The Human Dimension of Wars

Ferozk in # 211 <<< Germans were held accountable in the Second World War due to the policies of Adolf Hitler, an Austrian >>>

Adolf Hitler, unlike the rag tags the US is on an official war with, had control of the machinery of the state, including its military and economic apparatus and was legitimized by its form of government (unlike the hijackers to whom 9/11 is attributed). I have yet to read of a single case where any country has placed sanctions or declared war on another because of crimes committed by non state actors, which they have not linked with the state of one country or another, post WW2. Whenever such things have occurred, the state of one country tries its best to manufacture or link those actors with the state apparatus of the other.

Regarding Islam and the ummah, the same case can be made for any religion, because religion functions as a glue to enhance belonging and social solidarity, I know of no religion that seeks to make its identity subordinate to non-religious identifiers, regardless of what that religion might be. In fact non religious identities have been linked with the religious to give them legitimation.

National identity serves the same purpose today as religion did in the past, which has for the most part been relegated to the background where this national identity is well developed. The national identity of Muslim lands, in the post colonial world are quite blurry given the abnormal fluid nature of the nation state and quite underdeveloped, that is why you see the Islamic identity supercede it in some (not all) Muslim lands, this has nothing to do with Islamic doctrine otherwise we would see uniform results of national/vs religious identity all across the Muslim world, which we don`t. Further, the fact there is sectarianism reveals that there is no such thing as an all encompassing Islamic identity, rather it is used and abused for various motives, economic and political.

Understanding the ``method`` behind the ``madness`` (or barbarism in this case) does not mean that we legitimize the madness or say that any attempt to break through its rationalizations is ``weakness``

Re: HP # 191

HP, thanks for waiting for this reply.

The identity of the individual in the international arena exists and whether, we wish to label them under the banner of a national identity or a regional identity, the fact remains that they have an identity. It is all together a different question, whether we agree with that label or not. An Arab cannot be from any country as you have stated, because in Islam, the concept of national-political identity in the example of a Westphalian model does not exist. Islam; specially the concept of Ummah does not allow this possibility to exist, which is why the vast majority of Muslims will think of their religious identity, as their defining trait, before their national or political ones and to a Muslim mind, the idea of an Ummah will supercede all other ideas. Since the concept of Ummah encompasses both a political and a religious ideal, the identity of a Muslim, as that person judges the equation, will be always religious which in turn defines his/her political identity. Therefore, an Indonesian will be a Muslim first and then an Indonesian second and s/he cannot be an Indonesian first and a Muslim second, because Islam does not allow any characteristic to subordinate it in any sphere of a Muslim’s life.

It would be un-Islamic to be an Indonesian Arab first and not be an Indonesian Muslim first.

I disagree, with your statement that a state’s actions are based on facts/arguments. If your statement were to be true, then it would pre-suppose the proposition that the state’s decision would be based on a rationale. This is what I was arguing, when I stated that rationality is a perceptional value and it will differ and some times, even irrational acts have a rational logic, to those making them, which makes them rational. In case of the United States’ government, it is a perceptional assumption that it is a rational government and thus, its acts would be based on facts and evidence. This may not be the case as the example of Iraq proved, because the United States’ government had the facts but they choose to ignore those facts since the evidence did not compliment their perceptional interests in regard to Iraq. The facts from the very early stages of the crisis with Iraq stated that a military invasion of Iraq would be a disaster, but the United States’ government opted to ignore that advice and still invaded Iraq on arguments, which had nothing to do with logic but with the ideology of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.

In fact, it not only ignored the facts but it twisted the facts; the reality to support its own world view on Iraq. Thus, it does not matter what the real facts were as much it matters whether a “rational” government is willing to accept those facts or not. Hence, the irrationality of the American government’s actions towards Iraq were based on its own rational perceptions, as you rightly stated on its own politics, which then made them rational, but which were seen as irrational by the majority of the people in the world.

As to Nuremburg laws, the point is still valid. Germans were held accountable in the Second World War due to the policies of Adolf Hitler, an Austrian. The implication of the Nuremburg laws was that crimes under international law take importance over the nationality of the individual committing them. I can understand your point of view, but if that were true, then Pakistan should not be held accountable for the actions of Dr. A. Q. Khan, because he too, as claimed by the government of Pakistan, was acting alone and independently. However, Pakistan is held accountable for the actions of Dr. A. Q. Khan.

Why?

Why, because this was the legal precedent of the Nuremburg laws, which stated that states are responsible for the actions of their citizens, when and if those citizens undertake actions, which has the potential to jeopardize international peace and international security and citizenship is decided by the passport one carries and this fact does not mitigate reality whether one wishes to accept that identity or not or wishes to identify with an ethereal concept as a Muslim Ummah.

HP, I am not being emotional as you have wrongly assumed. The point of this debate, which realistically should not existed beyond a few interacts, was that I was playing the devil’s advocate and arguing against the grain for express reason stating that the justification of an act lies in its success and not necessarily in its acceptance as the right course of action. I agree, there is a detailed hierarchy through which evidence must be shifted and filtered before it can take shape of a policy decision, but in all of this process, we have to be mindful that such decisions are not always reached on the basis of logic and evidence. Occasionally, these filters and hierarchical processes are ignored, when key individuals, making critical policy decisions, wish to substitute their own personal perceptions and interests in place of logic and evidence cast aside the well established rules for making a policy decision and make decisions outside of the “rules and regulations”. In such a case, it does not matter how intelligent decision maker or how well scripted is the process for making a decision, because the flaws in it and its own internal weaknesses are determined by the quality of the people, who exist within a “system” of decision making and are responsible for making the decisions.

The most impeccable decision making process can be undermined by the most intelligent, most educated and most informed people if they wish to ignore the decision making guidelines and this is just what happened in Iraq vis-à-vis the American invasion of that nation.

Does this make the act rational? No, off course not; but to those making the choice, it does because they are convinced that their choice is the most logical and rational one. In order to understand the rationality of an irrational act, we have to understand the mind which makes such an irrational choice and not the mind, which rejects such a choice.

My friend, international relations/politics are like the mind of a serial killer. To us, certain policy choices may not make any sense, but there is a method to its madness. We should pay attention and try to understand the method of the madness and not reject the madness, because we do not agree with its methods! (lol)

Ciao

re: HP

I had written a reply to you, but apprently it did not ``go through``. I will re-write it again and hope that this time, it gets posted.

Ciao

Re: # 35

Maybe he just ``internalised`` your writings? ;))

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE23Aa01.html

LONDONISTAN- BOOK REVIEW

This time the crocodile won`t wait
Londonistan by Melanie Phillips Buy this book

Reviewed by Spengler

``The appeaser hopes the crocodile will eat him last,`` said Winston Churchill. Today`s crocodiles may not be so patient.

Opposing voices in 1938 rang lonely and shrill, and just as shrill today sounds Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips in her portrayal of an emasculated Britain ashamed of its own national identity and anxious to appease the ``clerical fascism`` of the jihadis. That will change, perhaps even before the print is quite dry on her new book.


{{{{{{{{{{{{{She warns that

the West faces a religious war with Islam. I concur, and recommend Londonistan as indispensable background. }}}}}}}}}}

Britain, Phillips warns, is reaping what it has sown. A large minority of British Muslims are disaffected at best and seditious at worst. Phillips cites a 2004 Home Office survey finding that 26% OF BRITISH MUSLIMS FELT NO LOYALTY TO BRITAIN, 13% SUPPORTED TERRORISM, and about 1% (up to 20,000 BRITISH MUSLIMS) WERE ``ACTIVELY ENGAGED `` IN TERRORISM or support for terrorism.

Another poll found that 32% of British Muslims agreed that ``Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end``. In the event of a violent collision between the West and Iran, for example, civil conflict might arise in Britain on a scale resembling that in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

{{{{{{{{{{Phillips accuses British security services with complicity in the gestation of a terrorist apparatus in London. Her documentation of overt terrorist activity centered in London is exhaustive, and raises the question of why the open scandal was tolerated. }}}}}}}}}}}}Saudi, Algerian and Egyptian requests for extradition of suspected terrorists were refused, and Arab diplomats vented their frustration over British recalcitrance in public.

A cynically narrow concept of national interest guided this policy, she argues, charging that MI6 (Military Intelligence Section 6, now officially known as the Secret Intelligence Service) believed ``that if the Islamists were being left undisturbed to conduct their activities on the assumption that they would not then attack Britain``.

But that can explain only part of the story, and Phillips searches for deeper causes of


{{{{{{{{{{{{Britain`s cowardice. ``Denial`` is a recurrent theme.}}}}}}}}}

...........



