Must Reads on the Middle East

You could add Beverly Milton-Edwards` ``Contemporary Politics in the Middle East`` and ``Islam and Politics in the Contemporary World`` by the same author to the list.
Sujata Ashwarya Cheema

``After a decade of killing, torture, disappearances and mass arrests, Latin America`s military crushed the Marxist ``terroristas``. Military regimes eventually gave way to democratic governments which, in the 1990s, began prosecuting military officers for crimes committed during the ``Dirty War``. General Pinochet, who, ironically, opened the way for democracy and prosperity in Chile, became the icon of military brutality.

The same ``dirty war`` process has been happening in the United States since 9/11. That attack, a massive criminal-political act, quickly led to a militarized response. President George Bush ordered US armed forces to invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, and attack Muslim militants and Mujahideen around the globe.

FBI documents recently revealed by the American Civil Liberties Union show the White House apparently gave the military and intelligence agencies carte blanche to use any means, including torture, to crush Islamic militancy. Many senior Latin American officers have been jailed or now face prison for massive human rights violations. Having been ordered to win the dirty wars, no questions asked, they are now paying the price for the shame and guilt felt by their homelands for using illegal tactics against Marxist rebels that were almost as vicious and murderous as those used by communist regimes against their opponents.

Senior members of the White House, Pentagon and national security agencies should think hard about the last ``war on terrorism``, how it corrupted Latin America, and brought patriotic, well-meaning soldiers and politicians to be charged as war criminals.

So should Pakistan`s security establishment as it wages its own ``war on terror`` against fellow Muslims. FBI agents, who are trained in law, wrote to the Pentagon and White House to protest torture of Muslims they witnessed in American-run prisons.

They were clearly preparing for the day when those in Washington who authorized torture and murder are brought to book.``(Eric Margolis)

---

Like Pinochet -- one day George Bush and his lawless gang of four -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Wofowitz -- will be dragged out -- by this law abiding country of Jefferson and Washington -- to the docks -- to stand trial as War Criminals for Crime against Humanity -- before this sordid American decade of murder and mayhem against an innocent country -- ends in ignominy.....

Fighting erupts in Fallujah as refugees return; three Marines killed in action.
NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, December 23, 2004

(12-23) 10:05 PST FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) --

U.S. Marines battled insurgents in Fallujah on Thursday, with warplanes dropping bombs and tanks shelling suspected guerrilla positions in the heaviest fighting in weeks, erupting as the first residents returned to the devastated city. At least three Marines were killed in the area, the military said.

Fallujans lined up in cars and on foot at checkpoints, brandishing documents to Iraqi police to show they had the right to re-enter the city. Once inside, they returned to the remains of bombed-out and looted homes, some with bodies still inside from weeks of fighting.....

But the new fighting highlighted that the city is far from completely tamed....(AP)


Abhay Mehta was not kidding.....

Fallujah -- by Abhay Mehta (Contd)

Now if these were not only repulsed, but perhaps defeated, it leads to something that ought to be examined more carefully.

Despite being flattened (perhaps about 12,000 to as much as 20,000 homes out of an estimated 50,000 razed) by the application of, as US Army Gen. John Abizaid put it, ``more military power per square inch than anybody else on earth``.

Curiously, the US general then very very strangely goes on to add: ``If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.``

Oh. Let me contemplate the nuclear capability of the US. Never mind. It is a bore.
So?

The General also said, when talking about generating ``more military power per square inch than anybody else on earth``.that ``every one knows it``. Oh. The words of the General--the mightiest general of them all--Commander Centom, do not appear to have been heard. At least, the Iraqi resistance has not heard them.

The mightiest military machine ever in world history with the mightiest firepower the world has ever seen has been mightily trying to capture Fallujah. But no luck so far.

Instead the Americans faced an opposition that broke the back of the assault. Instead of ``breaking bone by bone`` and crushing ``the backbone of the insurgents``, it seems to appear that the same has been done unto them as they were planning to do unto the resistance.

At the peak of the assault, the Americans held no more than 35-40% of Fallujah (largely the north on or around the 18th of November) Thereafter, they appear to have been steadily repulsed and in fact the coalition forces currently have been repulsed to where they were on November 13th or thereabouts and to the outskirts of Fallujah.

Now consider the fate of the rest of the occupation. It is in tatters.

The mightiest military in the world cannot control an 8 km stretch of road, perhaps the single most important road in all of Iraq – the Airport Road from the center of Baghdad to the airport.

The purported troop concentration is 120 soldiers per km of a open road and despite that the Australian defence minister could not even make it to the green zone and simply flew back from the airport.

Unlike Vietnam, where the American were largely in control of the cities for most parts (save Tet, and even there complete control was not lost), the US/UK garrisons are isolated in the middle of a hostile population.

They cannot even traverse a km or two out of the `green zone``.

Their supply convoys have come to a standstill over the last month and a salvage operation of re-supplying by air has started over the last 10-12 days. Air supplies are limited and there is no reason to believe that these can be significant (a max of 400 tonnes a day, slated to rise to 1600 tonnes a day against an estimated minimum 20,000 odd tonnes needed daily to keep a force of 160,000+ fed, watered, armored and resupplied).

The 300 mile long supply line is toast. Well, at least any thing dark, metallic, armored or otherwise. (4000 pounds of armor on a humvee that can carry a max load of 5000 pounds) Can it move? And even that is not helpful – in the words of the great military strategist, Rumsfeld, circa Dec 04, even tanks blow up. Why bother at all?

Against the most heavily armed opponent in the history of War, Fallujah has still not let itself be ``taken`` to date (As of 20th Dec, 2004).

Falluah and indeed the rest of Iraq post April 2003, heralds ``supersymmetrical`` warfare and the end of conventional warfare. This represents a turning point in military affairs – the end of warfare--as practiced by the Americans i.e the application of overwhelming force to obtain a victory.(Outlook)

In reply to #47 by anzar

``bunch of youth brought up on the street after having lost their family at the age of 11. ``

Will you also sympathise and rationalise with those Israelis whose relatves/friends have been killed/maimed by Palestinian human bombs or gunmens. Will you just consider it a natural reaction by them to kill and harm Palestinains? If yes, then instead of them IDF is taking care of it.


``Say you belonged to an ethnic/relgious group X and live in country C. Someone goes around killing/persecuting other members of X who live in countries A and B. I am sure you, in country C, will at some point think of the following, even if not in the same order:

* why are people being killed/persecuted in country A and B?
* why are these people members of group X only?
* so am I or my family next now in Country C? ``

Well there can be an exact opposite to this scenario like,

Say you belonged to an ethnic/relgious group X and live in country C. And people belonging to this group are having problems all over the globe in countries like A, B, D, E where they are in sizeable population. Not only one country but several of them are looking at what is wrong with these people. X don`t want to enter the mainstream they want their own religious identity, their own customs, their own system of justice. And now, countries P, Y and Z who also have sizeable X population wonder whether this they will also face this kind of problem.

So you see it all depends on your perspective. Also, for your situation there is an answer. If X feel marginalised and persecuted they can definitely go to the countries which are created for them or where they constitute more than 90%.
i think the Ummah should facilitate it through OIC.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Personally, I would expect more logic and cool-headedness from a democratically elected parliament run by seasoned grey-haired politicians rather than a bunch of youth brought up on the street after having lost their family at the age of 11. Which party do you think is more prone to `brainwashing`?

Even if one of these fighters were to start thinking logically what political options do his occupiers give him? This applies to other occupied territories as well.

Here is a spine-chilling Mother of all -- ``must reads`` -- titled -- Fallujah by Abhay Mehta -- an unembedded Indian journalist writing from Falluja Iraq.

``Fallujah per se, on the face of it, is not a strategic or a militarily significant target. It however represents the ``great challenge`` to the US/UK`s military occupation of Sovereign Iraq since April 2003.

In the first siege of Fallujah in April 2004, the Iraqi Resistance inflicted a severe defeat on the Americans. In April 2004, while over 1,200 Iraqis were killed, blown up, burnt or shot alive by the Americans -- two thirds of them civilians, mostly women and children -- while 2,000-pound bombs were falling on the the city, AC-130 Spectre gunships were demolishing entire city blocks in less than a minute and of course silence of the plop as Iraqis targeted by marine snipers hit the ground, nonetheless the operative portion remains: the Marines were beaten back in no uncertain terms. This was followed by a ``truce``.

The truce did not hold for very long.

This humiliation of the American military was spun as a ``strategic retreat`` but the desire to get rid of the ``weeping sore that Fallujah was`` has been on top of the US agenda since then. Fallujah represented a ``stellar act of defiance`` one that allowed the resistance to ``actually secure and control a city, and to beat off the US military``

The second formal large scale assault on Fallujah (Nov./Dec 2004) pitted images of the world`s most powerful military force against fighters in tennis shoes, wielding homemade rocket launchers.

There were three declared tactical objectives. The first was to either kill or capture the Jordanian born ``terrorist`` ``Abu Musab al-Zarqawi`` (if indeed he exists) and to ``battle and destroy some 4000 to 5000 suspected fighters``. The Americans also vowed to ``liberate`` the residents of Fallujah from ``criminal elements`` and to ``secure Fallujah`` for the January elections.

