War for Peace

`` studies on the bureaucratization of war in the current political economy, you can read the Power Elite by C. Wright Mills, or the Causes of World War 3 by C. W mills, Character and Social Structure by Hans Gerth and Mills, and Robert K Merton`s Social Theory and Social Structure and countless studies on the bureaucratization of social structure and modern US society. ``

Is that a joke? .....these are all theorists who have their critics and remain a part of the entire spectrum of social theorists from Durkheim to Parsons to Habermas..........you make assumptions which you claim to be supported by the studies of these theorists........that is like saying that the mullahs are right because their assertions are logical inferences from the religious books......when the moot question are the propositions of the religious books..........To say that your assertions is right because they follow from Wright Mills theories is to first accept the proposition that Wright Mills` theory is an established theory ........... as an Islamist you cannot understand the fundamental fallacy in your style of thinking.......

Let me put it this way.......as a subscriber to Pluralist theory (as stated in ``The Governmental Process`` by David Truman) I talk about ``interest groups`` than some creamy elites who control the fate of the modern world and derive different propositions about the reasons for the political situation in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.................if you want to establish your thesis about US Elites causing the Ummah`s miseries........tehn please establish with EVIDENCES than social theories like ``Power Elite Theory`` which itself is questionable!!

So much for the `scholarship` or Mr. Asadi!!!

ballukhan writes in #88 <<< I have been asking for specific studies to back up your propaganda....>>>

Laughable assertion based on your ignorance and not much else (you have been stumped and cannot respond to rebut my arguments so you rely on these cheap tricks), as if all studies should be mere replications of previous studies or based on them. I am trying to write an original paper here based on logical connections to well established facts from recent history, that need no documentation since they aren`t in dispute. If that were the case, and all knowledge was based on ``previous studies``, knowledge would never advance. To check the studies on the bureaucratization of war in the current political economy, you can read the Power Elite by C. Wright Mills, or the Causes of World War 3 by C. W mills, Character and Social Structure by Hans Gerth and Mills, and Robert K Merton`s Social Theory and Social Structure and countless studies on the bureaucratization of social structure and modern US society.

``My thesis is well established in the article based upon indisputed facts that are logically connected to arrive at logical conclusions.``

What BS again ............ How is your thesis established??? I have been asking for specific studies to back up your propaganda......and you talk about ``undisputed facts that are logically connected``........what propaganda!!!

ferozk in #84 <<< American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia by the consent of the king of Saudi Arabia, when he asked the Americans to defend his oil wealth against Saddam Hussein, when the latter had invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 >>>

There are many countries including Pakistan that have asked for US intervention when they needed it but it was not forthcoming. Why Saudi Arabia? You think if the US was not interested in establishing a footprint there, and any amount of begging by the Saudi regime would have made any difference? And even though the desires of the public there were much against it and there was no idication that Saddam was trying to move beyond Kuwait and was even willing to negotiate, the US obliged without a second thought. Absolutely not, the US wanted to establish its presence there that is why it has resisted any popular sentimets to move from there even when the rulers (lackeys of the US) desired for them to move shortly after the Iraq war, news that was quickly hushed by the media.

Then he writes <<< You seem to rail against the western influence, but have not mentioned one word about the Arab nations attitude towards the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, most of the Middle Eastern Arab states were military clients of the Soviet Union ....>>

That had more to do with US support of Israel, and opposition to Arab nationalism. US influence from the oil rich region never vanished during the cold war, and it was this influence that prompted Egypt, the only genuine Soviet ally of consequence in the region, to throw out all soviet advisors by 1972, long before the so-called ``cold war`` ended. The soviets were in no position to challenge US hegemony in the region and never did, they saw an opportunity to form a niche in the region because of Israel but it never amounted to much, the area was US dominated all through the cold war, recognized as such by the soviets.

Then he writes <<< This proved that if the Arab policy was made on basis of morality, they would have shunned to trade with a godless state, but they did not! >>>

I have not argued anywhere in my paper that Arab policy was made on the basis of morality. These regimes are non representative and comparing this complex region and its setup of institutions with Nepal is totally disingenuous. Second, the ``godlessness`` of the soviets has been exploited by both these regimes and the US when they needed popular support for their ulterior motives. If the political establishments and the military in these nations had weakened as had the monarcy in Nepal after the killing rampage of the prince and were not kept strong by external conflicts like the Palestine issue and US help to the autocrats, the masses in that region would indeed rise up. Would the US tolerate such democracy in the region, is the importance of that region to the US similar to the importance of Nepal to the US~ no, you are comparing apples and oranges here.

