Sinceramente parece-me apenas um branqueamento de tudo o que realmente terá acontecido.
Do início ao fim do filme é passada a mensagem que existem uns terroristas maus que fazem mal a tudo e a todos e que do outro lado da barreira se encontram os estados sem culpa de nada apenas a tentarem ajudar-nos, nós pobres desprotegidos face a esse bando de loucos.
Durante todo o filme passa a ideia de que os serviços secretos americanos, CIA/FBI, e os serviços secretos militares paquistaneses tudo fizeram para tentar resgatar com vida o jornalista do wall street journal.
Mas será que foi mesmo isto que se passou?
De acordo com diversas fontes, nomeadamente o jornal inglês The Guardian, bem como um artigo na Counterpunch, as coisas se calhar são bem mais feias do que o filme parece querer mostrar, ou que nem sequer faz um esforço para tentar desmistificar a ideia dos maus terroristas e bons dos serviços secretos.
A verdade parece ser que quer os serviços secretos dos USA, quer do Paquistaõ poderão com quase toda a certeza ter estado por detrás do desaparecimento do jornalista, bem como da sua morte.
Na realidade, Daniel Pearl estaria na posse de informações que mostrariam que a CIA prestaria apoio de diversas formas aos serviços secretos do Paquistão, ISI, os quais através de Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, um agente duplo a mando do chefe da ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmed e com conhecimento da CIA, teria pago cerca de US$100000, ao suposto principal suspeito da AL-Qaeda, Mohammed Atta, poucas semanas antes dos atentados ao WTC.
"The Pakistan connection
There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?
(...)
It has been rumoured that Pearl was especially interested in any role played by the US in training or backing the ISI. Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of." Ahmed's close relations with the CIA would seem to confirm this. For years the CIA used the ISI as a conduit to pump billions of dollars into militant Islamist groups in Afghanistan, both before and after the Soviet invasion of 1979.
W ith CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a parallel structure, a state within a state, with staff and informers estimated by some at 150,000. It wields enormous power over all aspects of government. The case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed al-Qaida, and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA."
Michael Meacher
in The Guardian
O problema de Daniel Pearl, é que provávelmente era demasiado honesto e bom jornalista como é dito neste artigo da Counterpunch.
"Colin Powell's statement of March 3, exonerating the ISI from any responsibility for Pearl's disappearance and murder, is shocking. Few in Pakistan believe such assurances. Musharraf was not involved, but he must know what took place. He has referred to Pearl as an "over- intrusive journalist" caught up in "intelligence games". Has he told Washington what he knows? And if so, why did Powell absolve the ISI?
The Pearl tragedy has shed some light on the darker recesses of the intelligence networks. Pearl was a gifted, independent-minded investigative journalist. On previous assignments he had established that the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory - bombed on Clinton's orders - was exactly that and not a shady installation producing biological and chemical weapons, as alleged by the White House. Subsequently, he wrote extensively on Kosovo, questioning some of the atrocity stories dished out by Nato spin-doctors to justify the war on Yugoslavia."
The US is ignoring evidence of links with Pakistan's secret service
in CounterPunch
Outro site com diversa informação vinculada por diversos jornais.
What Was Daniel Pearl Doing In Pakistan?
"While U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl had in general told people, who came into contact with him in the days prior to his abduction and murder, that he was completing a story on shoe-bomb terrorist Richard Reid, there is now increased evidence that he was also looking at far more sensitive matters. Some of those who had spoken to Pearl during his stay in Karachi believe that his main interest was in looking into the links between certain agencies in Pakistan with religious militancy. The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the most powerful agency in the country, had also received Pearl's attention during this investigation.... It is also rumoured that Pearl was in fact especially interested in any role played by the U.S. in training the ISI or backing it in any way, especially during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. 'Details of any U.S.-ISI cooperation would of course not be appreciated even in Washington, especially regarding U.S. cooperation in promoting any kind of Islamic militancy,' stated a source close to the Pakistan foreign office.' It may be noted that Pearl was known in New York, where the newspaper he worked for, The Wall Street Journal‚ is based, as a reporter willing to expose U.S. involvement in matters of some embarrassment for the government in Washington. One of his last major stories for instance had focussed on the fact that some of the atrocities allegedly committed in Kosovo may have been 'fabricated' with Western forces aware of this, even as the international media was informed about the war crimes carried out."
Pearl was probing spy agencies' role
Gulf News, 23 March 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment