Psychology of Guerrilla War

#22 by Tehsinabbasi on February 10, 2007 11:03am PT


Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it.


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...

sorry...that`s just the way it is...The Israelis have the upper hand, despite all islamist delusions to the contrary..and the party with the upper hand is unlikely to give up more...being that the palis want concessions the Israelis don`t want to give, the conflict will go on..

please don`t pull the palis have only goodness in their hearts crap...we all know you pakis would have continued the jihad in kashmir if the circumstances were in your favor..we also know that if you`re talking concessions, meaningless as they might be, it`s only because your efforts at jihad have failed..and it has nothing to do with your ``desire for peace`` or ``your interest in solving it``...what you`re interested in is solving it in your favor...

#42 by malikjahanzeb

Yaar Malik,

You`re too ignorant for me to debate with you. Please get some education first. What you`re talking about are the basic objections which were refuted a very long time ago. I will only debate on what lies ahead ... not what you read on faithfreedom.org or something.

:~)

#40 zee,

I will try to stimulate your lazy intellectual faculties again.

Mohammad was on a mission to create and perpetuate a religion. He was most probably aware of this. He knew what religions of the past (christianity and judaism) had done. He knew what the potential of this activity was. He was not a small time looter. Rather, his eyes were at replacing christianity and judaism with his version of `islam`. I wonder why an avid Qaari of quran like you can miss this.

And don`t forget that he had a careful plan to make mecca into a future hotbed of islam. Do you think he did not have the intention to tag that black cube to be the center of earth?

Re: # 40

zeemax,

....... what do you mean `so far ahead` ?....... they were all part of the same bloody tribe and after they kissed and made-up they were probably killing and looting their neighbors the very next day .......... i, for one, don`t blame them for doing what they did - after all they were barbarians and that was how things were done back then ........my problem is that we hold them as up as paragons of virtue even today when most of us do not share a tent with a camel ..........

#38 hamidm/#37 malik

Haha ... don`t try to weasel out of arguments. The entire Khaybar was confiscated being the hotbed of Jewish conspiracies of Banu Nadir.

But were the `bandits` thinking so far ahead that they knew with the help of the defeated and vanquished Madinites, they would conquer the entire territories of the Byzantines as well as the Persians to loot and plunder their riches?

If they were, then they really weren`t bandits ... now were they?

:~)

#27 by drsohail

Aah ... I see your field of study is currently limited to 1906-2006. Do let me know, Sir, when you decide to expand your field of study to a bit earlier so that history does not begin in 1906.

And, I am not at all baiting you. Quite on the contrary, you, Sir, are baiting me. You can be quite infuriating with your limited canvas as I`ve said before ... i.e. naive.

And now, you`ld like me to tell you whether muslims brought change by peaceful means or by violence and whether that change was progressive or regressive ...

When was a revolution brought about by peaceful means?

And, when was any revolution regressive?

Ohh ... I forgot ... all Islamic revolutions are regressive. Any others?

:~)

Re: # 35

zeemax,

you ask :``how come they did not ransack Mecca for its riches when they eventually took over the city, but rather pardoned everyone and life went on?`` ``

....... now that was a stupid question, if there was ever one !........ why ransack mecca when everyone converted and joined the marauders of medina to go out and ransack th rest of the world ......... it was good bedouin realpolitik

#35 by zeemax

mecca was still mohammad`s home city and his motive was not to loot its riches but its soul. more than anything else, i think bringing mecca under the banner of islam was his biggest dream come true. he would have happily looted it had it been another city, like khyber.

#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).

#28 by Tehsinabbasi

You, Sir, are a complete moron. I remember we had this discussion about whether it was banditry or guerilla raids, and in the end I had posed a question to you as to ``if the early Muslims were bandits, how come they did not ransack Mecca for its riches when they eventually took over the city, but rather pardoned everyone and life went on?``

You never answered because you cannot answer this question, and will keep covering your ass.

#30 by hamidm2

This question is posed to you as well, Sir.

:~)

#25/26 by SR

er ... since I remembered the Queen Boudica`s exploits, I checked on the battle you quoted. It appears that the 70-80,000 Brits who died did not die in battle, but were mostly civilians who were massacred by Boudica`s rebels when Suetonius abandoned three cities including Londinium (now London) while retreating to fight elsewhere.

An extract:

When news of the rebellion reached him, Suetonius hurried along Watling Street through hostile territory to Londinium (London). Londinium was a relatively new town, founded after the conquest of 43, but had grown to be a thriving commercial centre with a population of travellers, traders, and probably Roman officials. Suetonius considered giving battle there, but considering his lack of numbers and chastened by Petillius`s defeat, decided to sacrifice the city to save the province.

