I have also shown that Bhutto and Musharraf were allied with one another, and the Musharraf need Bhutto. Because of all of this, it is clear that Musharraf is not the most likely culprit in Bhutto's death, and so the affirmative is wrong. Also, remember, topicality and other dropped arguments are not voters.