Now, after reading this viewpoint, one is bound to be grappled by certain crunch questions. Some of these crunch questions are:
- Afghan society is not akin to European society where mingling of a woman with other men is not considered as a taboo. In Afghanistan it has been and is being considered a taboo. We know she was not reported to be accompanied by any woman. No woman was reported to be there at the spot at the time of her arrest. The question is: How did the shopkeeper notice she couldn’t speak the local language? It is against the fundamentals of common sense that a woman, on a mission of terrorism as it has been alleged in this case, starts gossiping in the middle of a crowded street with the people unknown to her. To whom did she talk? Was it the shopkeeper himself? If not, how did he notice this point?
- What does it actually mean that she was loitering in a suspicious manner? If she was a suicide bomber why was she carrying the map with her? Why did she start drawing a map right in the crowded market? At least a bomber should have some knowledge about the place she intends to attack. Is it possible to digest such poppycock that a suicide bomber opens the map in a crowded market to decide where she should attack and at that crucial point brings her son with her? Bartosiewicz Petra asks: “ the complaint doesn’t address why she would do so in the company of the American son”
- Why, in this age of technology, she was carrying notes with her? She is not an illiterate local lady. She is highly qualified. Why did she opt for such traditional, if not stupid, means? If she was really a “Lady Al-Qaida” she should have the acumen of modern means of communications.
- If she had been living in a hide for five years why did she ultimately decide to emerge into Public Square in such an odd fashion? What compelled her to do so, why did she take such an unwanted unnecessary risk and what was the objective behind this ill-calculated appearance?
(To be continued)