Lastly, it appears an additional declared tactical/political objective of the American Military`s task was to engage in a ``fight of good versus evil``. Additionally it appears (presumably per their intelligence reports) that the mission also was to ``destroy`` ``Satan`` since it appears that ``he lives in Fallujah``

On the face of it, it appears as if none of these tactical/military objectives have been met, including, it appears, the desire to presumably meet Mr Satan, resident of Fallujah.

As for the other very laudable and rationally quantifiable objectives including that of stuffing democracy into a city by simply obliterating it, all of these seem to be a bit astray.
48 hours into the offensive, the official narratives were filled with reports that Zarqawi (if indeed such a entity exists) may have ``slipped outside`` of their perimeter defenses.

This of course left Mr ``Satan`` still in residence together with the rest of the unfortunate inhabitants of the ``militant stronghold``. The city of 300,000 residents had perhaps an estimated 40,000 civilians left per the US military. Since this estimated number included 5000 resident ``militants``, one can presume that the rest (per the US military) would be civilians.

The actual civilian count remaining in the city on the 8th of November is around around 60,000 to as much as 100,000 since males between the ages 16 and 60 were disbarred by the US military from leaving the city.

One can also infer the most vulnerable--the poor, the old, the women, children and the sick--continued to reside in their city in significant numbers -- of the order of 40,000+
With the ``target softening`` bombing raids that killed a few hundred civilians in the first week of November, the first formal target of the US military armored assault was doctors and the nurses. These were the first to be eliminated as these were ``legitimate military target`` and since ``insurgents`` were ``forcing the doctors there to release propaganda and false information``.

The assault has left as many as 10,000 civilian dead--perhaps much much more . The Red Cross/Red Crescent estimate was upwards of 6000 as of November 25th. Till date no formal Red Cross/Red Crescent operation has been allowed in the city.

What the images of Phantom Fury did not convey is that this assault is the largest concentration of heavy armor in one place, since the fall of Berlin. This was the first time since World War II that ``an American armored task force`` has been turned ``loose in a city with no restrictions``.

More to the point, the force of as much as 20,000 soldiers (12,000 to 17,000 American/coalition soldiers, about 2000 odd Iraqi ``National guards`` and perhaps 1000 odd peshmergas) were supported by an estimated 1100 to as much as 2000 armored vehicles and tanks. Air support was largely carrier based out of the gulf and B-52`s from bases outside of Iraq.

The armor alone represents the heaviest ever concentration of armor since the fall of Berlin (1945) in one place against a single military objective.
Phantom Fury was officially underway on the 8th of November and declared to be a sweeping victory on or about the 15th of November.

Thereafter the military communiqués and the press reports have been limited to occasional deaths in the ``Anbar province``. That all of Fallujah is under ``coalition`` control since then i.e on or about November 15th 2004. Since then detailed stories on Fallujah in the official narrative have stopped completely or refer to action/discoveries between the 8th and the 19th of November 04.

There is no evidence of what has transpired save intermittent but very very regular losses attributed to ``pockets of resistance`` in the ``Anbar Province``. And, yes, reportage on the brand new movie on Fallujah starring Harrison Ford.

Now for a moment, consider the substantive anomalies in the official discourse. Consider one such example- Satellite Imagery of Fallujah (block by block including ``after action``) available to the media till the 15th of November and carried in graphic detail day by day from the 8th of Nov. through the 15th stopped abruptly. There are no explanations.

There are no satellite pictures of Fallujah available in the public domain after November 15th.

Or consider that the Red Cross/Red crescent has not been allowed to enter the city in any substantive manner. Today is the 20th of Dec and it has still not been allowed.

Or consider another break in the regular stream of consciousness. No reporter has set foot in the city or after the 22nd of November.

A ``Great Victory`` like this and no footage?

These anomalies are noteworthy. Therefore it is very unclear whether this is indeed the case or, as a matter of fact, the converse is.

Fallujah has not been taken. Not only has Fallujah not been taken, but the coalition forces have staged several retreats and are now confined largely to the outside of the city.

The Iraqi resistance is currently in control of most of the city and have forced back at least three of the largest armored assaults in recent history.

In fact, one can make a claim that this was the largest series of armored assault ever. The objective is 16 sq km and if one were to normalize over time and term for incremental intensity in firepower that this represents, then these are historically unprecedented...

