Insurgents at the Gate

Folio writes in #48 <<< The arab states and muslims states are not held back by anybody. It`s due to the reasons of history and heritage of the muslim world. The arab states are the successors of the tribal/clan-type monarchies.>>>

That is where you are terribly wrong. The modern ME along with its monarchies was a creation of the Colonials, their division was for the purpose of exploitation and domination, it was not for the purpose of Arab unity or development. Even the most idiotic of historians recognize that, as do the Arab masses, even the former colonials don`t deny is anymore. Otherwise, that ``industrial revolution`` built upon the backs of their colonies, would have easily passed on to this region. Domination in this fashion made sure that they stayed at a resource provider level, haphazardly divided along tribal and religious lines, similar to what the colonials did with much of the rest of the ``non white`` world, even though this non-European world were much ahead of the Europeans in the pre-colonial era in trade, in human rights and in education.

How come we see near equal development in the near middle ages, all across the globe while in the post colonial era we have a few white (former colonizers and settlers) that dominate the economy and the rest of the world is a primary product provider engulfed in deep debt, a theatre of one war after another? The Europeans exploited all discoveries hiterto made, including superior military technology of the Indians (the British borrowed rocket technology from Haider Ali`s forces) and better industrial textile technology that existed there as well which was methodically destroyed by the British to build up their own textile sector. Similarly techniques of distilling crude, manufacturing Kerosine of different grades and welling for its extraction- are techniques that go back to antiquity, mediated later through the Muslims, they were using oil to light up the paved streets of Baghdad, when the Europeans were grovelling in their faeces; these were no new discoveries. Using their dominant position they played one against the other. Industrialization merely consolidated and perfected these for maximum exploitation by those that had enriched themselves.

Whenever the Arabs have showed any tendecy for unity, the West has opposed it. It opposed the move out of monarchy in Iran by conspiring against Mossadeq, it conspired against any attempts to nationalize Arab oil and you know that it will do the same if there is any attempt at unity. The world of today does not work in the fashion you suggest. Countries do not opearate in isolation from the wider global context. You want a graduate of Harvard to compete with a person who is forced to go to an inner city school with broken walls and desks and teachers that themselves have hardly graduated high school? That is the analogy that perfectly describes what the colonials did in the disparity of development. Those two can never compete, the playing field is rigged from the start.

The US elite are not so dumb as to hand over this global hegemony they now possess by tolerating equal transfer of technology and industrialization. They will do whatever it takes, be it politely through domination of trade or extraction of booty (debt financing) or explicity through wars, to maintain the current setup.

Masadi, the more you open your mouth, the stupider you sound. Give it a rest dude and go do something useful. Go back to your Khalifaland and help your people see the light.

........................ we see these aberrations like the echosqueaks and masadis because states like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia which have been `normalizing` Jehadist Islamist ideologies to create citizens who completely believe the state sponsored `truths` about other cultures despite seeing overwhelming evidence against their ideology............. the problem lies with political Islam practiced in Pakistan and UAE............. roll back all these states into secular political entities and you would see how the Islamists would stop running wild all over the globe and the healthy liberal scepticism becoming part of the muslim psyche...............if NEPAL CAN DO IT THEN WHY NOT PAKISTAN AND UAE???

Guys are you listening???

#46 by masadi

[You are entitled to your ignorance. The modern middle east has less to do with corrupt governors, than it has to do with the economic decline of the Area after the British discovered an alternative route to India and the trickery by the European colonials of the indigeneous elite as reflected in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.

They didn`t ``discover`` the oil, they stumbled across it, and considering how important it was in their ``new economy`` and the conduct of war, they practically took over rights to the entire area and have been exploiting it ever since. ]

Which is true. But times have changed. It`s not so black-and-white anymore. In the past, the West did things that served its selfish interests regardless of the cost to others. But now, there is an international audience, and economies are inter-dependent. Even a superpower like the US has to justify and explain its invasion of another country. In the past, they would not even have bothered to explain anything. The situation today is not perfect - many western powers continue in their selfish and greedy tradition, but there is more accountability now. Countries cannot do anything with impunity any more. The world IS changing. It`s far from perfect, but it`s changing.