Ferozk in #85 <<< It seems that you are judging my words without even reading them and that would explain, why your answers to my comments are so off. >>>

Not at all, you have my old article in mind when you are commenting on this one. Both are very different pieces written with different contexts. There is no morality criteria being applied anywhere in this article. It is merely analyzing the situation, regardless of whether it is just or unjust that is made quite clear in this article. You on the other hand have other motives, a blind support of the US elite, sanitized by saying its all good since real politik is defined by what Thomas Hobbes said~ for which there is no logical, moral, institutional or scientific necessity~ there is no truism involved in that except for barbarians; you are the one who is way off.

#79 by masadi on July 9, 2006 6:55pm PT


Does the US not support its lackeys in these Arab nations


Comrade masadi, the next time you fill up at a gas station in the US, remind yourself that it`s your consumption of cheap(er) gas that makes America support pro-US dictatorships in the arab world..

The ``elites`` don`t care about cheap gas really..an owner of an X5 doesn`t bat an eyelid paying 3:20 for a gallon of premium..it`s average joe(and you) who demand cheaper gas..

As it is you are paying taxes that grease the wheels of the American military machine..

re: masadi # 80

You need to read what I write very carefully.

This was the quote:

``Masadi, I will give you a reason why we will always disagree, with one another. You place a moral value on policies, as when you talked about Sykes-Picot pact that divided the Middle East between the European powers. Sykes-Picot pact was an example of realpolitik and hence, there was no morality in it.``

I never said that you mentioned any morality in the Sykes-Picot pact; I said you place a moral value on policies.

It seems that you are judging my words without even reading them and that would explain, why your answers to my comments are so off.

Ciao

re: masadi

Almost forget to reply to this comment.

American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia by the consent of the king of Saudi Arabia, when he asked the Americans to defend his oil wealth against Saddam Hussein, when the latter had invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990.

The Saudis can always ask the Americans to leave; the question is why have not asked the Americans to leave?

America had diplomatic relations, with the House of Saud since the 1930s and since then till it was asked by the Saudis; it had no troops deployed in Saudi Arabia.

You seem to rail against the western influence, but have not mentioned one word about the Arab nations attitude towards the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, most of the Middle Eastern Arab states were military clients of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union was an atheist state and yet, the Arabs were willing to trade with it and buy arms. This proved that if the Arab policy was made on basis of morality, they would have shunned to trade with a godless state, but they did not!

As to the people of these nations, if the people of Nepal could stand up for their rights, what is stopping the people of the Arab lands?

The reality is that the Arabs are a disunited people themselves and cannot organize themselves even to undertake a joint bowel movement even if their lives depended on it! :)

The Arab elite do not want structural changes, because that would be a threat to their own power.

There is no denying the fact that the United States and Europe have a lot to be guilty about but there were others, who were also involved in their guilt and who abetted this sin. You should mention both sides of the argument and then let the reader decide. Afterall, that would be the intellectually honest thing to do and what one would expect from a member of the academic world.

Masadi, United States` economic and political hegemony (a word loved by the socialist theorists of the utopian order) did not start till 1945.

Ciao

#81 ferozk writes <<< Masadi, I will give you a reason why we will always disagree, with one another. You place a moral value on policies, as when you talked about Sykes-Picot pact that divided the Middle East between the European powers. Sykes-Picot pact was an example of realpolitik and hence, there was no morality in it.
>>>


I do not mention any ``morality criteria`` while discussing Sykes Picot, it is place in the article to show the history of the current day hypocritical claim of the neo-colonials that they want democracy in the ME.

#82 ballukhan writes <<< This is nonsense. You have put forward a thesis and YOU need to prove it first before you ask others to provide refuting events >>>

My thesis is well established in the article based upon indisputed facts that are logically connected to arrive at logical conclusions. You on the other hand want to cloud the issues by asking for documentation that is not required~ what kind of documentation do you want for me to prove that US troops are stationed in Kuwait? Appeal to authority is not what I am basing my arguments on, they are based on well established empirical facts connected logically. If I am lying, show me the lie, or refute the article. Hiding behind claims of documentation where documentation would serve no purpose and would provide no scientific credibility whatsoever just shows that you have been stumped. You cannot refute even one point in my piece and that is my challenge to you.

Re: # 80

You are again mouthing propaganda when I ask for specific evidences and studies.