..(to be contd)

---

A bit of what Farzana would call nit-picking here. Do we HAVE to refer to the Middle East? Surely the more PC (politically correct, for those who came in late) term should be, especially for us South Asians, West Asia? The Middle East is a colonial term. Remember Said and Orientalism?
And how about trying to separate ``factual`` analyses from pieces that are meant to be read as fiction? Of course, the postmodern/new historicist view doesn`t distinguish between the two, but I guess the discussion here is hardly postmodern!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

42/anzar
//...you don`t like a Muslims calling thmselves an Ummah...you don`t want one sticking out for his brother.//

Personally, I don`t care. All I am saying is that - for us non-muslims, this so called ``brother-hood`` of muslims doesn`t make any sense.

Any case - if you think this so called ``brother-hood`` works for you folks - then go ahead. But quite clearly - it doesn`t work. Actually, it works to your detriment. That`s why I said ummah doesn`t exist and it shouldn`t exist.

But some folks [bin laden etc] are desperately trying to create such a brotherhood - hence there are lot of brain-washing going on all around. Many people from different countries are falling prey to such a illusory ideology and flying planes into building under influence of a mistaken belief that they will gain heaven by comitting suicide.

+++

//..you have no problems when ``a palestinian is getting wrong end of the stick``?..//

Nope - Why should I? I mean - if I, a hindu, ever gets the wrong end of stick from anybody - would palis or other muslims help me? I don`t think so. So I am just an observer here............ As far as I am concerned - arabs and jews are two tribal people who have been killing each other for thousands of years - and they will continue to do so into foreseeable future. It`s in their bedouin blood. Nobody can help these folks.

#39 by arjun_m

Thats exactly true: because anyone can be X you can fit anyone into the equation.

Answer a simple question:

Say a guy blows himself up killing many people at a resturant. Now which one of the following seems to be a logical and cool-headed step towards ensuring this never happens again:

A) Bull-dozing that guy`s house, killing his mother and daughter who couldnt move out in time and thus turning his son and brother into time-bombs.

B) Finding out what was bothering him so much that he chose to abandon his family and end his life, and solving that problem to make sure no one else takes this wrong and violent step again.

Don`t you think following (B) will ensure you a peaceful future?

`US, India and Israel`, being the innocent victims of senseless terrorism that they are, want their homes and businesses safe from the threat of terrorism. They should make sure the people who have turned violent get what is rightfully their`s.

++
you`ve just justified the clash of civilizations....
++

How can you still think the `clash` is yet to come?

#40 by mohar11
++
Why should muslims born and brought-up in UK fly a plane into buildings because a palestinian is getting wrong end of the stick?
++

Please read #38. And remember its not just Palestine; Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Gujrat, Kashmir and so on: I`d say that`s a lot of sticks and a lot of wrong ends.

++
Ummah is a fiction - it doesn`t exist.
++

Is it really? What`s all the hype about then?

++
Regarding your conclusion that muslilms behave like a group thats true, and is a good reason to keep them in check.
++
(Netizen, #34)

#40 by mohar11
++
This should change.
++

Let me get this straight: you don`t like a Muslims calling thmselves an Ummah, you don`t want one sticking out for his brother.

But you have no problems when ``a palestinian is getting wrong end of the stick``?

anzar
//Because for them Allah matters more than motherland. ......This always has been the case and it always will, I`m afraid. ..//

You are talking as if this is a fait accompli. It doesn`t have to be that way. Why should muslims born and brought-up in UK fly a plane into buildings because a palestinian is getting wrong end of the stick?

This should change. Ummah is a fiction - it doesn`t exist.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Someone has recommended me a very nice book which I have bought today, called A Peace to end All Peace written by David Fromkin.

The critically acclaimed New York Times bestselling account of how the modern Middle East came into being after World War I, and why it is in upheaval today

I have taken the liberty of picking up the synopsis of the book from Amazon.

Quote

In our time the Middle East has proven a battleground of rival religions, ideologies, nationalisms, and dynasties. All of these conflicts, including the hostilities between Arabs and Israelis that have flared yet again, come down, in a sense, to the extent to which the Middle East will continue to live with its political inheritance: the arrangements, unities, and divisions imposed upon the region by the Allies after the First World War.

In A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin reveals how and why the Allies came to remake the geography and politics of the Middle East, drawing lines on an empty map that eventually became the new countries of Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. Focusing on the formative years of 1914 to 1922, when all-even an alliance between Arab nationalism and Zionism-seemed possible he raises questions about what might have been done differently, and answers questions about why things were done as they were. The current battle for a Palestinian homeland has its roots in these events of 85 years ago.

Unquote

It has 77 reviews on amazon with a near 5 stars which is really remarkable.

