Posted on 02/24/2002 9:31:29 AM PST by nickcarraway
Pearl forced to admit Jewishness before decapitation
By Steven Gutkin, The Associated Press
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Police are searching for three Arab nationals believed to have played a role in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a senior investigator said, suggesting there may be a link between the kidnappers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.
No details were immediately available today on the Arabs' identity or how they might have participated in the crime.
Pearl's murder was revealed Friday through a gruesome videotape that investigators say showed images of the 38-year-old journalist being forced to admit he was Jewish and then getting his neck cut while he was either unconscious or already dead.
A source close to the investigation who said he viewed the three-minute video said that it consisted of three segments. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he gave this account:
In the first segment, Pearl is forced to say that he is Jewish and that both his mother and his father are also Jewish. He is also forced to give a statement denouncing America's actions against Muslims.
In the second segment, the journalist is shown lying on the ground, apparently unconscious or already dead, with his throat slit.
The third segment shows Pearl decapitated.
Pearl's body has not been found and one investigator said yesterday that it will be difficult to find unless the four remaining suspects are apprehended.
It's not known why the militants targeted Pearl, but there are several theories: revenge for the US rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan; an attempt to destabilize the Musharraf government for its support for the war on terror; or because Pearl may have been getting close to sensitive information about militant groups or intelligence service activities.
For Musharraf, fighting a war on terrorism requires the full cooperation of all law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies. To consolidate his control and guarantee loyalty, Musharraf is believed to have disbanded ISI units that worked with militant groups and replaced top ISI generals with personal friends. Yet a small group of ISI agents at the ground level may still have the ability either to break the back of Islamic militancy or quietly foster it indefinitely. A few rogue spies may even be helping the very people that have kidnapped Daniel Pearl.
Among the more dangerous, sources say, are those who acted as Pakistan's official liaison between the Pakistan Army and militant groups, such as the Kashmiri-oriented Harkatul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, both of which are on the United States' list of terrorist organizations. The ISI was also a crucial link between Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Getting ISI agents to change direction swiftly would be difficult, the senior military source says, and some may be willfully disobeying orders. Pakistani officials say there is no evidence to suggest that ISI is currently aiding the kidnappers of Mr. Pearl, but there is no question that anyone who investigates the ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistani religious parties and even the ISI is doing so at their own peril.
The chief suspect in the Pearl kidnapping, Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, is a top leader within Jaish-e-Muhammad.
Yesterday, Fahad Naseem confessed in a Karachi court that he sent e-mails that announced the kidnapping of Pearl. Mr. Naseem told the judge that Mr. Saeed ordered him to send the e-mail and that there were plans to abduct someone who was "anti-Islam, and a Jew."
Because they agree that non-muslims must be converted or killed.
Just how in th' hell CAN they make their sentiments known??? They (some) show up here on FreeRepublic. They (sometimes) effectively debate with us on the relevant issues. In no time at all the IFC descends upon them like a pack of skinheads and somehow they join the "disappeared". OBSERVATION: - - - Regarding the title of the Jerusalem Post article - - - People "admit" to wrong doing. People "confirm" religious affiliations. Any thoughts on the choice of wording in the title of this article?
Some few of these millions did, but it would appear that they are very few indeed. Either most 1)are in partial sympathy with the terrorists or 2)are scared to speak, in which case are useless to themselves and us.
This is a silly question. How does anyone or any group make their sentiments known?
BTW what is IFC? And what's with the questions about the title of an article?
Indeed this is what so many wonder about. Why do the masses not do anything to show where they stand? It seems that Muslim leaders and individuals would want others to know their position. The fact that we hear far more about law suits and harrassment than the Muslim positions on the issues is not comforting.
Certainly, we hear more about lawsuits than any reassuring groundswell of comfort, dismay or support from Muslims. Do you remember reading about those "How to be a terrorist in the USA" books they found in the cars of the WTC skyjackers? They instructed the operatives to scream about "police brutality" and "discrimination" at every possible opportunity. Use the protections we provide people against us.
I do know one individual who was openly horrified and aghast and apologetic at the crashes, a Afghan who has been in this nation for 15 years. I believe him, and appreciate his words. He continues mostly unmolested, far safer here than where he left. But I believe that American Muslims in general should have been VERY LOUD, organized, united and clear in their commiserations if they expect their loyalty to be taken seriously. To those who would say that they are not that media savvy--look at how quickly they head to the lawyers!!
I believe that, for the most part, their loyalty is to the horror they've left behind in the Arab world, not to the freedom they enjoy here.
Please define "skinhead" in the context you've used it.
Please define your acronym "IFC."
And they know that we feel this way...which is another reason their silence is so discomforting.
I am sure he is right about them, but what exactly did he say?
This returns to the sentiments that I have expressed on Free Republic before (obviously to a 'deaf' audience). That just because a handful of radical Islamic crazies committed the acts of 9-11, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG not to mention a lack of common sense to 'paint' a whole group of people with the same brush. But its become popular sport here to do so. How many times have you seen a post saying 'nuke them' or 'nuke' this country or that? As an American and a Christian, it saddens me deeply that people who claim to be good Christians would snuff out countless innocent people just to get at 5 or 500 or 5000 or 50000 radical assholes who wrap themselves with the cloak of a religion to justify their acts.
Oh wait, there are no innocent Muslims ... right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.