She cites an unnamed ``foreign intelligence source`` as follows:
During the 1990s, many attempts were made to enlighten the British about what was happening. But they refused to see this problem as having a religious character. If this was a religious problem, it became a religious confrontation -

Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. Encounter Books: New York 2006. ISBN: 1594031444. Price: US$25.95, 213 pages.

re#201 by masadi on May 23, 2006 9:15pm PT
{{{{Amnesty International released its human rights report today. Here are some excerptsfrom their press release (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100182006) }}}

Amnesty International is the world`s biggest terrorist organization..........it fights for the

freedumb and ``human rights`` of Islamic and Communist terrorists but ignores and gives a

damn for their victims........Becasuse of this blatant hypocrisy except amongst the Islamic

terrorists and Communists .it has no credibility whatsoever

---

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18291


In contrast to its incessant attacks on America, for at least the past 10 years Amnesty has give a pass to the world’s worst human rights violator: Kim Jong Il’s North Korea. In 1995 a story broke in the Los Angeles Times about the extent of North Korea’s death camps and the extraordinarily large percentage of the population that was imprisoned in them. (At any given time Kim Jong Il holds an estimated 300,000 prisoners out of a population of approximately 22 million.) Prisoners are sentenced without trial, executions are frequent, human beings are subject to experimentations with poison gasses, slave labor is common, there is no medical attention for the prisoners, and starvation is rampant. Prisoners are worked, often to death, in so-called ‘economic zones’ under slave conditions, and are forced to do extraordinarily heavy labor in mines, roads, and tunnels without proper equipment or adequate food. They die unmourned and lie in unmarked graves..........


..................................


................................A bit of background may show some of the reasons why Amnesty International is willing to expose nits in the eye of the United States but overlook logs in communist dictatorships abroad. The US executive director of AI, William Schultz, has been with the organization for several years. He was influential in rejecting the 1995 North Korean defector’s testimony. Schultz is also reported to be affiliated with groups such as the Unitarian Universalist Association that was extreme in its condemnation of South Korea during the 1970s and 1980s but mute in any judgment about the brutality occurring north of the DMZ in the evil twin, North Korea. Many of his colleagues have visited North Korea, celebrating such occasions as Kim Il Sung’s birthday and enthusiastically participating in seminars on the ‘Juche Ideology.’

echoboom: #205 the key word is ``should`` in your post, and this makes the rest of your learned discussion on the etymology of jihad incomplete and irrelevant for all practical purposes.

So, when the etymology of the term ``gay`` is brought up to date, it is obvious that today it means nothing more than homosexual. Similarly, regardless of history, when you bring the etymology of the term ``jihad`` up to date, it means nothing more than inciting (as I wrote earlier) frustrated or merely stupid youth with routine sermons about the ``oppressed kashmiris`` or the ``oppressed palestinians`` and by the demonization of other communities of people.

HP:
we are talking about arabic language & its use--& not about Islam or christianity.
Any non-muslim would also use the word Jihad for crusade & Harb for war. Even Bush`s war in Iraq is called Bush`s Jihad in arab newspapers.

So the etymological way, jih`d, is correct ( the arabic thalaathi mujjarrad root system) as far as its origin is concerned but whatever meanings assume the currency-of-trade are always the ``true`` meanings. Notwithstanding the spin put on this word--by all & sundry to exploit any situation;Mullah Brezinski did it to the hilt when he felt proud wearing Mujahideen attire.

Jihad is to protect one’s faith and one’s human rights. Jihad is not a war always although it can take the form of war. Hence I wrote Quital as sub-sets. Jihad is an all-encompassing, generic, word.

Ghizvaas are raids & the use of that word is specific to the Prophet`s battles (pbuh)

or to put it in another way:
Jihad , as struggle, should never be for selfish exploitive oppressive Imperial designs.


Like migrating to US cannot be called ``Hijrat``--although , etymologically, that is exactly what it means: migration.

re: HP

First of all, thanks for a very insightful and an interesting post to my comments. Also, please allow me to commend you on another brilliant post to Hamidm2 on the nature of jihad. I am complete agreement with you on the issue and would simply add that the legitimacy of a modern nation state is based on its war making powers. Unfortunately, there will always be wars of aggression and the weak will be victimized, but as you said it yourself; that is the reality of our world.

I am presently correcting final exam papers and thus, do not have time to write you a thoughtful response. I will answer your comments and questions but when time permits me the affordibility of doing them justice and I do not wish to rush through them simply for the sake of answering them.