Malik sahib, I never questioned abot the validity or unvalidity of the book since I have never heard about it. I just mentioned Henry Ford`s bias against Jews.

mbzisphahani

I understand your logic, and find your responses interesting. However u end by writing

Quote

mbzi will take them on - canada /Libya

Unquote

Why would u take on Canada and Libya, only if u r passionately angry with them which means
1. Either they have really done something bad.
2. Someone or you yourself have convinced yourself (Brainwashed) that they have victimized you, but reality is different.

Noone will create terror for the sake of creating terror.

#32 by Netizen
++
Hence unless and untill there is some level of trust and a committment to peace, its not going to stop.
++

Like I said before, you and I are thinking on the same lines. I also agree that no party is willing to step back from their current position. We both see the problem.

Where we differ is the solution: If we pat one party on the back and say `Go on son, you have every right to defend yourself` and handcuff the other and label hem as terrosrists and fanatics: how will that bring peace?

#34 by Netizen

++
These become a jihad only when the opponent is a non-muslim.
++

Let me give you a scenario, then I`ll come to the point you`ve put here.

Say you belonged to an ethnic/relgious group X and live in country C. Someone goes around killing/persecuting other members of X who live in countries A and B. I am sure you, in country C, will at some point think of the following, even if not in the same order:

* why are people being killed/persecuted in country A and B?
* why are these people members of group X only?
* so am I or my family next now in Country C?

You can fill in X with any proper name: not just Muslims, everyone will feel threatened if they are faced with the same circumstances.

Coming to your point: when a Muslim differs with a Muslim, the reasons are mainly political: they will choose the wrong path and fight and kill each other. Other (non-involved) Muslims don`t see this as a threat to their sovereignty as they know the issue is political and has nothing to do with their own ideology. What they will do is point out to each party their faults and tell them to stop fighting. However generally they will not get involved physically.

But when they see Non-Muslims (of different ethnic origins) attacking/terrorising Muslims at different points in time and space:they see a pattern; they do feel threatened. Hence the urge to step in and take action: legal and acceptable to the rest of the world or otherwise.


++
Because for them Allah matters more than motherland.
++
This always has been the case and it always will, I`m afraid.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

MIDDLE EAST and the OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Most of the middle east was under Ottoman rule. From Basra to Casbah, the faithful were ruled by corrupt Ottoman Governors, while across the Bosphorest canal age of reason and Guttenberg were rampant. A lot of the current middle-eastern problems are blamed on colonial rule, but no blame is placed on 400 years of ottoman rule. Can any of you well-read gentlefolks can comment why?

In reply to #30 by anzar

``But there is a basic flaw in trying to put fire out with more fire.``

This ``more fire`` could be a Israeli missile targetting a Hamas leader (or a bulldozer destroying house of a suicude bomber) or a Palestinian suicide bomber/gunmen.

``Wouldn`t it be more logical to get rid of the fuel that ignites the hatred? ``

I guess everyone understands that but the problem is who is willing not to reiterate to missiles or human bombers. Any kind of cease fire or reconcilliation will be seen as a sign of weakness. Thats the problem. Can anyone guarantee no attacks from Hamas/Fatah for no Israeli missile attack? Even Arafat could not. Also can Israel not inferfere or humiliate Palistenians?
Hence unless and untill there is some level of trust and a committment to peace, its not going to stop.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In reply to #30 by anzar

``The suicide bombers (that you do hear every other day) are `bothered` about how Muslims around the world are being dealt with: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine, and the list goes on. Muslims like to be recognised as a group wherever they live, despite the seemingly deep political divisions between them. You just cannot keep impaling one without hearing at least a moan from the other side. ``

The problem with these kind of muslims are that they have taken koran literally. They still believe in the Dar-ur-Islam. For them when the opponent is a non-muslim, invoking islam comes in handy as it can always gather cooperation and sympathy from fellow muslims. I wonder why there was no moans when millions of muslims got killed in Iran-Iraq war or when Turks killed Kurds or Pakis killed bengali muslims or in the present case Darfur killings. These become a jihad only when the opponent is a non-muslim.
Regarding your conclusion that muslilms behave like a group thats true, and is a good reason to keep them in check. Because for them Allah matters more than motherland.

Jai Hind

#28 by arjun_m

The Hutu and Tutsi conflict in Rwanda was a war between two nations. The Rwandans have no point to make if thery start blowing say the US citizens up in suicide attacks. The US did not do anything to suppress the right of any party.

The suicide bombers (that you do hear every other day) are `bothered` about how Muslims around the world are being dealt with: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine, and the list goes on. Muslims like to be recognised as a group wherever they live, despite the seemingly deep political divisions between them. You just cannot keep impaling one without hearing at least a moan from the other side.

