Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Sep '14 03:26
    Aafia Siddiqui's name has resurfaced in the news after she reportedly was
    mentioned as someone for whom ISIS would be willing to exchange one of
    its Western captives. Her case seems very complex and disputed.

    Aafia Siddqui's a Pakistani Muslim woman with a Ph.D. in neuroscience from
    Brandeis University in the USA. The US government once regarded her as
    one of its most wanted suspects from al-Qaida. Her family denies that she
    was associated with al-Qaida. Her sister claims that Aafia Siddiqui was
    abducted (by Pakistani or US intelligence agencies) and secretly imprisoned
    for several years, when she was raped and tortured. Eventually, after a
    controversial trial, she was convicted in a US court of attempting to kill
    American soldiers in Afghanistan and sentenced to 86 years' imprisonment.
    Some international human rights organizations and Western politicians
    (such as British MPs) apparently believe Aafia Siddiqui was unfairly tried
    and may have been unjustly convicted and punished in the United States.
    Many, perhaps most, Pakistanis seem convinced that she was framed.

    Therefore, Aafia Siddiqui has become known, rightly or wrongly, to many
    Muslims, who are not necessarily Islamists, as an innocent Muslim woman
    who has been victimized by a US justice system that's biased against Muslims.
    As such, her proposed release from an American prison has been used, whether
    sincerely or expediently, by some Islamist groups to appeal to non-Islamist Muslims.

    Under what conditions, if any, should the US government consider exchanging
    Aafia Siddiqui (who presumably would not be a further threat to the USA)
    for an American held captive by ISIS?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui
  2. 15 Sep '14 03:33
    We should trade her if they will also take> Obama, Bush, both Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, Boner, Cheney and on and on.
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 Sep '14 05:27
    What does Aafia, herself, think?
    I can quite imagine she wants freedom, however, I can also quite imagine that the prospect of losing her head to a bunch of weirdos isn't exactly her cup of tea either.
  4. 15 Sep '14 20:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    What does Aafia, herself, think?
    I can quite imagine she wants freedom, however, I can also quite imagine that
    the prospect of losing her head to a bunch of weirdos isn't exactly her cup of tea either.
    I don't know what Aafia Siddiqui thinks. I doubt that the US authorities
    would permit her to issue public statements from her prison cell in the USA.

    I assume that Aafia Siddiqui wishes not to spend the rest of her life in prison.
    I assume that she would prefer to go home to Pakistan and, ideally, find a
    job in which her Ph.D. in neuroscience could be of some use. I doubt that
    she would prefer to stay in the Islamic State, whose leaders presumably
    would have little use (except as a propaganda symbol) for a highly educated
    (in the USA, no less) woman who's going to be past her child-bearing years.
  5. 16 Sep '14 20:44
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't know what Aafia Siddiqui thinks. I doubt that the US authorities
    would permit her to issue public statements from her prison cell in the USA.

    I assume that Aafia Siddiqui wishes not to spend the rest of her life in prison.
    I assume that she would prefer to go home to Pakistan and, ideally, find a
    job in which her Ph.D. in neuroscience could ...[text shortened]... r a highly educated
    (in the USA, no less) woman who's going to be past her child-bearing years.
    Do you agree that she was framed? Why?
  6. 16 Sep '14 21:56
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Do you agree that she was framed? Why?
    I don't know if Aafia Siddqui was framed. But I think that the apparent
    official US account of what happened raises some questions.

    Aafia Siddiqui's whereabouts and activities from March 2003 to July 2008 are in dispute.
    Was she (a US-educated neuroscientist) working with Al-Qaida somewhere?
    (What could Al-Qaida gain from using a woman with no military training?)
    Or had she (as her family claims) been abducted and secretly imprisoned by
    Pakistani or US intelligence operatives? (Pakistani justice has a reputation for corruption).

    The US specific charge against Aafia Siddiqui is that, while being interrogated
    as a suspected 'terrorist' in Afghanistan, she was able to seize a loaded M4
    carbine and start shooting at Americans. (She was convicted of attempted
    murder at her trial in the USA.) But if the Americans were interrogating
    anyone who's allegedly a dangerous 'terrorist', how could that person (with
    hands free) be allowed to get anywhere near a loaded gun? And even if
    that happened, did Aafia Siddiqui (who's not stupid) really expect that she
    (who probably has basic training in how to use guns at most, if even that)
    could shoot her way out of a compound full of armed Americans? (If I had
    been in her position and I noticed that the Americans had 'carelessly' left
    a loaded gun within my reach, I would have assumed I was being set up to
    give the Americans a pretext for shooting me if I made any move toward it.)

    Aafia Siddiqui denied seizing a gun and firing any shots. She claims that an
    American soldier panicked and shot her, causing her to lose consciousness.
    One hypothesis is that an American soldier mistakenly assumed that she
    was a suicide bomber. After discovering the error, a cover up then began.

    In my opinion,*if* Aafia Siddiqui did start shooting at American soldiers,
    then she was intent on committing suicide. How plausible would it be that
    she intended to take her own life and leave behind her three young children?
  7. 16 Sep '14 22:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't know if Aafia Siddqui was framed. But I think that the apparent
    official US account of what happened raises some questions.

