Americans should have learned more about Arab collective psyche and persona before invading an Arab country. Generally and in their subconscious perception, Arabs have trouble differentiating between heads of state and father figures. This could explain their reticence to challenge political authority, especially when a dictator wields that authority.
Arabs generally sympathize with dictators - their own and those of other countries.
To Arab masses, caging an ex-dictator is history taking a deviant turn; beating him in captivity is plain sacrilegious.
In claiming he has been beaten by the Americans, the dictator may have wittingly sought to prompt a denial from the U.S. Administration, in a bid to cage that Administration in a bind.
Who believes the Americans? asked the dictator in the courtroom.
The rhetorical question closes the trap.
Do Americans beat prisoners? Of course they do, and that’s a fact.
Did they beat the imprisoned dictator?
Well, here are the two possibilities:
1- If they did, then the dictator is telling the truth and they are lying.
2- If they didn’t – as they are clamoring – then it must be because they have deference for dictators. Therefore, very much like the Arabs, they spare figures of authority the degradation they dish out to ordinary pedestrians. Not a very high moral standpoint.
Which of the trap’s two prongs is more damaging?