++
Madrassahs in Pakistan funded by saudi arabia create the terrorists...time to shut them down..no indoctrination, no terrorists...
++

I don`t think anyone from Palestine is allowed to Pakistan or vice versa. Who`s sponsoring their desperate fight for justice? The IRA never had a local branch in Pakistan. They never recruited any Muslim teachers. Don`t believe the ETA was ever here either. Does that mean they can have `terrorists` off their list of attributes then?

And who trained the Mukti Bahini? (another example of terror breeded by injustice).

Rise and shine.

#29 by Netizen
++
There are excesses from both sides. Its a vicious cycle which will never end without firm commitment
++

Hear hear! Absolutely! I will never pat any suicide bomber on the back. Killing women and children (being done by both sides, mind you) is absolutely wrong.

But there is a basic flaw in trying to put fire out with more fire. Wouldn`t it be more logical to get rid of the fuel that ignites the hatred?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are very crude anti-semitic propaganda created by the Okhrana, the old Tsarist secret police, in the late 19th century. They have been so thoroughly discredited that even Henry (NOT Harry) Ford published an apology in his newspaper when this was made known to him.

You can accuse the Jews/Israelis of many things about Palestine BUT this piece of trash is nothing but a third rate piece of libel, ranking right up there with blood sacrifice and other lies about Jews.

NB/ Shergill - Is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion really a fiction? Then how about a book recommended by author, whose description reads like a Wall Street Journal report on a mutual fund:

Burke`s account obviously benefits from a lot of frontline research and he gives us insights about the shadowy organization that are original specially his view of them being more a commissioning house on terror, a sort of Venture Capitalist fund stewarding many bombing projects with the help of `talent` that comes calling with novel ideas of mayhem.

The only thing left out here was assigning a ticker symbol to Al-qaeda.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In reply to #24 by anzar
Your reply seems to be more specific to the middle east crisis. Whereas my reply was more general in nature. Personally I think it will be a very long time before things will be normal. India has its own insurgencies and problems to deal with. The best policy will be to be neutral. There are excesses from both sides. Its a vicious cycle which will never end without firm commitment.

Jai Hind

malik99:

1:...do you consider that best book a work of fiction or non-fiction?...
2:...are you conspiracy buff?

rgds,

t

ps:

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I believe that Mr. Ford was a strong Anti Jew, so I am not surprised that he offered to pay for publishing and distribution of this book.

Terrorists are people who have a very strong sense of injustice done to them. It has nothing to do with their being rich or poor. However if they are unemployed or aimless in life, it is easier to brainwash them and give them a direction and purpose in life, which to them is correct and for the majority of us is wrong.

Mao said it aptly when he said `Power flows from the barrel of a gun `. This principle has been well understood by the terrorists.

Malik 99,
I can`t believe you, The Protocols of The Elders of Zion is fiction, and vicious fiction at that. This is why things will never improve, that some Muslims and Nazis think it is the truth.

#20 by arjun_m
I don`t think anyone believes the Saudis who were allegedly in the planes that brought the WTC down were protesting against anything happening in their owm country. Like you said:

++
a lot of these men were studying abroad.....
++

Could there be some international issues bothering them? Or is that too far from the sand for the learned head?

Killing the terrorist will only strengthen the resolve of others and make MORE terrorists. Address the route cause: solve the problems turning school children into suicide bombers. Give peace a chance.

#21 by Netizen
++
when you cannot win peace on your terms, it could lead to terrorism.
Also, when you cannot win conventionally, it could also cause terrorism.
++

Very true: when you cannot live on your terms in your own homeland, when you, a majority, are forced to live on the terms of a dictating minority: there is no way you can win peace on your own terms.

Convention just goes out of the window when your entire family goes to sleep one night and is bull-dozed or bombed into smitherines, unannounced.

Kind of unjust, don`t you think?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In reply to #19 by anzar
``Terrorism is born from the womb of INJUSTICE``

Not necesaarily, when you cannot win peace on your terms, it could lead to terrorism.

Also, when you cannot win conventionally, it could also cause terrorism.

#11 by arjun_m
+++
So poverty DOESN`T cause terrorism...It`s most Islamist indoctrination that creates terrorists....
+++

Here`s something you don`t know: Terrorism is born from the womb of INJUSTICE. If you dont like a tree, cutting its branches is not the solution; uproot it.

Regards.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Hmmm....Interesting selection of books!

There is one book author neglected to include in his ``recommended`` list. If you REALLY want to understand middle east and its challenges, I recommend THE BEST BOOK ever written about a people currently inhabiting middle east.

