Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

[Gary]

I'll once again engage in your whataboutism. Billy Mitchell was born in 1879, Giulio Douhet in 1869. Both men died even before WWII. This is who you look to for guidance? The world has since moved on. Of the four wars you listed only two involved what you call the hypocritical West, yet coincidentally both of your examples prove the opposite point:

1. Gulf War air campaign - 1 month
10,000–12,000 Iraqi military killed
2,000–3,000 Iraqi civilians killed

2. Operation Allied Force (Kosovo War) - 2 months
1000 Serb military killed
Human Rights Watch estimate: 489–528 civilians
Yugoslav estimate: 1,200–2,000 civilians killed

So what terrorizing are you talking about? In Mariupol alone, which had a pre-war population of 450,000, some estimates of civilians killed go as high as 100,000 (Timothy Snyder from Yale), but even conservative estimates are over 20,000.

• Billy Mitchell (1879) and Douhet (1869) was born even before the advent of powered heavier than air flight
• Billy Mitchell (1936) and Douhet (1930) died before WWII commenced also correct

These are your first mistake, let me explain to you. You're implying that because both men were born and died before the use of strategic bombing, then they're irrelevant to Russia's conduct of 2022/23 ? Amirite ?

This is where you are very very wrong. manned heavier than air powered aviation are invented right when these guys are in their 20s-30s, and it will took just a decade more that these tools are weaponized in World War I.

When aircraft and airpower comes around, there's only a select country that are able to master and develop them. These are the countries like USA, France, Germany, Italy...the rest of the world are just that watchers and followers, some countries wouldn't even exist 50-60 years after the invention of flight. That means whatever contibution in the science of the use of air power comes from these countries, not Ukraine, not Malaysia, not Brazil, not Indonesia, not China. Simply put these countries of USA, UK, Italy, France and Germany are the ones who wrote the very manual and intended use of them. Any other countries air forces simply adopted (and maybe modify it a little) of what those countries air force contribute in science and crafts of weaponized airplanes.

If air power are a religion than the men like Douhet and Billy Mitchell are the prophets of this religion, and their words that is the gospel. ANY variations on the use of airpower are based on the thoughts of this guys and their experience of using airpwoer in WW1 and that includes the idea to use aircraft to bomb populations centers. They know what people don't know.

The Russian air force of today is just simply using the updated but very much borrowed on the thoughts of Douhet and Mitchell manual of air power. If they're shit at it, that's they're problem, but pretty much they are only followers of the universal manual of air power that Billy Mitchell and Douhet contrubute.

You may say aaahh only Russia does this, but the list I mentioned all pointed to the use of punishing bombardments intended on harms of civillians and the populace. Numbers doesn't matter, intentions are.

In Desert Storm the Iraqi army are rolled faster than necessary for the allies to start bombing Baghdad and its industrial centers to rubbles and ashes, In Ukraine because of the stiffness of the Ukrainian defender it is necessary (for Russia) to use the manual to target and kill and possibly torture the population by means of airpower. These are intended to "break the spirit of the population"

Warden's five rings model, which are distributed in 2002 is just a modified or clarified version of what Douhet and Mitchell thinks in the 1920s with a taste of 20th century industrial advancement.

Warden wrote a thesis that the National Defense University eventually published as The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat. The book, updated in 2000, brings great clarity to the intersection of modern technology, airpower doctrine, and joint doctrine at the operational level of war. Warden revisits the topic of “center of gravity” as the foundation for his book and the “five rings” system he developed. ​

​

Warden wrote that centers of gravity exist not only at each level of war (grand strategic, strategic, operational, and tactical), but potentially at many points within a system at each level. As such, to affect a system like the political leadership of a nation, airpower would have to target all centers of gravity to alter the system.21 Warden also developed his theory based on the assumption that individuals and organizations share certain qualities or functions being: leadership, energy conversion or production means, infrastructure, population, and fielded forces. Warden visualizes these as five concentric rings with leadership in the center and military forces on the outside (Figure 4). ​

​

Warden wrote that by viewing the enemy as systems within systems, airpower could target in parallel, the most critical centers of gravity within each system or ring to bring about strategic paralysis.2​

This is what the Russians are now practicing in Ukraine, albeir with abbysmal effect.

As much as people would like to blame Russia, if at some point their nations happens to be at war, they will do the very same. And if that happens what will they say then ? Say sorry ?

 

[Woland]

These are your first mistake, let me explain to you. You're implying that because both men were born and died before the use of strategic bombing, then they're irrelevant to Russia's conduct of 2022/23 ? Amirite ?

No, that's not why I mentioned when they were born. Especially after WWII the world became less accepting of genocide and mass murder. This was a result of the horrors of WWI and WWII (both the war and genocide parts), the introduction of nuclear weapons, globalization and trade increasing interdependency between nations, and overall changing values in society. These two men spoke and drew conclusions within a very different context, not to mention the precision weaponry we have today didn't exist back then. Even if they wanted to significantly reduce casualties, the means for doing so did not yet exist.

