tmkhalidu的部落格

I deliberation I'd gong up with my own tuppence deserving on one issues that are elevated by the recent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ignominy...

The first item I'd same to say is that it appears to have been widely pleasing of late how unbelievable the "confessions" obtained by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turn up to be. For those who don't know (if you have been people lower than a batter for the historic period), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted to mortal the conceiver at the rear every violent atrocity, genuine and imagined, since something like 1980.

My of import point is this: whilst lots of us accept that at least several of these confessions give the impression of being a miniscule spurious, how, therefore, can we accept any of them?

I'm not active to go done and index the 30 crimes that he has admitted to. Nor am I going to natter about the reality that, after 4 geezerhood of strict interrogation and probing, latent for torture, and mostly brute treatment, even I can own to belongings I did not do. No, I'm not. What I am active to say, though, is what this whole debacle way to me.

Firstly, the vastly information that the American's have voted to announce their transgression determination and terrorist-busting prowess to the international in this way suggests either a naivete ancient history belief, or, more worryingly, a complete underestimate of the world's expertise to net their own conclusions. The people accountable for announcing this "great" act plain consideration that the pummel throwing heaps would in actuality buy this relation - or they believed the confessions themselves? I'm not certain which thought worries me more: that those trusty believed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's declared confessions; or that they ready-made (some of) them up, and due us to?

Perhaps more worrying, though, is my principal prickle. As we all appear to have realised that these confessions are sophistic and "not price the rag they are scrivened on" (incidentally, how nearby of all time came to be a piece of writing of concealed interrogations is farther than me too) what does this average for the The American War on Terror (or T.W.A.T, as I have seen it delineate)? What of WMD? What in the region of all the ruinous holding we were told Saddam Hussein had done?

What, now, do we create of those early assertions that it was all Osama Bin Laden's fault? What of those videos we have all seen, you know, the ones where Osama Bin Laden admits to woman a hurtful pasty?

After we have all done with resoundingly poo-pooing these confessions, possibly we may reckon this prickle more than carefully: if these aren't true, consequently what is? Is Osama Bin Laden truly accountable for all the attacks on the westerly of which he stand accused? Could those videos not have been hoaxes or mock-ups? What of all the new innumerous things we have been fed, through the media, about multiple unsavoury characters, and their declared misdemeanors (issued maybe with the objective of creating one military force near whom damned could be laid for everything, in bidding to relief a War on Terror which would otherwise appear an improbably wide-ranging and out obligation)?

I 'd resembling to see some corroboration. For example, how abundant of us who watched the Osama tapes on the word (at lowest possible the minute sound-bity excerpts that they showed our microscopic public interest spans) and publication the pocket-sized subtitles at the bottom truly cognise what he was saying? By this I aim how more of us can talk Arabic? Further, how lots of us in actuality know that this was absolutely, definitely, Osama Bin Laden production these unrepressed claims? Very, fundamentally few. Yet we accept them as real.

Is it too some of a stretch of the creativeness to reason out that specified stories may not be as valid as they freshman appear?

I prise the American diplomatic message electrical device. Really I do. Who other could pushing their ideas and agendas headlong so suddenly and easily, and have them picked up by so oodles report stations of the cross across the globe? Who other could create an accusation short producing a smidgin of witness (by this I stingy effective logical evidence, which would have to be make to charge an common man of an boring sin) and twirl secure individuals into population antagonist digit 1 (and 2,3,4 etc)?

But, alas, I agitation near this one they may all right have colourful themselves in the ft. Once culture initiate enquiring the rigour of your statements, you are without doubt in be a problem for you of never one believed, not disparate the boy who cried canine.

Perhaps it is just this characteristics of way of life which has helped go round those relatives who are Anti-West antagonistic the westerly. I'm not axiom that I excuse any of the terrorist acts, indeed, I insight them detestable. However, what I am dictum is this: the schedule interpreted by the American political affairs in emotional the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "confessions" is indicative of either undreamed pretentiousness (in expecting to be believed) or uttermost silliness (in believing the confessions themselves).

It is not tricky to suppose (though it could postulate a level of fellow feeling) how one brought up in the Middle East, or of such as extraction, upon whom western interests have had, in their opinion, a plain unfavorable impinging on their neighbourhood and/or state and/or region, strength be a undersize perturbed at having this finished by a westside which has, as it's one superpower, a land and Government which is detected as either a) implausibly vain or b) dreadfully doltish.

This, surely, cannot aid things?