The book is called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You will find that this book will give you a context of the root cause of some of the issues facing the middle easterners today. This book was highly recommended by Harry Ford - yes, the founder of the Ford motor company. In fact, he put his own money in publishing this book in US and distributing it in 1910s.

Unfortunately, today you won`t find this book in Barnes & Noble (don`t you just hate book banning?!!) You will have to invest some time in finding where to get it from. I heard it is on on internet as well - u just gotta look for it.

However, just be careful. Possession of this book in US may result in you getting thrown in jail on anti-semitism charges (don`t u just hate when the freedom to read is violated?!!).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

i`ve read half your reading list and will definitely try to get my hands on the other two, but i must say that nothing i`ve read so far has surpassed Edward Said`s brillinat memoir `Out of Place` - a de facto history of the Palestine/ Israel conflict.

Arjun,

Rhetorical question...

Prof. Lewis: what went wrong?

I think slapping the label of being `pro-Zionist ergo anti-Muslim` on his work is a bit facile, since it is quite scholarly (in form, at least).

Reading his book isn`t entirely a waste...it`s actually quite informative. Where Prof. Lewis goes terribly wrong is when he tries to draw links between contemporary conflicts in the Muslim world (or even it`s state of regress) to events that happened centuries, or even a millennia, ago. That is to say, the body of his work is quite good...it`s his conclusions that are borderline ridiculous.

Hey Arjun miaN thanks for -- ``here`` -- btw r u a CrytpCom sheep parading in the NeoCon wolfskin.........:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Do people realize that nearly every single Middle East country ranks higher on the Human Development Index than Pakistan and India. India in the last index ranked 127 out of 175. Pakistan ranked 144. These indices lag by three years(?) or so. So Pakistan will have moved up somewhat in that time, but still not much.

The highest in the Middle East is Bahrain, which is 37th in the world. Followed by Qatar, which is 44. Kuwait at 46. UAE at 48. Libya at 61. Saudi Arabia at 73. So on and so forth.

Even Palestine is at 98.

The only Middle Eastern country, under Pakistan and India is Yemen. I believe every other one is higher or much higher. Maybe the Middle Easterners should be recommending books about South Asia to read.

Interesting mix of books, maybe I shall wish to borrow some from you some day soon . . .

My view is that it needs to be a mix of books plus travel plus meeting people plus most of all trying to understand the traditions of the masses (of that area).

I mean, reading on economics and history does give you a handle but your own perspective needs to be re-aligned with a view on travel + tradition. Very often, the tradition speaks a different language than the history.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

this is quite an interesting list of reads. in addition to this, we would be grateful if you can provide a list of books on the history and the making of current day politics and society in the middle-east.
-bilal

Ah our St. Bernard Lewis -- an Islamic Scholar par excellence -- well I wouldn`t give too much credence to Rabbi Lewis `insight` into the Midle East Muslim`s Madness -- where the Religious State of Israel and the Zionist Zealotry are innocent invisible bystanders to non existent mute interlocutors....

A Jewish scholar on Islamic affairs for the dumb Christian readers! -- is not unlike an Israeli wolf in Wolfowitz sheepskin leading the Zionist Zihad to `democratize` a secular Iraq into an Ayatolla la la land.....for Moshe Sharon`s Judea and Samaria...

+++
1. What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle East Response
2. Jihad vs McWorld: Terrorism`s Challenge to Democracy
3. Al-Qaeda, Casting a Shadow of Terror
4. Mullahs, Merchants and Militants: The Economic Collapse of the Arab World
+++

When I`m looking for an honest and unbiased views on the issue, these don`t exactly sound like the names I`ll be attracted to.

It is interesting to note that the books recommended are by zionists known for their bias and prejudice against the people of that region. Here is a retort to what went wrong by B. Lewis. Read the whole link by Prof. Shahid Alam but I will copy the part about what went wrong.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0629-Bernard.html

What Went Wrong?

In an earlier era, before the Zionists developed a proprietary interest in Palestine, the least bigoted voices in the field of Oriental studies were often those of European Jews. Ironically, Lewis himself has written that these pro-Islamic Jews ``were among the first who attempted to present Islam to European readers as Muslims themselves see it and to stress, to recognize, and indeed sometimes to romanticize the merits and achievements of Muslim civilization in its great days.`` At a time when most Orientalists took Muhammad for a scheming imposter, equated Islam with fanaticism, thought that the Qur`an was a crude and incoherent text, and believed that the Arabs were incapable of abstract thought, a growing number of Jewish scholars often took opposite positions. They accepted the sincerity of Muhammad`s mission, described Arabs as ``Jews on horseback`` and Islam as an evolving faith that was more democratic than other religions, and debunked Orientalist claims about a static Islam and a dynamic West. It would appear that these Jews were anti-Orientalists long before Edward Said.