And if you ask the question - why should the West not have to pay a price for their follies - well - if you notice carefully (I would of course not bring up the kafir theory of Karma on this august forum) - there are prices that these countries do pay for their follies. The British invaded India and did a lot of bad things - today their daughters are marrying into families of Indian immigrants, much to the dislike of their parents. The US traded in African slaves - today their ``pure`` race is mixing with the progeny of those slaves. The US armed the Taliban and looked the other way when Pakistani-trained terrorists killed Indians with impunity - those same terrorists later were involved in 9/11. The list is long. There is always a price to pay.

So relax.

[The US is not interested in democracy in the region.]

Maybe. But whatever their initial motives, they have had to promote democracy to justify their invasion. There is a great opportunity for democracy here.


[Democracy would result in Arab unity, and a total exit of western economic dominance...]

Because the West discovered oil in the Middle East, many Arabs have had a higher standard of living than they otherwise would have had. What is this ``economic dominance`` that you are complaining about? The billions of dollars that the Arabs make selling their oil have come primarily from the West. If the West stops buying oil, how is that good for the ``united Arabs``?

[...and eventual withering away of the state of Israel.]

If Pakistan has a right to exist, then so does Israel. Whether Israel has a right to let in European immigrants into its own country is a different question.


[The US corporate elite would rather drag the US presidents through the streets of Washington than have any democracy in the ME.]

The US corporate elite are only interested in dollars - not about which race/religion attains democracy. A democratic Iraq or Iran would still sell its oil in the world market.

You live in a world where you like to believe this nonsense. I guess this is your passion in life - kind of like a drug. Get out once in a while. Take up yoga (oops - sorry - I meant any other physical exercise). Life is short. Don`t waste it fuming and frothing at the mouth. You`ll get an ulcer and high blood pressure. If you watch world history, you would realize that all this is but a tiny blip on the screen. Times change, cultures change. What seems like a burning issue today seems trivial in perspective a thousand years hence.

Be happy in life. And make people around you happy. That`s all I can tell you.

Krishna _abcd: Justifications/legitmations were going on in the colonial era as well, that is why Christianity and christian missionaries played their perverted role, just because the nature of justification and brutality (from explicit to implict) has changed does not mean it is not going on.

Ballukhan writes <<< ...............if NEPAL CAN DO IT THEN WHY NOT PAKISTAN AND UAE???

Guys are you listening??? >>>

When the hold of institutions that hold power weaken and lose their legitimacy, like they did in Nepal after the murderous rampage of Dependra, then change will similarly occur in those two countries you mention. However the part the US is playing is to strengthen those very anti democratic forces in those two nations to make sure that change does not occur. Your analysis is based on selective amnesia that looks at events, much like Fuzair and the rest of the thugs (Kulharee is a prime example)around here, detached from their socio economic environment, as if they happily occur in a vacuum. Not so.

Re: # 54

``However the part the US is playing is to strengthen those very anti democratic forces in those two nations to make sure that change does not occur. ``

Wow......you mean Mushy couped the democratically elected government on the orders of US?
You mean to say that Mushy exists ONLY because he serves some US fears about Islamist take over of PAki nukes and not because he has an entire population distributing sweets on his successful coup........?

Miyan, look at your own house and set it in order before you accuse the entire neighbourhood of your own short comings!! Your thesis is refuted because it cannot explain why Nepal monarchy could go into the hands of the Maoists but PAkistan dictator has survived so far without any dissent from the PAkistani awaam!!! Does that mean that the PAkistani awaam takes its orders from the US and accepts any dictator who is supported by the US???

#55 ballukhan, not only are you ignorant you are blind as well. Read my answer in #54 again and think about why those changes occurred in Nepal

Dear All!

Thanks for reading and appreciating this article.

