I thought I would chime up with my own tuppence worth on some issues that are raised by the failure of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed recent ...
The first thing I would say is that he seems to have been widely appreciated how ridiculous the "confessions" obtained by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed appear to be. for those who don't know (if you've been living under a rock for the past week), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted to being the brain behind every terrorist atrocity, real and imagined, since about 1980.
My main point is the following: while many of us accept that at least some of these confessions seem a little artificial, as therefore we can accept any one of them?
I'm not going to go through and list the 30 ++ crimes he admitted a. Nor I'll talk about the fact that, after 4 years of rigorous questioning and probing, potential for torture and inhumane treatment generally, even I could admit to things that I didn't. No, I'm not what I will say, though, is that this entire fiasco means to me.
Firstly, the fact that the American have chosen to announce his crime solving prowess and to the world so terrorist busting suggests an unbelievable naivety, or, more worrying, a complete underestimation of the capacity of the world to make their own conclusions. The people responsible for announcing this "great" conquest obviously thought that rock throwing masses actually would buy this story-or they believed that the confessions themselves? I don't know which concept worries me more: it is believed that the charge that alleged confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; or they did (some) them up and expect it to?
Perhaps more worrying, however, is the main point. As we all seem to have noticed that these confessions are invalid and "not worth the paper they are written in" (Incidentally, as there was never a secret interrogations of transcription is beyond me as well) what does this mean for the American war against terrorism (or twat, as I have seen it described)? What WMD? What happens with all the terrible things that have told us that Saddam Hussein had done?
What, now, do these statements first that was all the fault of Osama Bin Laden? What happens to these videos we all saw, you know, the ones where Osama Bin Laden admits being a pasty unpleasant?
After we all finished expressive poo-pooing these confessions, perhaps you can consider this point more carefully: If these are not true, then what is? Osama Bin Laden is really responsible for all attacks West of which he is accused of? The videos could not have been hoaxes or mock-ups? In addition to all other numerous things that we were fed, through the media, about several nasty characters and their alleged misdemeanors (issued perhaps with the goal of creating an enemy with whom blame could be set to all, in order to help a war against terrorism that otherwise seems an impossible task and incredibly large)?
I would like to see some evidence. For example, how many of us who watched the tapes of Osama in the news (at least the sound-bity screen little excerpts from the book that they showed our tiny attention) and read the captions bit at the bottom really know what he was saying? By this I mean how many of us can speak Arabic? In addition, like many of us really know that this definitely was absolutely, Osama Bin Laden, making these wild allegations? Very, very few. We can still accept them as true.
He is much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that such stories may not be as valid as they first appear?
I admire the American policy advertising machine. Really I do. Who else could push their ideas and agendas forward so quickly and easily and have them picked up by many news stations around the world? Who else could make a claim without producing a shred of proof (by that I mean real valid proof, which would have to be produced to acknowledge a common man of a common crime) and transform certain individuals in public enemy number 1 (and 2, 3.4 etc)?
But, unfortunately, I fear with a gift that they may well have shot themselves in the foot. Once people start to question the validity of their statements, you are certainly in trouble never to be believed, not unlike the boy who cried wolf.
Perhaps it is precisely this kind of behavior that has helped transform the anti-Western people against the West. I'm not saying I condone all terrorist acts, in fact, I find them abhorrent. However, what I am saying is this: the actions taken by the u.s. Government into releasing the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "confessions" is indicative of incredible arrogance (waiting for us to be believed) or extreme stupidity (in believing that the confessions themselves).
It is not hard to imagine (although it may require a degree of empathy) as one raised in the Middle East, or extraction, about whom Western interests had, in his opinion, a clearly negative impact in your community, country or region, can be a little disturbed by having this done by a Westerner who will aimat stimulating intersectoral is a superpower, a country and the Government that is perceived as an arrogant or b) incredibly) extremely stupid.
This certainly cannot help things?
I am writing all my quality articles for the my site of great blog
