Asia Times was the paper which had the article in October which reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad had been killed in a raid last September in Karachi. Since Khalid has been headline news for the past few days because he was supposedly arrested as part of the "war on terrorism," the Asia Times apparently has received a lot of inquiries over the past few days. Since I reported on their article yesterday, I present their response today:
ATol responds to readers' queries
Asia Times Online cannot independently confirm whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammad is dead, alive, free, or in captivity. Confusion, conspiracy theories and rumors abound.
Our article of October 30, 2002, A chilling inheritance of terror, quoted an unnamed Pakistani official who was present at the shootout in Karachi on September 11, 2002, as saying that Khalid had died in that raid.
Clearly, statements by official or unofficial sources on all sides in this "war against terrorism" should not be taken as fact. Nevertheless, they sometimes need to be reported, though with suitable qualification.
The problem with covering this "war on terrorism" is to discern the facts amid the fog of disinformation and lies. Asia Times Online will continue striving to do just this, while admitting that we are bound to get it wrong occasionally.
Bob's addendum: The problem with covering this "war on terrorism" is to discern whether there are any facts at all amid the fog of disinformation and lies. Bob's Links and Rants will continue striving to do just this, while admitting that we are bound to get it wrong occasionally. And, the following remains in doubt:
Given the desperation on the part of the Bush administration to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein and their willingness to lie about it, any supposed evidence gained from his capture needs to be viewed in light of all of the weak links in the chain listed above.
[Update:] Robert Fisk highlights my naivete by adding several more points to my list.
ATol responds to readers' queries
Asia Times Online cannot independently confirm whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammad is dead, alive, free, or in captivity. Confusion, conspiracy theories and rumors abound.
Our article of October 30, 2002, A chilling inheritance of terror, quoted an unnamed Pakistani official who was present at the shootout in Karachi on September 11, 2002, as saying that Khalid had died in that raid.
Clearly, statements by official or unofficial sources on all sides in this "war against terrorism" should not be taken as fact. Nevertheless, they sometimes need to be reported, though with suitable qualification.
The problem with covering this "war on terrorism" is to discern the facts amid the fog of disinformation and lies. Asia Times Online will continue striving to do just this, while admitting that we are bound to get it wrong occasionally.
Bob's addendum: The problem with covering this "war on terrorism" is to discern whether there are any facts at all amid the fog of disinformation and lies. Bob's Links and Rants will continue striving to do just this, while admitting that we are bound to get it wrong occasionally. And, the following remains in doubt:
- whether or not someone named Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was killed last September in Karachi;
- whether someone named Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was in fact arrested recently in Karachi, or maybe it was months ago, or perhaps they arrested someone else and claimed it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammad;
- whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was actually a leading figure in al Qaeda and the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks;
- whether the person arrested has any information in his brain, or had any in his apartment, that relates to terrorist attacks past or future;
- whether that person would tell his interrogators the truth about these attacks;
- whether his interrogators would tell their governments the truth;
- whether the governments would tell the press the truth;
- whether the press would tell us the truth.
Given the desperation on the part of the Bush administration to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein and their willingness to lie about it, any supposed evidence gained from his capture needs to be viewed in light of all of the weak links in the chain listed above.
[Update:] Robert Fisk highlights my naivete by adding several more points to my list.
<< Home