Originally posted by pikamaster:
Salman,
1) Somehow I believe that "sovereign rights" have been trumped up
too much. And anyway, the issue is not whether they should be doing
what tehy do; it is about *why* they are doing it.
I think sovereign rights are very important. We can't have
terrorists dictating our foreign policy or who we can or cannot
make alliances with. We can't allow them to overthrow our govt and
make us into a part of a caliphate!
I think the why they do it is trumped up too much.
Who cares why they want to interfere with our sovereign rights, as
long as they do, we must destroy them. We cannot compromise our
sovereinty as a nation.
2) The origins of Al Quaeda can be traced back to the 1970s when
the USA drove off the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Not true. Al Qaeda can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood
of Egypt who embarce a facistic doctrine of pan Arabic dominance of
the world.
In order to get enough manpower, the USA elicited the support of
local resistance groups, one which was led by a graduate from both
a Middle-Eastern and an American university who was named Osama bin
Laden.
Wrong again. Thats an often repeated lie. The US only supported
those who ended up as the Northern Alliance. The Osama gang were
funded by the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
To aid the offensive against the USSR, the USA "lent" the
resistance groups weapons, including WMDs (which they are trying to
find back now) and provided them military training.
US never supplied any WMDs to Afghan resistance.
And so they drove out the Soviets. But then USA found itself in the
Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam war and promptly withdrew
wholesale from Afghanistan.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened only after both the
Cuban missile crisis and Vietnam war was long over, what are you
talking about mister?
I understand you try to make anti US propaganda but such blatant
historical revisionism won't fool anyone.
Without the might of the USAF, the country ended up re-conquered by
the USSR, who installed the then-puppet rulers the Taleban. And so
the resistance groups felt extreme fury, and ... the rest is the
history of post cold-war terrorism.
Reconquered by USSR? You mean Afghanistan was conquered by USSR
before? Are you sure you know history?
Anyway, terrorists are technically not against Asians; they are
against Westerners and governments who support the West.
How can they not be against Asians when they are bombing Asians
more than they bomb the west?
3) Perhaps you should read more closely the section relating to
prisoners-of-war. I have read the Convention too, u know.
I read it, in fact I studied it, terrorists don't get protection
under the Geneva Convention. I'm very sure you haven't read it at
all. Don't play play with Salman. You are very bodoh.
4) your reply here is rather incoherent. Perhaps you need to check
up your head.
The analogy of mental patients
is to stress the (medical) mental damage suffered by the torture
victim before he provides his "admission of guilt". Under such
mental damage, the information obtained might not be the absolute
truth, as I ahve explaiend before.
Might not be true, might be true. The interrogators will know,
they are not as dumb as you.
5) Yes/No questions means that the interrogator has a larger
capacity to obtain *desired* answers, not *accurate answers*, from
torture. And that will hurt the investigation.
the (sad) pikamaster
They have more than yes/no questions in their bag of tricks my
friend, you don't have to worry. They know what to do and how to do
it.
