intelligence on threats against her."Ħ8.115.172.154 ( talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I agree and went ahead and made the change. A better wording would be "Despite this, American diplomats provided Bhutto with confidential U.S. Presumably, the cited source did not say the threats were being made by American diplomats. intelligence on threats against her by American diplomats". The last sentence of the Background section currently reads "Despite this, Bhutto was supplied with confidential U.S. It's like saying "If I'm killed, I'm going to be very angry at my killer! No you won't, you'll be dead. Say rather "Bhutto had indicated to X in a letter that in the event she was assassinated she would hold Musharraf responsible as a result of his lack of security."ĭead people don't hold anyone responsible, not good wording there. The part of the article that claims "Bhutto will hold Musharraf responsible if she dies" is not proper at all: when you're dead, YOU are not holding anyone responsible. The article doesn't mention the possibility that this situation could unstabilize the region and bring it even closer to a nuclear war (its doubtful this one event would directly trigger it, but we keep seeing more and more provocation that could eventually lead to it).
0 kommentar(er)