    Aafia Siddiqui's whereabouts and activities from March 2003 to July 2008 are in dispute.
    Was she (a US-educated neuroscientist) working with Al-Qaida somewhere?
    (What could Al-Qaida gain from using a woman with no milit ...[text shortened]... e would it be that
    she intended to take her own life and leave behind her three young children?
    Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If you accept the facts as stated, it sounds as if it has merit. Lots of US government versions of things are questionable.
  8. 17 Sep '14 01:05 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If you accept the facts as stated, it sounds as if it has merit.
    Lots of US government versions of things are questionable.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/aafia-siddiqui-al-qaida

    "The Mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui"
    --Declan Walsh (23 November 2009)

    "Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre....The unquestioning
    support is a product of fury at *US-orchestrated 'disappearances', of which
    there have been hundreds in Pakistan* and deep scepticism about the American
    account of her capture. Few Pakistanis believe that a frail 5 ft 3 in, 40 kg woman
    could disarm an American soldier
    ...
    Siddiqui's case focuses on a minor controversy--whether she fired a gun at
    a (US) soldier in an Afghan police station. And so the big questions may
    not be probed: whether the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) or CIA abducted
    Siddiqui in 2003 ... In fact, the framing of the charges raises a new question:
    if Siddiqui was such a dangerous terrorist five years ago, why is not being
    charged as one now?"
    --Declan Walsh

    In 2011 Aafia Siddiqui's lawyers released an audiotape in which a man described
    as a former senior Pakistani official said that in 2003 she was abducted by
    the ISI (Pakistani intelligence). Some members of her family have claimed
    that Aafia Siddiqui was handed over by the ISI to the CIA and secretly confined
    for five years, during which time she might have been raped or tortured.
    *If* it's true that Aafia Siddiqui was unjustly secretly imprisoned for five years
    and raped or tortured, that could account for her alleged rage against the
    Americans believed responsible for it as well as for her supposed mental health issues.
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    18 Sep '14 21:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/aafia-siddiqui-al-qaida

    "The Mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui"
    --Declan Walsh (23 November 2009)

    "Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre....The unquestioning
    support is a product of fury at *US-orchestrated 'disappearances', of which
    there have been hundreds in Pakistan* and deep scepticism a ...[text shortened]... nst the
    Americans believed responsible for it as well as for her supposed mental health issues.
    I believe we should let the ambassadors of Pakistan and the USA work out a solution.
  10. 19 Sep '14 02:13
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/aafia-siddiqui-al-qaida

    "The Mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui"
    --Declan Walsh (23 November 2009)

    "Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre....The unquestioning
    support is a product of fury at *US-orchestrated 'disappearances', of which
    there have been hundreds in Pakistan* and deep scepticism a ...[text shortened]... nst the
    Americans believed responsible for it as well as for her supposed mental health issues.
    A possible explanation is that a young, strong soldier might not have taken seriously enough the threat of a petite woman prisoner. Underestimation of an enemy has always been a serious mistake.

    There are plenty of things in the account which don't wash. This is typical of US government accounts of events that many Americans that you disdain find incompatible with facts and logic.
  11. 19 Sep '14 18:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    A possible explanation is that a young, strong soldier might not have taken seriously enough the threat of a petite woman prisoner. Underestimation of an enemy has always been a serious mistake.

    There are plenty of things in the account which don't wash. This is typical of US government accounts of events that many Americans that you disdain find incompatible with facts and logic.
    "This is typical of US government accounts of events that many Americans
    that you disdain find incompatible with facts and logic."
    --Normbenign

    A jury of twelve Americans believed the US government account and
    voted to convict Aafia Siddiqui of attempted murder in Afghanistan.

    The US government claimed Aafia Siddqui was an extremely dangerous 'terrorist'.
    According to the US government, she was able to fire at least two shots from
    very close range at American soldiers, but every one of her shots missed.
    Her 'marksmanship' sounds more like what could be expected from a woman
    with little or no experience and training in shooting than from a skilled 'terrorist'.
  12. 19 Sep '14 19:21
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't know what Aafia Siddiqui thinks. I doubt that the US authorities
    would permit her to issue public statements from her prison cell in the USA.

    I assume that Aafia Siddiqui wishes not to spend the rest of her life in prison.
    I assume that she would prefer to go home to Pakistan and, ideally, find a
    job in which her Ph.D. in neuroscience could ...[text shortened]... r a highly educated
    (in the USA, no less) woman who's going to be past her child-bearing years.
    Being in the field of neuroscience and a member of al qaeda, can she reattach a head once she lops it off?
  13. 19 Sep '14 23:29
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "This is typical of US government accounts of events that many Americans
    that you disdain find incompatible with facts and logic."
    --Normbenign

    A jury of twelve Americans believed the US government account and
    voted to convict Aafia Siddiqui of attempted murder in Afghanistan.

    The US government claimed Aafia Siddqui was an extremely dangerous 't ...[text shortened]... a woman
    with little or no experience and training in shooting than from a skilled 'terrorist'.
    Timothy McVeigh was convicted by a jury of twelve Americans. Of course he believed he was guilty. The court refused to hear exculpatory evidence to the effect that McVeigh's truck bomb could not have done the damage alleged. The laws of physics prevented it.

    Recently, the TV press was having a field day rerunning 9/11 footage, but no one has ever explained how two engines from a 757 plus the rest of the plane got through that hole in the wall of the Pentagon, and no footage ever showed those engines retrieved. The answer from the government, the fire from burning jet fuel consumed those engines, to which Rolls Royce (the manufacturer) replied poppycock.

    Governments tend to control courts and can fool juries who mostly want to go home and resume their lives.