Psychology of Guerrilla War Zeemax: #89, #90, #91

Allow me to retort:

My body is not me. This is just a cover, an allusion, maya… that’s all. My soul would be long gone … that you see what death is – a release from these bounds.

And it is my belief that I am definitely going to a better place …. But thank you, you keep the hooris, I would have no use for them.

Psychology of Guerrilla War Zeemax:

I would love to have your comments about the following text that I read. It is from a speech given to graduating seniors at a high school.



“our shared humanity gets savagely challenged when our differences are narrowed into one devised system of uniquely powerful categorization”. I really want you to remember that piece of wisdom. In fact I will repeat it. I want you to be naturally skeptical of anyone who claims access to an absolute truth that goes beyond personal belief and is extended into a value system which is deemed good for all others if only they would see the light. Fundamentalism in all its forms is the enemy of enlightenment and enlightenment ultimately is based on our appreciation and understanding of the plurality and infinite subtlety of the human condition.”

Psychology of Guerrilla War #35 by zeemax

Pardonez moi Monsieur! How utterly thoughtless of me to have neglected your question and of course you know exactly why – because your elegant manner and strength of argumentation renders me speechless.

But as you have so eloquently predicted, I will true to form try to cover my ass.

Let me make my point again, perhaps your eloquence will get it this time. I was lamenting the fact that by robbing caravans and committing bandit raids the Prophet legitimized banditry and piracy for us Muslims and this has been the greatest crime that has been perpetrated against us. For this I gave several examples. But was banditry the only motivation, of course not! I neither said this nor implied it in any way (just like you had correctly predicted I am covering my ass).

Before answering your question about Mecca lets take an earlier raid against Banu al-Mustaliq, this occurred during the 6th year of the hijra. In this “God granted the Prophet many captives men, women and children along with their goods as booty”. But guess what? Juwayriyah the daughter of the killed chief who was extremely beautiful was part of this booty. She was trying to arrange her ransom and was hoping for the Prophet’s assistance in this matter. But, on seeing her, the Prophet had a much better proposition for her. He would pay her ransom and marry her as well. This altered the situation for the whole Banu al-Mustaliq, from captive slaves they were elevated to “relatives by marriage of the Messenger of God”. A hundred families of the Banu Mustaliq were freed. (google time!!!)

Of course you can claim that bandits would never do this. I concede…. they were bandits with a heart!

Now lets go to the main event – Fatah e Makkah that thou anxiously awaiteh.

When the Quraish were caught in a breach of contract and they felt that the Prophet’s wrath would be upon them, there was great consternation in Mecca. Realizing this Abu Sufyan who also happened to be leader of Mecca came running to Medina to save his city from being ransacked, its men killed, women and children sold in slavery. He went to his own daughter Umm Habibah (one of the Prophet’s wives) she refused to intercede on his behalf, he went to the M of G himself who refused to say anything, neither did Umar Farooq, Fatima or Ali. This made the situation even more precarious. When the Meccans realized that a huge army of over 10000 Muslims was on its way to invade Mecca everything broke. Abu Sufyan converted to Islam so did Abbas and Khalid bin Walid and beyond that there were mass conversions. Before long nearly the whole city had converted. So life just didn’t go on – you see everybody converted. Why destroy something if you can have it for nothing, and have allies to boot.

But for the Prophet it was also important not to obliterate his kin. He had spent his whole life trying to reform them, show them the light and with a good mix of force and instruction it was working. He even honored Abu Sufyan by declaring his home as sanctuary from Muslim reprisals. More importantly though it was the Kaaba the house of worship, the place of pilgrimage which he revered that had to be honored and maintained. So there were many reasons, it is not one-dimensional.

Psychology of Guerrilla War #58 by arjun2

“It`s not a conflict because the frenchies who wanted to split had a fair shot and they were in a minority”

Precisely! When the minority feels that they have been treated fairly then the conflict gets resolved. If they feel they have been stiffed then you have trouble. Conclusion, it is incumbent upon the majority to treat the minority fairly even to the extent if they wish to separate. Yes they should make it attractive for them to stay but shouldn’t force them if they so desire.

Had we in Pakistan treated our Bengali brethren fairly when they earned the right to separate if they had so chosen, through a free and fair election, I am quite certain today we wouldn’t have needed a passport to go there.

Psychology of Guerrilla War #55 by arjun2

Not true - there was no referendum in Czechoslovakia. Had it gone to a referendum there werent enough votes for it to pass. The leaders just decided to make the split. I am curious to know what you have to say about Canada.

Psychology of Guerrilla War #44 by arjun2

``Can you think of a conflict that has been resolved by talks without 1) large amount of bloodshed 2) one side gaining an advantage over another?

I can`t... ``

I thought I started out with 2 such examples that of Czechoslovakia and Canada in my post #8.

Psychology of Guerrilla War #31 by billdunc

We were not talking about peace overtures; the topic I was addressing is conflict resolution. An asymmetrical warfare which any guerilla war by its definition is, assumes that one party holds most if not all of the cards. Despite what the Palestinians could’ve, should’ve done, 99% spend their lives just trying and hoping to survive. Could they have done things differently to woo the Israelis towards conflict resolution – may be. But largely this is irrelevant. They are lucky that this conflict is taking place in this era, had it been occurring Medina circa 625 AD it would have been resolved by the stronger party instantaneously i.e. by killing all the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (remember Banu Qurayzah ….. if not ask our resident historian Zeemax he will give you the details).

