by JD » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:45 pm
SIGNIFICANT story emerges on the War On Terror - forget CD and all the other 9/11 anomolies and look at this case. I know already posted but I think the wrinkle of the 9/11 connection has been overlooked here (and in the MSM too!):<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=110171&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23">www.gulf-times.com/site/t...rent_id=23</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>President dubs alleged Pearl killer MI6 spy<br>Published: Friday, 29 September, 2006, 01:06 PM Doha Time<br><br>LONDON: Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has disclosed that Omar Sheikh, who kidnapped and murdered American journalist Daniel Pearl and is now facing death penalty, was actually the British secret Agency MI6’s agent and had executed certain missions on their behest before coming to Pakistan and visiting Afghanistan to meet Osama and Mullah Omar.<br><br>General Musharraf’s book has also given a new twist to the whole drama of kidnapping and murder of American journalist as many believe here British national Omar Sheikh might use Musharraf’s memoir to plea his innocence after, quite surprisingly, Musharraf tried to give a clean chit to Omar despite his role in kidnapping which is punishable with death in Pakistan.<br><br>It has been reported that General Musharraf has written in his book that while Omar Sheikh was at the London School of Economics (LSE), he was recruited by the British intelligence agency MI6, which persuaded him to take an active part in demonstrations against Serbian aggression in Bosnia and even sent him to Kosovo to join the jihad.<br><br>At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent.<br><br>The local media is discussing the possibility that Omar would use evidence from President Musharraf’s memoirs to save himself from the hangman.<br><br>General Musharraf appeared to exonerate Omar Sheikh in his book In the Line of Fire.<br><br>Sheikh, 32, who was brought up in Wanstead, east London, has been on death row since 2003 after being convicted of orchestrating the kidnap and murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter.<br><br>The Times, which is carrying extracts of Musharraf autobiography has reported that General Musharraf appears to have changed his mind about the Briton’s guilt, saying he now believes that the man who beheaded the American hostage was Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.<br><br>The Times has reported that Rai Bashir, Sheikh’s lawyer, said that he intended to use the memoir to force a new appeal hearing.<br><br>The Times report said General Musharraf appears to contradict the original claim that the British militant callously planned Pearl’s murder, saying: "Only later did I realise that Omar Sheikh had panicked because the situation had spiralled out of his control."<br><br>Bashir said: "After reading the book, if I feel necessary, I will quote the book in my arguments in favour of my client. It can be used as evidence." Three other men jailed for life for their part in the crime have lodged appeals. – Internews<br><br>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<br><br>What is rather interesting is that Omar Sheikh has been pinned as a “key figure in the funding of the 9/11 attacks ". <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Umar_Sheikh">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Umar_Sheikh</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> . <br><br>A mastermind of the 9/11 attacks accused to be an MI6 agent by our ally and someone who should be in a position to know? Holy crap – this should be BIG NEWS.<br><br>To understand the media’s response to this story I did a Google search on the morning of October 2nd 2006 on the topic of Musharraf and Pearl and got a number of news sources who’ve picked up the story. There are lots of worldwide hits including Reuters and The Times of London. This proves the story is on the wires and is certainly on the menu to be reported to us:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf%20pearl&sa=N&tab=wn">news.google.com/news?sour...a=N&tab=wn</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The fascinating thing is that I see a rather massive censorship effort going on to keep English Speaking people to not know about it:<br><br>For example, the CBC has nothing to say about it:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf%20pearl%20site%3Acbc.ca&sa=N&tab=wn">news.google.com/news?sour...a=N&tab=wn</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And CNN only has this covered in its International Division (it is always interesting how the International Division of CNN and Domestic Division give different results)<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf%20pearl%20site%3Acnn.com&sa=N&tab=wn">news.google.com/news?sour...a=N&tab=wn</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And MSNBC is not covering it at all:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf%20pearl%20site%3Amsnbc.com&sa=N&tab=wn">news.google.com/news?sour...a=N&tab=wn</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Likewise BBC doesn’t cover it either:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf%20pearl%20site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk&sa=N&tab=wn">news.google.com/news?sour...a=N&tab=wn</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And the Australian Broadcasting Corp seems to have missed it too:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-15,GGLR:en&q=musharraf+pearl+site%3Awww%2Eabc%2Eau">www.google.com/search?sou...2Eabc%2Eau</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Explanation?? I struggle to explain this.<br><br>The story isn’t important? Of course it is.<br><br>The story isn’t on the wires so there is no accessing the story? Yes it is on the wires.<br><br>The story isn’t interesting? Yes it is.<br><br>Remember the old maxim “if it bleeds it leads”; there is certainly death and mayhem in this story. Yet it is missing in action….. WHY?<br> <p></p><i></i>