Incidently, given the nature of this discussion which is very interesting and educational, I feel that interacts and counter-interacts will continue to get detailed, and I was wondering would it okay if I divided my response to you in parts, so as to avoid writing long posts?

In any case, I will reply to you time permitting.

Ciao

HP writes in #202 <<< Asadi,
Please don’t use words like nonsense for Feroz. He is a very intelligent and educated poster. You can argue with civility and he will listen to you. He doesn’t have ego issues and would readily accept when he is not a 100% right on some issue. >>>

I have still to determine that given his comments. Based on his reaction to my article, dismissing it as , and I quote
<<< This article is another pathetic attempt by the weak to justify being weak and beyond that, is meaningless. ``>>> (end quote)

This was neither intelligent nor civilized. As we saw he had not even read the article when he made those comments, and he rejected it in totality as ``meaningless``. Later he concluded that it was no more than an ``anthology of quotations``. It was in the context of these comments that I reacted to what he posted as ``nonsense`` when I didn`t agree with it, which is quite mild compared to his comments.

On the other hand, Jihad signifies ``struggle`` or ``striving``, it has no relation to war except as an interpretive meaning. The idea of struggle itself implies that there are forces imposing upon you that you are trying to struggle against. It does not mean you undertake aggression, so those who are saying that Jihad is an aggressive holy war of expansion or conversion are wrong. Aggression is also explicitly forbidden by conditions set in Quran 2:190

#193 by echoboom
“Jihad & crusade specifically relates to the establishment or protection of the Lord`s /Allahs sovreignty on earth.”
#196 by echoboom
``al-jihad:
Harb, fi sabeel-uDeen``

Echo, Arabic was not invented by Mohammed. The Quran was not the first book in Arabic. So the word Jihad is not some word that came to Mohammed in ghaar-e-hira. The word existed way before the prophet and if the Islam did not exist before the prophet, then the word jihad just means war like perhaps many other words in the Arabic language that could mean war. Arabic is a rich language and it may have synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms like in the English language. Throw out the dictionary that tells you that jihad only means the holy war. I am not a linguist; I hope someone steps in to find the origin of the word.

I have a theory as to how the word jihad became holy jihad. The word was rarely used in the Arab history. (The wars during the prophet’s lifetime were called Ghizwah Like ghizwah e badr and ahad.) In the subcontinent, in the Urdu, and Persian literature before the 19th century, the word jihad did not appear commonly though it is one of the five basic tenants of Islam. In the late 19th century, Both Deoband and the Barelvi School of thoughts came to dominate the Muslim life. Since the early 20th century, the word started showing up in the Urdu literature. Both schools ran away with perhaps the Quran term “Jihad fi sabeel ullah” and kept expanding on it. Jihad became an attractive enough political word for the mullah in the sub continent due to the British occupation and the opposition to it among the Indian Muslims. Mudoodi used it in some of his books and then the hordes of uneducated and gumrah maulvi began to compete for the turf.
(Note: I am not familiar with all Arabic or the Urdu literature but whatever I have learnt shows me that jihad was hardly ever used in both languages until the 19th century.)

The word resurfaced immediately after the communist take over in Afghanistan. The first opposition to the afghan communists came from the secular, pro Daud and pro king Zahir shah elements. But when the pak army and the Jammat Islami joined hands with afghani jamaat Islami, the jihad passion took over the tribal belt. The Secular opposition was sidelined and the mullah took over and since then we are dealing with these uneducated, uncouth and besharam maulvis.

So the holy jihad is not an Arab promotion but was promoted by the Muslims from UP and especially of the two gumrah schools of thoughts in UP. I hope Indians shut them down or burn them in some pyre so we Pakistanis are rid of another curse from India.

Mullah talks abt jihad fi sabeel allah often but jihad fil alim deen is not a priority at all.

Asadi,
Please don’t use words like nonsense for Feroz. He is a very intelligent and educated poster. You can argue with civility and he will listen to you. He doesn’t have ego issues and would readily accept when he is not a 100% right on some issue.

Amnesty International released its human rights report today. Here are some excerptsfrom their press release (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100182006)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE

AI Index: POL 10/018/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 125

Embargo Date: 23 May 2006 10:00 GMT


Report 2006:

World`s poor and disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

(London) 2005 was a year of contradictions in which signs of hope for human rights were undermined through the deception and failed promises of powerful governments, said Amnesty International today as it published its annual report.