A country was needlessly invaded by ``the champions of democracy`` where this country did not merit such a treatment. Countless Iraqi lives were lost, including the two sons of Saddam Hussein, infrastructure, mosques, and schools were crudely damaged in the process.

The worst damage is the stigmatized mind of a person who needlessly lost a loved one and who must live with an everyday agony.

Invading Iraq was one of the worst mistakes the US government has commited to date where it has lost hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers` money.

Pulling all US troops at this stage will be another mistake if it should happen, given the security and current law and order situation of Iraq. A peacekeeping force must remain in Iraq until a stable goverment starts to function, there. The US must bear official responsibility for all the damage it has done in Iraq, formally apologize to the Iraqi people for this blunder, and rebuild Iraq, erect every building, mosque, school, and other it has flattened. And most importantly heal the minds of those whose innocent loved ones were mercilessly killed by the US Army.

And in the interest of self-sustainance, the United States of America must find out the root cause of their mistake of this needless invasion of Iraq, a country that did not harm the US and offer penance in every sense of the term.

And let us all hope and work for prevalence of peace and justice in our world.

Peace!

#57 by epiphany

The US must bear official responsibility for all the damage it has done in Iraq, formally apologize to the Iraqi people for this blunder, and rebuild Iraq, erect every building, mosque, school, and other it has flattened. And most importantly heal the minds of those whose innocent loved ones were mercilessly killed by the US Army.

Has Pakistan borne responsibility for the 3 million Bengalis it killed in 1971? Has it apologized to Bangladesh for the genocide it perpetrated? Has it played any part whatsoever in rebuilding Bangladesh? What has it done to win the hearts and minds of the Bengalis?

Pakis are very quick to shed tears and demand justice for Muslim victims of a non-Muslim perpetrator, but when it comes to non-Muslim victims or where Muslims/Pakis are the perpetrators, there is a deafening silence. Pakistan is another name for hypocrisy.

BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. Pakis have written on everything from Palestine to Kashmir to Afghanistan to Iraq and now even global warming, but not even one on the `71 genocide where 3 million Bengalis were massacred?

# 59 and #58

Harish_hyd,

Your context specific comments relating with this article and its subject matter are most welcome, here.

However, as far as the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is concerned, I am deeply sorry for all lives we have lost be it on the Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani side. Among those killed were people representing many religious traditions.

A Muslim brother named Jamal Hasan wrote a well-reasoned article right here on Chowk in 1999 articulating historical views on the Indo-Pak war of 1971 where many innocent Bangladeshis lost their lives.

You can read it by clicking here.

I did not see your comment at this page. The least you, or anybody else who feels strongly feels for all the lives lost during Indo-Pak conflict of 1971, can do is to leave a condolence note here for all innocents lives lost whether they be Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani.

Also, it is a sign of human maturity not to negatively generalize a nation or a religious creed for the irresponsible actions of a few black sheeps purportedly representing their nationalities or creeds.

Peace!

Re: #60 by epiphany

Actually, harish_hyd makes a very legitimate comment, which you DID NOT disprove by your post. You found only one article. How many articles were there for Saddam Hussain`s atrocities or the Genocide in Bangladesh? Or the murders committed on the innocent Indian villagers by Kashmiri terrorists in India? In contrast, you can find dozens of articles on Chowk about the Iraq war.

It IS okay to generalize, if something is generally true - e.g. if the majority of the people support something. Majority of Pakistanis support the terrorists in Kashmir - this is why the Pakistani politicians and Army have been so gung-ho about it for so long.

# 61

krishna_abcd,

I would appreciate it if you are context specific, here.

However, with regards to your post I find it convoluted and to drive at the gist of your point would need to pursue a little guess work.

I am assuming that your point is about generalization. What does it mean to generalize? You say that most Pakistanis support the terrorism in Kashmir. How do you define ``most?`` Perhaps you could support your accusation using statistics issued by UNHCR, Amnesty International, or the like? Or have you personally interviewed 10 million Pakistanis? What basis do you have to stereotype a nation?

I, for one, would happily accept your claim if you can legitimately prove it or disprove its anti-thesis.