Psychology of Guerrilla War #24 by zeemax

For guerilla warfare definition please check wikipedia …should not be confused .. “with simple small unit tactics like ambushes, or light probing attacks which most conventional armies incorporate as part of their routine training.” Guerrilla action takes place behind enemy lines by irregular forces.

Why you keep insisting on the Muslim raids out of Medina as guerilla war? Obviously it is because you find it shameful to admit or acknowledge that the raids were nothing more then banditry and acts of piracy which have plagued our history ever since.

First of all Medina was a sovereign city state by itself, without any link or dependence upon Mecca or any other entity. This was its sanctuary, its abode which may have been smaller and less wealthy then Mecca but still its own where nobody could threaten it. It was also a city state which had gone through a long and protracted conflict and in the process created battle hardened Ansars to whom the Meccan traders were no match. So may be the cities were unequal but it was still a fight between two independent states. Add to that the fact that Medina had a written constitution which spelled out the terms for all the residents including the Jews – so the whole city was included and had a charter. Calling this conflict as guerilla warfare is disingenuous.

My People! Guys! Please take it easy. It serves no purpose to hurl insults or belittle anyone in this case Zeena. If you find her ignorant you can choose not to interact with her, you can ignore her, but you have no right to try to push her off the board.

My People! #43 by bulleya
So what you are saying is that the huddled masses which are 99 percent of the population, should decide on the best course for change, because they know where their welfare lies. You also mention that they are illiterate, rural, without electricity, totally cut off from the national economy, but you still insist that they should be in charge and chart the course for change in Pakistan.

This is like suggesting that the patient should be in charge of his own recovery. Don’t you think that a doctor who is experienced in treating disease who has the most knowledge of diagnosing the problem and prescribing the solution, is better suited then the patient himself struggling to find his own cure?

My People! #38 by bulleya

Let me go over your post para by para.

Please I am not suggesting anything, but Hadrat Umar Farooq would definitely qualify as such ‘a lone honest benevolent dictator’.

A revolution of the huddled masses would you call it as a peasant, labor revolution – in other words a socialist revolution. Sorry to give it established names but that is the closest I can approximate it to be. Wouldn’t this be a dictatorship of the proletariat? Somebody or some group will be in charge, this group would take on power in the name of the peasants and laborers. How are we certain this elite would remain uncorrupt, especially their progeny as it happened in all socialist countries, and wouldn’t we agree that as a system socialism has been thoroughly discredited and has been reduced to nothing more then the annals of history.

A revolution led by the clergy? Well, we just saw this happen in Afghanistan with the Taliban, but beyond burqa, beards, cutting hands off, ban on music and other bans galore, they didn’t have anything else in their play book. No economic stimulation, no welfare or betterment of the masses, absolutely nothing but a barren land – there solution to everything is prayer and hope for pennies from heaven (oil fields). Can we or should we learn from their experience, or are we obligated to go through the same mistakes that our neighbors made.

We all agree that if the system corrects itself we would all gain from it in the long run. So back to square one - what can and should be done?

My People! #36 by abu_safwaan

``lets not experiment with real democracy just because it might turn out to be as corrupt and as dictatorial as Army``

I think trying experiments willy nilly for the past 57 years hasn’t taken us any where. Don’t you think it is high time that we deliberate carefully and study all the pros and cons before embarking willy nilly towards another distant mirage?

My People! #34 by Zeena

Does a common American think in general terms rather then individual terms?

My People! #31 by bulleya

But don’t you think that this is how it always starts. It is usually the one who as you say, looks himself in the mirror and sincerely goes about his business and then succeeds in getting the position of power and becomes a reformer. You would see this from the head of the government on down to private organizations. The person who actually brings about change is usually an exceptionally decent human being, but over a period of time the people around him, his family, friends, associates, hanger-ons start taking advantage of their position and before you know it you cannot distinguish them from the corrupt set up that they replaced.

So the question remains how do you break the cycle? Don’t tell me we haven’t tried to replace elites, power groups, every part of the power elite (except army of course) has been fair game. Now we are all set and ready to pounce on this last institution which has stood resolute for the period of our existence. Do you think these new comers, the huddled masses as you call them would they do better, or would they hijack us into a new direction with even greater corruption only to see the cycle repeat itself. Please don’t say that this is just an essential learning cycle in the lives of nations, because we just don’t have the time for such experiments any more.

My People! #29 by bulleya

So the question is, if we replace this elite (lets say us) with another, would they be more honest and would that lead us to a fair society.

Psychology of Guerrilla War #15 by drsohail

Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it. Sadly to say, that Israel to this day has not been interested in resolving this conflict despite its rhetoric. It still holds (the vast majority of its power elite) to the mistaken notion that it can have the West Bank for ever by force. Add to that the volatile combination of religious belief that God has ordained them and given them this land and the other fact that the land mass is so small that they could easily use it for the growth of their own population and it is absolutely essential for their security.

The Palestinians problems are equally stark and worse. They have no place to go and are fighting for their survival. Peace would be only possible when Israel genuinely looks for avenues to conflict resolution. In the past those who tried to resolve it paid with their death or destruction (Itzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres etc.)

So the UN Secretary General or for that matter the whole world cannot bring peace or conflict resolution, because one of the parties doesn’t want it.