``If anyting I have said in this article is false, provide your evidence.........``

This is nonsense. You have put forward a thesis and YOU need to prove it first before you ask others to provide refuting events...........the burden of proof is not on the readers but on the author making the assertions...........it shows the intellectual honesty that you possess!!!

Re: # 76

Masadi, I will give you a reason why we will always disagree, with one another. You place a moral value on policies, as when you talked about Sykes-Picot pact that divided the Middle East between the European powers. Sykes-Picot pact was an example of realpolitik and hence, there was no morality in it.

I do not think that political agreements, between nations, have any morality to them and neither should one try to judge them morally. International politics is too amoral and it will remains as such for a long time. Your article tries to judge the actions of the Europeans and the Americans morally.

Nations do not base their policies on the questions of morality but on the issues of self-interest. In the real world, which exists outside of the rarified atmosphere of the academia, what matters is the truism of Thomas Hobbes and of the biggest bully on the block. As regretable as this may be, it is the existing reality, which no academic theory no matter how ``lush`` and well documented can displace.

In this sense, it is you who are totally off!

Ciao

ballukhan writes in #66 <<< Mr. Madani I did not know that you supported theories and theses which do not have any empiricial studies to substantiate itself........ >>>

The articles on my site that are written as papers are fully documented and lush with empirical studies. This idiot, ballukhan has not read any of them, cannot approach them in literary merits but merely throws out distractions like ``propaganda`` without being able to counter a single claim. It is like Bill Oreilly asking the person he`s debating to show him whether Saudi Arabia is located in the Middle East or at the south end of Latin America. That is how smart ballukhan appears when he asks for me to document whether the stationing of US troops as attack forces in Kuwait amounts to support or lack thereof by its rulers of the US. Further he does not have any clue about the scientific methodology. Theorising cannot operate without empirical analysis in sociology. It is not philosopy where the person uses his mind and logical connections. The work of C.W. Mills that I have quoted most often is full of empirical analysis based upon the time he was writing, I merely extend it using current documented pheonomenon. If anyting I have said in this article is false, provide your evidence, otherwise shut up.

ballukhan, #78, get off this thread, you have nothing to add to the discussion or to counter what I say, simply blurting out ``propaganda`` does not prove anything. Countering facts by saying ``please show us`` just will not do, everytime I open my mouth, I don`t have to follow that up with books and webpages that document that. Does Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia not station US troops, have US troops not used those points to attack another Arab nation, that posed absolutely no threat to the US. Does the US not support its lackeys in these Arab nations, does it not provide massive AID to the non democratic regime in Egypt and ensure in a very public manner that it supports the regime in SA? Do the Arabs according to every survey research conducted to date, not support democracy and distrust and detest the US dominating their economies and its support of Israel?

By strengthning the militaries in these countries, setting up lucrative business deals with them. The US has a long tradition of supporting autocratic regimes all across the globe, like the regime of the Shah of Iran who was fulfilling much the same role as these Saudi royals while it conspired against any attempt at unity by Nasser or democracy in Iran by Mossadeq. In Latin America it did the same thing. If the US was pressuring the Saudis for democracy and helping their opposition, it could be readily achieved. It will not because the US does not want democracy in the region. These are facts, I will not do your homework for you, if you have been asleep for the past decade or so, do some readup on it.

There is zero propaganda in my writing, the facts that I use, if not documented are widely known truisms or the various treaties etc are provided for people to check up. Hiding behind slogans like you are, proves nothing, it only shows that you are a damn idiot who has no clue about anything.

``ignoring the 1001 others that reveal US hegemony in the area``

Please state those 1001 other things that reveal the hegemony?.

``keeping the rulers in Kuwait, UAE and SA in power through various mechansims is totally true``

Please tell us about these mechanisms.?

``Surveys show otherwise, ``

Please tell uis about WHICH surveys you refer to?

``.........whole tradition of manipulation of the political process, ``


Please tell us about which manipulations you refer to ??

..........putting half baked conspiracy theories and buttressing them with claims like ``surveys show...`` or ``there is evidence to show....`` or ``research has proved...`` in the garb of `scholarly` replies is the biggest propagandist FRAUD that we can see from Mr. Asadi.........only a bigot would be taken in by his propaganda............

#75, behram, not only is your article irrelevant on this thread, it is based on deliberately clouding the issue by giving prominence to a group of lunatics and thereby clouding the real issues. Sectarian ``religious`` violence by the IRA is similarly brushed aside by the article by terming it ``political and secular``- and even the rhetoric of the lunatics among the Muslims has a history and that history is rooted in political and secular problems, having nothing to do with religion.

