History Oscar Wilde

It is not about how it is documented, it is about what is documented. I do not agree with Wilde one bit. History has to be made to be written. Though there is importance to those who write it down, there would be nothing to write if it wasn’t for people like Napoleon, and Hitler. Authors can not pick up guns and fight wars, while soldiers might not be able to right as well as the “Wildes” of this world, there is always a normal way of recording historical events.
Wilde claims that his job is more important, but Historians write with a sense of bias, that could easily manipulate history into something is never was. For centuries history was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, so how are the writers more important? Stories then were twisted and turned to suit the speaker, and in this case, stories are manipulated by the author. While an Indian text book talks mainly about the good of Pakistan, a Pakistani one talks about India stealing all Muslim glory. Any author writing about an event will write with a sense of bias, but this was, the historic figures’ true nature, motives, and actions are often not revealed.
There is another way to learn history, but there is only one Hitler, one Gandhi, one Woodrow Wilson, and one Nelson Mandela. We talk about the historians, Steepan Lee, Andrew Ebert, Oscar Wilde, and so many more. If one is out of stock at a book shop, there is always another author we can pick up. When Hitler died, was there another man who was written about? Yes, these authors make it easy for us to learn about history, but if they dint, a movie would, or an auto-biography, in the case of Che Guevara music. There are different ways of passing history on, but there is a man in history, and while these authors distort that man’s views, they can not replace that man, and not even by a long shot can they are taking history’s importance and place. They write, because men sacrificed their lives, invariably giving them something to write on. No event, no book, as simple as that. It is not the interest on him a historian writes the past, but the event in past that we the knowers are interested in, and indeed the Wildes help us in that too.

CIA report

There is always an ethical issue that rises with interrogations. "Is is ethical to use force on a suspected terrorist?" If the methods used to break a terrorist inflict terror themselves then what is the difference between the good guys and the bad ones? The again a terrorist has no conscience so will guilt and words ever work? Do terrorists deserve to have their rights, or should they be hurt int he same manner that them hurt others. This issue can never really be resolved for the arguments are strong for both sides, and the most compelling arts to the stories of these tortures are that they are always accompanied with a great deal of emotion. This emotion influences the listener making them unable to reason out without bias.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.