I could argue that since about 80% of Indians are Hindus, all of them hate Muslims because where Hindus revere a cow to the likeness of a mother Muslims butcher and eat it. But from experience I know that some Hindus consume beef and dwell in relative harmony with Muslims.

To work towards peace, as humans we have to understand and respect each others` beliefs. Negatively judging an entire nation, culture, religious tradition based on the bad deeds of a few black sheeps only breeds distrust and hate.

Peace!

#62 by epiphany


[I would appreciate it if you are context specific, here. ]

Don`t get too carried away by that ``context specific``. You may like to use it often, but you have to use it correctly.

Here`s the context for my post:

Harish_hyd said:

``BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. ``.

And you said:

``Also, it is a sign of human maturity not to negatively generalize a nation or a religious creed for the irresponsible actions of a few black sheeps purportedly representing their nationalities or creeds. ``

In other words, you were saying that it is immature of him or anyone else to generalize this aspect about Pakistanis.

So I said:

``It IS okay to generalize, if something is generally true - e.g. if the majority of the people support something. Majority of Pakistanis support the terrorists in Kashmir - this is why the Pakistani politicians and Army have been so gung-ho about it for so long. ``


Now WHY is this not context-specific, eh?




[However, with regards to your post I find it convoluted and to drive at the gist of your point would need to pursue a little guess work. ]

Your saying that it is ``convoluted`` does not make it so.

My point is crystal clear.

Here`s how:

1) Harish`s point is:

[Pakis are very quick to shed tears and demand justice for Muslim victims of a non-Muslim perpetrator, but when it comes to non-Muslim victims or where Muslims/Pakis are the perpetrators, there is a deafening silence. Pakistan is another name for hypocrisy.]

[BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. Pakis have written on everything from Palestine to Kashmir to Afghanistan to Iraq and now even global warming, but not even one on the `71 genocide where 3 million Bengalis were massacred?]


So he is saying that IN GENERAL, Pakis are hypocrites about Muslim atrocities.

And I supported his point by saying:

[Actually, harish_hyd makes a very legitimate comment, which you DID NOT disprove by your post. You found only one article. How many articles were there for Saddam Hussain`s atrocities or the Genocide in Bangladesh? Or the murders committed on the innocent Indian villagers by Kashmiri terrorists in India? In contrast, you can find dozens of articles on Chowk about the Iraq war. ]


WHY IS THIS A CONVOLUTED STATEMENT?


Also, your argument:

[ am assuming that your point is about generalization. What does it mean to generalize? You say that most Pakistanis support the terrorism in Kashmir. How do you define ``most?`` Perhaps you could support your accusation using statistics issued by UNHCR, Amnesty International, or the like? Or have you personally interviewed 10 million Pakistanis? What basis do you have to stereotype a nation?

I, for one, would happily accept your claim if you can legitimately prove it or disprove its anti-thesis. ]


I already gave you the proof. Political parties can only thrive on majorities. Their agendas reflect the thinking of the majority, or they will lose their support. The political parties in Pakistan SUPPORT the Kashmiri terrorists. This automatically indicates that this stance is popular with the majority of the Pakistanis.


WHERE IS MY ARGUMENT ``CONVOLUTED``?


I would suggest that instead of conveniently condemning other people`s arguments as ``convoluted``, you try to understand what they are saying, then try to come up with RELEVANT replies.

Dear All,

I welcome your comments that are topic and/or context specific.

If you have a related comment, suggestion, or query, please by all means write here. Perhaps you may like to interact with me here, please be context specific, professional in your message delivery approach and quote from authentic and recognized sources to either argue further or to prove your point. Also in the process do respect others` beliefs and do not generalize.

In the interest to preserve everyone`s valueable time, effort and human sensibilities, I will not interact to comments, suggestions, or queries that are otherwise.

I do not mean to be rude, but a discussion has to be on the mark and course specific for the hope to giving birth to means for a constructive outcome to occur.

Have a pleasant day!

Peace!