The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency News Bias

By Jon Gold

Today, sadly, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. The list of suspects is a long one, but for the purposes of this article, I'm going to focus on one. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency or, more commonly known within the 9/11 Truth Movement as, the ISI.

There have been all kinds of reports that say they may have had a hand in it.

Guardian reported:
"After the October assassination attempt, Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who is in Dubai where the couple had been living in exile, accused members of the Pakistani security services, the ISI. "I blame government for these blasts," he said. "It is the work of the intelligence agencies."

Elements of the ISI sympathise with the Taliban and it was a possibility that "rogue elements" in the intelligence services were involved in the two attacks. The ISI became one of Pakistan's most powerful institutions under General Zia-ul-Haq, the man who launched an Islamisation campaign and who overthrew Bhutto's father and had him hung. After Gen Zia's death in a mysterious plane crash in 1988, the ISI actively campaigned against Bhutto when she entered politics."
The London Times reported:
"But fingers will also be pointed at Inter-Services Intelligence, the agency that has had close ties to the Islamists since the 1970s and has been used by successive Pakistani leaders to suppress political opposition. [...] She accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient security and hinted that they may have been complicit in the bomb attack. Asif Ali Zardari, her husband, directly accused the ISI of being involved in that attempt on her life. [...]

Analysts say that President Musharraf himself is unlikely to have ordered her assassination, but that elements of the army and intelligence service would have stood to lose money and power if she had become Prime Minister."
The Washington Post reported:
"Even before the official search got underway in Pakistan, U.S. intelligence agencies yesterday were drawing up their own list of possible suspects in the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto -- a list that includes al-Qaeda as well as elements of Pakistan's own intelligence service. [...] But several officials said it is equally plausible that the assassination was carried out with the support -- or at least the tacit approval -- of Pakistani government employees. [...] Although Zinni is skeptical of the notion that Pakistani intelligence backed the assassination, other experts saw the hand of Pakistan's military intelligence arm, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which supported the Taliban inside Afghanistan until the U.S. invasion in 2001, and is believed to maintain links to Islamic extremist groups. [...] "I know what many people in Pakistan and Afghanistan believe: They think that the Pakistani military killed her," he said. "I am not endorsing this belief -- or denying it -- but it is a political reality."
Honestly, I don't know if the ISI was involved. The WPost reported, "At the same time, the official said, the rioting and unrest triggered by the slaying threaten the country's stability in a way that directly undermines the government of Musharraf, who had been her chief political rival."

However, Benazir Bhutto has not been a friend to the ISI. Just in the last week, she accused "Pakistan's Military Intelligence" (which I assume is the ISI) of spying on candidates for the election. I'd say they are definitely suspects for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

It is curious though that the ISI's possible involvement in this assassination is getting so much news coverage, and the ISI's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks got so very little. At least in the United States.

When it was reported that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh wire transferred $100,000 to Mohammad Atta under the direction of the ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the media barely covered it.

When it was reported that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed "lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre", the media barely covered it.

When it was reported that "a juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham" the media barely covered it.

When it was reported that during the week of 9/11, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed "held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs" the media barely covered it.

When Dep. FBI Dir. John S. Pistole testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that "a continuing investigation, in coordination with the PENTTBOMB Team, has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known Al Qa'ida operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the U.S." the media barely covered it.

When an FO official, Sadiq, reported that “Pakistan gave tens of thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to ‘convince’ them to drop some anti-Pakistan findings in the report" the media barely covered it.

When President Musharraf wrote in his book that Omar Sheikh may have been an MI6 asset, the media barely covered it.

When the Washington Times reported that 9/11 Family Member Lorie Van Auken was "irate" that the June 16 commission narrative of the 9/11 attacks did not even mention the allegation about Ahmed's role in the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta", the media barely covered it.

When 9/11 Family Member Bill Doyle reported to Alex Jones that a source told him part of the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry talked about the U.S. funneling money into Pakistan, the media barely covered it.

When Mariane Pearl, wife of slain Wall Street Journal Reporter Daniel Pearl, wrote in her book, "A Mighty Heart" that "I read that the U.S. embassy in Islamabad asked the Pakistani government to hand over Omar on January 21–two days before Danny was kidnapped. The reason given for the U.S. request was that the 1994 kidnapping included an American citizen. But it seems clear to me that the U.S. authorities wanted to follow up on a much more disturbing trail. I read a news report from October that claimed the FBI had found “credible links” between Omar Saeed Sheikh and then director of the ISI Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed. It was alleged that it was Ahmed who instructed Omar to wire the $100,000 to Mohammad Atta" the media barely covered it.

When it was reported that Osama Bin Laden had a Pakistani ISI "Handling Officer", a person who looks after the welfare of the source, keeps him motivated and uses him as needed" the media barely covered it.

When it was reported that “A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.” […] “Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February”, and that "Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office" the media barely covered it.

I understand that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is devastating news, and that it will probably create a lot of problems for Pakistan, however, I also understand that the murder of 2,973+ people on 9/11 was ALSO devastating news, and created A LOT of problems for America and the rest of the world.

What I don't understand is why the media has a bias against reporting on the Pakistani ISI's alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. Media, maybe you can explain this to us.