O jornalista Ahmed Rashid destaca uma diferença fundamental entre os talibãs e os líderes do Estado Islãmico: o modo como acedem aos media.
When Osama bin Laden wanted to deliver a message to the west, he summoned a journalist or a television network. (…) When the head of (…) Isis wants to send a message, the movement does it differently. Social media is the new way of communicating, for businessmen and terrorists alike.
When the terrorist group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has something to say, he posts it online, using multiple social media platforms so as to make it impossible for authorities to silence him (…)
Killing the messenger is an ancient way for kings to assuage frustration born of defeat or a political failure. Mr Baghdidi has taken this routine to another level. In his view, journalists are not messengers who convey information to the outside world, but merely intruders, who should be imprisoned, tortured and eliminated, or – especially if they are American or British – used as political pawns.
A consequência é mais interessante do que se poderia julgar:
The Taliban were not very communicative but they were polite and well behaved; they did not torture you or hang you upside down if you were a journalist and they allowed you – albeit with tight restrictions, and a total ban on photographs – to write down what you saw.Now we know that no objective journalist will ever be able to do the same with Isis. We will never really know their internal story, or how widely they are supported, except through scraps of information that we glean second hand and cannot properly evaluate.
Para o Ocidente, isto assemelha-se a uma tragédia. Temos agora inimigos que tomam os nossos jornalista por aquilo que são: embaixadores, intérpretes, espiões, soldados, enfim, alvos a abater. Não são parvos.