Speaking at the launch of Amnesty International Report 2006, the organization’s Secretary General Irene Khan said that the security agenda of the powerful and privileged had hijacked the energy and attention of the world from serious human rights crises elsewhere.

``Governments collectively and individually paralyzed international institutions and squandered public resources in pursuit of narrow security interests, sacrificed principles in the name of the ``war on terror`` and turned a blind eye to massive human rights violations. As a result, the world has paid a heavy price, in terms of erosion of fundamental principles and in the enormous damage done to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people,`` said Ms Khan.

``Intermittent attention and feeble action by the United Nations and the African Union fell pathetically short of what was needed in Darfur,`` said Ms Khan, referring to a conflict that claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions, and in which war crimes and crimes against humanity continue to be committed by all sides.

Iraq sank into a vortex of sectarian violence in 2005. Ms Khan warned: ``When the powerful are too arrogant to review and reassess their strategies, the heaviest price is paid by the poor and powerless -– in this case, ordinary Iraqi women, men and children.``

Israel and the Occupied Territories slipped off the international agenda in 2005, deepening the distress and despair of Palestinians and the fears of the Israeli population.....

Revelation after revelation exposed the extent to which European governments have been partners in crime with the United States, defying the absolute ban on torture and ill-treatment and by outsourcing torture though the transfer of prisoners to states such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Syria, which are known to practise torture.

``Double speak and double standards by powerful governments are dangerous because they weaken the ability of the international community to address human rights problems such as those in Darfur, Chechnya, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and North Korea. They allow perpetrators in these and other countries to operate with impunity...

``Just as we must condemn terrorist attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms, we must resist claims by governments that terror can be fought with torture. Such claims are misleading, dangerous and wrong -- you cannot extinguish a fire with petrol,`` said Ms Khan.


``The political and moral authority of governments will be increasingly judged on their stand on human rights at home and abroad. More than ever the world needs those countries with power and international influence -- the permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as those who aspire to such membership -- to behave with responsibility and respect for human rights. Governments must stop playing games with human rights,`` declared Ms Khan.

---

You all can draw your own conclusions.

Dost-mittar:

Jidal & Quital are the two words which have been most often used in the Qura`an as the sub-sets of the arch-compassing word Jihad.

Jidal has the following connotations: wrangle, argue, debate, discuss, bring the nemy to see your point of view etc ect.

Quital: bloodshed. killing. getting killed etc etc.

correction to #198:

I meant two Arabic words for `war`.

echoboom#196:

Thanks!

Actually, I had found two Arabic words for jihad - harb and qital. I used `harb` as I was familiar with the term.

HP writes in #191 <<< The political terminology for the stateless actors is used when an act is committed by a group that is NOT politically affiliated with a country or a state as a political entity. It is not synonymous with nationality or religion >>>

Well stated, I would say that the US elite have been lop sided in their ``rationality`` even given these criteria. When it became expedient for them they used the terminiology of ``unlawful combatant`` regarding Gitmo etc to circumvent the Geneva convention and when they needed to attack Iraq, they were busy linking those stateless acts as if they were state sponsored. Taking ferozk`s nonsense argument, when Timothy McVeigh brought terror against the US, and was a carrier of the US passport (just like some of the Taliban warrirors were), the US should have bombed Michigan or declared war on itself. Rationality and reason are not relative, given facts, truth and logic. If they are relative and if anything goes than what is the point behind writing those dozen paragraphs that ferozk has written. You cannot use logic to prove that logic is worthless, you cannot use morality criteria to prove that all morality is relative. The mullah`s use just such argumentation and that is a major reason why the masses, dependent on them are in the miserable condition they are in. Ferozk is undertaking the same function, acting as a higher mullah to the educated, in order to deceive them away from clear thought.

And Hamidm, you have no clue about Jihad or any religiously inspired war in the current era. Talking about Israel and the Arabs and attributing religion to the conflict is one of the most absured conclusions anyone can arrive at. The cause of the conflict is the occupation, it is a political conflict. If I implant someone in room #3 of your house and cut off access to room #2, and cover it up with a whole series of checkpoints and enforce them by force of arms, while encroaching by throwing their stuff (settlements) on room #2 and #1, you would be pretty upset too. And if you try to counter that armed occupation, and the outsider says, he is acting out his religion and undertaking a holy war, they would be just as idiotic as you are sounding. Religious persecution of the Jews was mastered by Christians and not Muslims.