Unadulterated Arrogance

Saturday, February 12, 2005

911 & Abu Gharib

I am not condoning the 9/11 attacks but am just calling a spade a spade. I too think from Prof. Ward Churchill’s  viewpoints but mine is two-way traffic rather than the so called ‘progressive thinker’ who thinks just one way and can’t refrain from obloquy when it comes to his motherland. The attacks on the World Trade Centre was a despicable act; that is beyond question but what is questionable is the legitimacy or the ethics behind the attack on an ostensible civilian structure. When a war is on, the first point of attack will be the command and control structures of the opposing party, the major economic centres being the next in line for annihilation. If one were to go by this rule of warfare, the WTC was a legitimate target; for the economic might of the great US of A was caged behind the erstwhile non-penetrable structure of the World Trade Centre. Another prominent point to be noted is that the world trade centre itself housed offices of the CIA, an act which by itself turned this civilian structure to a military command and control aiding infrastructure and hence a legitimate target for foes.

After calling a spade a spade, time to call an ace an ace; The Abu Gharib tortures; rumoured to be with the direct knowledge and support of the govt. of the United States Of America has been frowned upon by human rights groups worldwide. Those who do not condemn the attack on the United States cannot condemn the abu gharib tortures as well for that would be having double standards. The only law to deal with lawlessness is lawlessness itself. The abuses I presume happened not solely on the sadistic whims of the American's but after lengthy psychoanalysis of the prisoners. To get the requisite information, the spirit of the prisoners needed to be broken and that was the reason for their humiliation and hence the tortures though unethical were legitimate..the ends justify the means.

5 Comments:

  • All I have to say is ,'Two wrongs do not make a right.'

    By Blogger Sangeeta, at 2/12/2005 05:57:00 AM  

  • agreed, thats why we have to try to see if three wrongs make a right ;-)

    By Blogger injinuity, at 2/12/2005 07:31:00 AM  

  • wow
    here is the best weblog
    thanks

    By Blogger Mehrdad, at 2/13/2005 01:57:00 AM  

  • A thoughful commentary on 9/11 gives way to a simplistic analysis of torture. You fail to recognize that
    1. Information extracted from torture is unreliable because someone who is being tortured will tell you what they think you want to hear.
    2. Torture means adopting the tactics of Saddam Hussein and it engenders mistrust and hostility across a broad spectrum.
    3. Because we condone torture, our soldiers are more likely to be tortured. This is why many military people object to its use. But don't listen to them...what do they know?

    I challenge you to provide one actual example of torture being used to extract accurate information. For every case you provide, I will supply at least five counter-examples.

    By Blogger Steve, at 2/17/2005 10:16:00 AM  

  • The scenario mentioned herein is different from that of extracting information from a drug trafficker who is likely to tell you whatever you want to escape torture..

    The terrorists did not squeal, they would not talk at all, so by using torture their spirits were broken, that was the prerequisite for further interrogation. As I said earlier, the end justifies the means.

    By Blogger injinuity, at 2/17/2005 11:15:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home