These contrarian positions had a variety of motives behind them. Even as the Jews began to enter the European mainstream, starting in the nineteenth century, they were still outsiders, having only recently emerged from the confinement of ghettos, and it would be scarcely surprising if they were seeking to maintain their distinctiveness by emphasizing and identifying with the achievements of another Semitic people, the Arabs. In celebrating Arab civilization, these Jewish scholars were perhaps sending a non-too-subtle message to the Europeans that their civilization was not unique, that Arab achievements often excelled theirs, and that Europeans were building upon Islamic achievements in science and philosophy. In addition, Jewish scholars` discussions of religious and racial tolerance in Islamic societies, toward Jews in particular, may have offered hope that such tolerance was attainable in Europe too. The discussions may also have been an invitation to Europeans to incorporate religious and racial tolerance in their standards of civilization.

Yet the vigor of this early anti-Orientalism of Jewish scholars would not last; it would not survive the logic of the Zionist movement as it sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Such a state could only emerge as a child of Western imperialist powers, and it could only come into existence by displacing the greater part of the Palestinian population, by incorporating them into an apartheid state, or through some combination of the two. In addition, once created, Israel could only survive as a military, expansionist, and hegemonic state, constantly at war with its neighbors. In other words, as the Zionist project gathered momentum it was inevitable that the European Jews` attraction for Islam was not going to endure. In fact, it would be replaced by a bitter contest, one in which the Jews, as junior partners of the imperialist powers, would seek to deepen the Orientalist project in the service of Western power. Bernard Lewis played a leading part in this Jewish reorientation. In the words of Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis ``came to personify the post-war shift from a sympathetic to a critical posture.``

Ironically, this shift occurred when many Orientalists had begun to shed their Christian prejudice against Islam, even making amends for the excesses of their forebears. Another factor aiding this shift toward a less polemical Orientalism was the entry of a growing number of Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, into the field of Middle Eastern studies. The most visible upshot of these divergent trends was a polarization of the field of Middle Eastern studies into two opposing camps. One camp, consisting mostly of Christians and Muslims, has sought to bring greater objectivity to their study of Islam and Islamic societies. They make an effort to locate Islamic societies in their historical context, arguing that Islamic responses to Western challenges have been diverse and evolving over time, and they do not derive from an innate hostility to the West or some unchanging Islamic mindset. The second camp, now led mostly by Jews, has reverted to Orientalism`s original mission of subordinating knowledge to Western power, now filtered through the prism of Zionist interests. This Zionist Orientalism has assiduously sought to paint Islam and Islamic societies as innately hostile to the West, modernism, democracy, tolerance, scientific advance, and women`s rights.

This Zionist camp has been led for more than fifty years by Bernard Lewis, who has enjoyed an intimate relationship with power that would be the envy of the most distinguished Orientalists of an earlier generation. He has been strongly supported by a contingent of able lieutenants, whose ranks have included the likes of Elie Kedourie, David Pryce-Jones, Raphael Patai, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer. There are many foot soldiers, too, who have provided distinguished service to this new Orientalism. And no compendium of these foot soldiers would be complete without the names of Thomas Friedman, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Judith Miller.

In my mind`s eye, I try to visualize an encounter between this distinguished crowd and some of their eminent predecessors, like Hienrich Heine, Abraham Geiger, Gustav Weil, Franz Rosenthal, and the great Ignaz Goldziher. What would these pro-Islamic Jews have to say to their descendants, whose scholarship demeans and denigrates the societies they study? Would Geiger and Goldziher embrace Lewis and Kedourie, or would they be repelled by the latter`s new brand of Zionist Orientalism?

---

As for books on the region, I would urge readers to look here if they want to get an honest and intellectual and historical perspective abot the ME.

http://www.middleeastbooks.com/html/books/b-arabisraeli-title.html

http://www.middleeastbooks.com/html/books/b-islam-title.html

and also visit this site from time to time to get a balanced view of happenings in the ME
http://www.wrmea.com/

Where is Rahul Mahajan?

I am not sure how good Bernard Lewis is, i found him singularly lacking in perspective. Turkey is NOT the middle east and his basic assumption that turkey is the middle east makes his entire analysis seriously flawed.

Secondly, the UNDP Arab Human Development Reports are excellent reading.

finally, books which lump the middle east into one bucket miss out on serious and important nuances between countries. The issues facing saudi, tunisia, libya and iraq are far too different. There is, frankly little that is common across these countries.