This is exactly what I mean by bigotry and raw hate that Behram and the Hindus display on here. They will try to bend and mold articles to deliberately divert the discussion to Islam and then use their dim wit mentality to attack it, either copy pasted, as in this article, or garbled up from age old crusader arguments- that represents their own caricature of Islam rather than what Islam really is.

Behram get the hell away from this thread if you don`t have anything relevant to say.

#68 ferozk writes <<< US economic dominance of Muslim lands was made possible by Muslims themselves. Muslims are not as weak as they think or wish to be; afterall, these same nations, whom you say are exploited were able to unify and force the oil crisis upon the west in the 1970s.

If there was a will to say ``no`` to the US and west in 1970s, where is that will now and today? >>>

That `no` happened to be what was desired by these elite at the time, given the short time the embargo lasted. It happened to be extremely profitable and as contingency plans, according to documents recently released the West had plans for forcible seizure of the oil fields if need be. The ``no`` had no backbone to it, it was merely symbolic, otherwise it would have produced structural effects and more independence in the Arab lands and a move towards unity. It accomplished none of these.


Then he writes <<< The point is that Arab and Muslims rulers can resist the US and West, if they wish and their failure to do so, has nothing to do with the US or the West`s exloitive policies >>>

It has everything to do with the disparity of power and their support (in by positive and negative incentives) by the US given the non-representative nature of their governments. Move back in history and follow through how the colonials have dealt with that region and te amount of surplus they extract from it. You all blame Muslims for the lack of democracy in that region while at the same time recognizing the non representative nature of their government which are strengthened through external crisis if not actual military domination. These two claims don`t connect. That area is totally dominated by the US and throwing in one incident in the 1970, which achieved no change, while ignoring the 1001 others that reveal US hegemony in the area, does not prove a single thing.

That the West is keeping the rulers in Kuwait, UAE and SA in power through various mechansims is totally true. Do you think the public, if a people`s government were to come to power there would allow them to be used as US military satellites or would allow US companies to dominate their economies? Surveys show otherwise, on the other hand do you think the US will tolerate any disruption of the profits of their corporations and their hegemony in that region? Absolutely not and they have a whole tradition of manipulation of the political process, even using indigeneous military leaders to ensure that the setup that favors them is respected. You are totally off on this one.

Dear Masadi:

It appears that the following article is quite appropriate in this forum. Some of your power elite questions are being answered by this writer.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2261812,00.html

No offence, imam, but we must call it Islamic terror
Michael Portillo

After the terrorist outrages of July 7, 2005, most Londoners have continued to travel by bus, train and Underground. They are more vigilant, but few seem to experience anxiety about a repeat attack during their journey. That is remarkable because objectively the chances of another massacre must be higher than a year ago.
Last year the bombs were the first shock. The second was to discover that the terrorists were suicide bombers and British. We could have coped with the outrage more easily had the murderers been foreigners, raised in squalor, brainwashed under a theocratic dictatorship and shipped here to massacre people for whom they had no kindred feelings.

It is more plausible that we could defend the country against an exterior threat than defeat one that comes from within. We can hope to monitor comings and goings at our airports and to keep tabs on people who stand out because they are visitors. But the task is almost hopeless if the perpetrators live among us. If four young men who had enjoyed the advantages of life in Britain decide to kill themselves and as many others as possible, then why should there not be 400 or 4,000 more?

Once we understand that, we feel less safe. Also, things have got worse over the past year. Although there has been no anti-Islamic backlash it seems that many British Muslims feel victimised by the authorities’ response to terror. They think they face discrimination when stopped and searched. The bungled police operation in Forest Gate has become an emblem of supposed repression.

Even peace-loving Muslim spokesmen feel obliged to give credence to the perception that their community is being unfairly harassed. It causes some young Muslim men to withdraw further from a British society claimed to be hostile. At best that surrounds the terrorists with a penumbra of disaffected Muslims who may not condemn their crimes or denounce their murderous plots. At worst it enlarges the pool from which new bombers can be recruited.

It is there that Al-Qaeda has scored its greatest success. More significant for the long term than the bombs is the impact that terror has in dividing the groups that make up our society, and in increasing the appeal of militancy to those who can be duped into seeing themselves as repressed.