Londinium was abandoned to the rebels, who burnt it down, slaughtering anyone who had not evacuated with Suetonius. Archaeology shows a thick red layer of burnt debris covering coins and pottery dating before 60 within the bounds of the Roman city.[9] Verulamium (St Albans) was next to be destroyed.

In the three cities destroyed, between seventy and eighty thousand people are said to have been killed.

Besides, as you would know, the early Muslims had things like advance reconaissance
parties as well as commando units. Remember the adventures of Taleeha?

Cheers!

drsohail,

Nice article informing about many conflicts of current times. But it did lack a psychology aspect to it, as the title claims.

As the conflict grows old, a new generation is born which has been brainwashed with only single sided information. These folks serve as the feul to run the guerilla wars but are not capable of questioning the merits of the cause or method of the warfare. It is only a few poeple on the top who are informed enough to form or maintain a direction to the whole matter. And it is these poeple who are responsible for the cause being `progressive` or `regressive`, based on the perspective(bais) of the judging person.

In arab-isreal conflict, it seems like both parties have ideals which are disconnected from reality and the grey area available to tag each other as the `axis of evil` is very large. In addition, arabs suffer from being less pragmatic and more of a complaining type.

Re: # 31

billdunc,

........ i am sick and tired of hearing about the `plight` of the palestinians - the fact of the matter is that they could have had a just solution a long time ago if they had wanted .......... instead they cling to the notion that they can drive the jews into the sea just as the prophet drove them out of khyber - with him as a role model there is no chance a lasting peace .......... and their internecine and fratricidal warfare is indicative of a culture that thrives on bloodshed and mayhem - israel would be ill-advised to trust these barbarians .............

Re: # 22
Hi Tehsinabbasi,


``Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it.``

Absulutely true.

``...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.``

This is a very reasonable statement of the Israeli dynamic.

``The Palestinians problems are equally stark and worse. They have no place to go and are fighting for their survival.``

also true

``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.) ``
true also

``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. ``

True but only in part....

Your analysis of the dynamic driving Israeli actions is pointed but largely accurate. You fail however to apply the same analysis to the palestinian side. The problem for the Palestinians is that they have a culture at present which only seems to perceive that there is a path to resolution through violence. This is the current battle within Palestinian society. It is a battle between those with a degree of pragmatism ( and there are such people on the Israeli side too) and those who see only the righteousness of their own cause and blind themselves to the justice of the other mans.This appears to be particularly true where the conflicts have enmeshed within them religious conflict.

Israel indeed has frequently acted with murderous and ultimately self defeating aggression. But so have the arabs (during the wars which resulted in Israels occupation boundaries) and the palestinians (years of bombings and Intefada).

The only way to deliver peace is to be peaceful. Ghandi gave the example here. I am not suggesting that the Palestinians simply roll over and play submissive. They have historical claims to their lands of such merit that they must legitimatelydemand a just settlement.

However to get to such resolution requires talk and politics and not politics backed by the bomb or the gun.

The time is long overdue when both the Palestinian and the Israeli bodies politic must act for peaceful resolution.

In my view there would be outrage in the west at the Israeli`s if the Palestinians followed the example of the IRA and negotiated a just settlement that tried to balance the needs of both sides and the Israeli`s attempted to avoid a just settlement. It took some vision from the leaders of the IRA and others to move from the language of violence to the language of political debate. In some sense they were led by their community in this as people had become weary of the violence. At other times they have had to exercise real leadership as their core followers became uncomfortable about compromise. They have bargained hard but nevertheless have delivered peace. Is there not a lesson here for the Palestinians?

zeemax,

.......... don`t listen to apostate detractors like tehsin and sr - these people do not understand the power of iman which makes one muslim equal to a hundred, a thousand, kafirs ........... these are the same people who do not believe that muhammad was the first space traveller and hazrat suleman discovered nuclear energy long before aq khan arrived on the scene ................

#18 you mentioned that there are similariries and dissimilarities in the biological psychological & social..qualitatively and quantitatively

Have you taken into consideration that the heroes of `non volence` and the violence were equaly hailed as heroes in the same period of history ?

Gerorge washington (violent)to To American intervention globally has been through violence...that have resulted in there making less friendes ...similarly Stalin was violent and helped propogate communists revolution...

In the present context when borders are more defined and sovereignity of nation is legetimised it may be futile to bang your head against the wall and prudence may be to save some lives
but it is like passivier or the comunists blamed religion as opium of mankind..you just philosophise whether peace or unjust rule or fate or any misfortuine as your fate and take care of your life

In your study similarities of PERIOD rather than method is important

There are no similarity or dissimarities known in biological neurochemistry of Gandhi and Satlin or George Washington