Muslim complaints about being victimised are perversely directed. Muslims are victims of the bombers, not of the state or the police. It is the terrorists who make Muslims potential objects of suspicion and fear because the bombers murder in the name of Islam. Muslims have every right to be outraged, but their fury should focus on the men of violence. The police action in Forest Gate was cack-handed and the shooting of one of the “suspects” was indefensible. But given the profile of the terrorists, Muslims are bound to be more affected. By analogy, when police are looking for a rapist they interview males without anyone believing them to be institutional men haters.

There are those who in the interests of community relations denounce linking the word Islamic to “violence” or “extremism”. They object that we did not call the IRA “Catholic terrorists”, nor do we speak of “Christian extremism” or link Christian fundamentalism to violence.

There are good reasons for that. Although the IRA is rooted in the Catholic community, its aims are political and secular. Although there certainly are Christian extremists today, just now they are not murdering people in the name of purifying the world. By contrast, across the globe human beings are being slaughtered in large numbers by Muslims quoting from the Koran and vowing death to infidels, including other Muslim sects. Their objectives are political and religious.

So to try to condemn the expression “Islamic violence” is a dangerous attempt at censorship that would hamper our understanding of the threat we face. The term is certainly offensive to Muslims, but the offence is caused by the bombers, not by those who describe the process.

Last week Tony Blair caused a furore by calling on Muslims to do more to control, denounce or deliver up the men who preach and practise violence. Some Muslim spokesmen said that was a divisive remark that stigmatised Muslims instead of recognising that the problem was one for British society as a whole.

The prime minister’s exhortation was valid. The bombers are not casualties of British society. Shehzad Tanweer, the Aldgate murderer, was only 22 yet left £121,000 after tax. The bombers’ grievances cannot be bought off with more money for schools or a new youth centre. They were corrupted, I assume, by theoreticians of annihilation from within their community. Their training was probably perfected in an Al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan.

Abdur-Raheem Green is an imam who believes that he preached to some of the 7/7 murderers and hopes that nothing he said encouraged them. When asked last week whether he would turn over to the authorities young men who were moving towards terrorism, his answer was ambiguous. He argued that it would be better for him to dissuade them rather than denounce them because that would risk creating further alienation. That is not the response that Blair, speaking for most Britons, is seeking.

There is another disagreeable ambiguity when some spokesmen link terror to British foreign policy. Anas Altikriti, the director of the Islam Expo (now taking place at Alexandra Palace in north London), wrote last week: “We will not stand for our country and people being terrorised nor will we stand for our government terrorising any other peoples.” That is presumably a reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. What does “will not stand for” mean?

Even Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, a brave opponent of the fundamentalists who argues that the Koran does not authorise violence, calls on Britain to reappraise its foreign policy. In many Muslim minds, apparently, terrorism in Britain has to be understood (even if not condoned) as a reaction to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The chronology undermines that argument. The allied invasion of Afghanistan was a response to the terrorist murder of nearly 3,000 civilians in New York and Washington. No serious figure denies that Al-Qaeda organised the crime from its bases in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Iraq is a more controversial case. It has become a mess. But relatively few Iraqis died when we invaded and overthrew their genocidal dictator. The vast majority of Muslims who have been killed since have been murdered by other Muslims — by Al-Qaeda, by Sunni and Shi’ite extremists or by Saddam Hussein loyalists. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq and a Sunni, urged death to Shi’ites whom he described as poisonous snakes and atheists. Al-Qaeda is determined to destroy the West, but in the short term most of its victims will be Muslims in any place where it can topple their government to replace it with a regime as repressive and homicidal as the Taliban’s was.

Many British people object to Blair’s foreign policy. But only Muslim suicide bombers claim it as a justification for murder. In Tanweer’s videotape released last week he links his crime to Afghanistan and Iraq. But just in case anyone is tempted to think that Britain could avoid terrorism by withdrawing from those countries, Tanweer also calls on us to end our military and financial links with America and Israel. The United States was attacked in 2001 not because it had invaded another country (except to save Muslim lives in Bosnia), but because it is rampantly secular and supports Israel’s right to exist.

If the drifting apart of the Muslim and non-Muslim communities in Britain has increased the danger of terror, it follows that reconciliation and integration would make us safer. I do not mean what I write here to exacerbate the divisions in any way. Rather I believe that we can move closer if we are more honest about what is happening. Mayhem is being unleashed globally in the name of Islam. There is no point denying it, especially since most of those butchered have been Muslim. The British state is not the problem but part of the solution. A tolerant society can survive only if it bands together to suppress intolerance because we are all victims of that intolerance.

Every Briton must join in that effort, no ifs, no buts and no excuses.

---

Respectfully submitted,