Furthermore, we draw conclusions based on lessons learned. We make theories that sometimes prove incorrect. In your post you mention that Russian bombardment is "intended to break the spirit of the population". The four largest examples of mass bombing we have in history did not break the spirit of the targeted nations:
1. German bombardment of Britain did not break British resolve.
2. Allied bombardment of Germany did not break Germany's resolve.
3. US bombing of Japan did not break Japanese resolve. Even after the two atomic bombs Japan was prepared to continue fighting. It was only after the Soviet declaration of war that Japan surrendered. Japan’s leaders said the new incredible weapon forced them to surrender because it created a good explanation for losing the war.
4. US bombing of Vietnam did not break the North Vietnamese resolve.

Mitchell and Douhet died before those four examples could be studied. Coincidentally, the example of Ukraine further supports that mass bombardment does not break resolve. Provided the right ideological reasoning, after a certain point of hardship it only makes the defenders hate the invaders more.

You may say aaahh only Russia does this, but the list I mentioned all pointed to the use of punishing bombardments intended on harms of civillians and the populace. Numbers doesn't matter, intentions are.

Numbers matter. Facts matter. You speculate the intentions, and so can I, but numbers are more factual. And the facts speak to your examples being inaccurate.
I will link to the source of disagreement: https://defencehub.live/threads/ukraine-russia-war.3279/page-1095#post-271631

 

[Afif]

3. US bombing of Japan did not break Japanese resolve. Even after the two atomic bombs Japan was prepared to continue fighting. It was only after the Soviet declaration of war that Japan surrendered. Japan’s leaders said the new incredible weapon forced them to surrender because it created a good explanation for losing the war.

That part is pretty much arguable.

 

[Woland]

That part is pretty much arguable.

We can conclude with very high certainty that the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities did not break Japanese resolve, based on the timeline and other factors.
We can also conclude with high certainty that Hiroshima did not break Japanese resolve, as Japanese leadership intended to continue fighting afterwards. From there it does get more debatable since the Soviet invasion and Nagasaki happened on the same day. A lot of historians today argue that the Soviet invasion was the deciding factor, because it made the war hopeless and Japan did not want to be occupied by the Soviet Union.

Some good research on the topic:

Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?

Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.

www.carnegiecouncil.org

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did.

Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Gary]

No, that's not why I mentioned when they were born. Especially after WWII the world became less accepting of genocide and mass murder. This was a result of the horrors of WWI and WWII (both the war and genocide parts), the introduction of nuclear weapons, globalization and trade increasing interdependency between nations, and overall changing values in society. These two men spoke and drew conclusions within a very different context, not to mention the precision weaponry we have today didn't exist back then. Even if they wanted to significantly reduce casualties, the means for doing so did not yet exist.

Furthermore, we draw conclusions based on lessons learned. We make theories that sometimes prove incorrect. In your post you mention that Russian bombardment is "intended to break the spirit of the population". The four largest examples of mass bombing we have in history did not break the spirit of the targeted nations:
1. German bombardment of Britain did not break British resolve.
2. Allied bombardment of Germany did not break Germany's resolve.
3. US bombing of Japan did not break Japanese resolve. Even after the two atomic bombs Japan was prepared to continue fighting. It was only after the Soviet declaration of war that Japan surrendered. Japan’s leaders said the new incredible weapon forced them to surrender because it created a good explanation for losing the war.
4. US bombing of Vietnam did not break the North Vietnamese resolve.

Mitchell and Douhet died before those four examples could be studied. Coincidentally, the example of Ukraine further supports that mass bombardment does not break resolve. Provided the right ideological reasoning, after a certain point of hardship it only makes the defenders hate the invaders more.

The very answer of your questions lies no further than the American war on terror. You imply that becasue 'lessons' are learned then armies won't do the very same shit all over again.

It is becoming very clear to many analyst that killings of terrorists leader doesn't contribute much to the zeal,motivation and even operations of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and even Narco terror groups in Latin America. What does the killing of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Pablo Escobar finally achieved to the struggle containing them in both wars in middle east and Latin America ? How about mostly nothing ? How many Taliban leaders are killed each year in 2001-2021, do you know who rules Afghanistan today ? How many Narco boss are killed and extradited since Escobar ? last time I saw Mexico is pretty lit.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481099

Yet the program to detect, track and kill terrorist group leaders continue to this day. If I were to follow your logic the US security apparatus would have stopped the efforts long ago. Because 'lessons are learned'.

You mention the advent of precision weaponry as a differentiating factor that dictates today's rule of air war, yet 45 years after the punishing bombings of WW2 those very same precision weapons are used in modern wars to strike population centers and infrastructures with an even deadlier efficiency than the free fall bombs of WW2. The very same pracrice that we saw Russia uses today in cities of Ukraine.

CNN - NATO strikes knock out Serb electrical power - May 3, 1999

edition.cnn.com

This is what the war against ISIS looks like. Looks familiar to you ?

The only difference I saw is that they garbage the media to make them looks like moving away from Douhet and Mitchells strategems, while at the same time perfected the arts of air power objectives dictated by those two. And when opposing forces does the very same, they whine.

So just because ift seems that civillian bombings doesn't reach the intended objectives as hoped, doesn't mean air forces will leave it just like that, in fact no air forces would and Russian air forces are one of those.

Numbers matter. Facts matter. You speculate the intentions, and so can I, but numbers are more factual. And the facts speak to your examples being inaccurate.
I will link to the source of disagreement: https://defencehub.live/threads/ukraine-russia-war.3279/page-1095#post-271631

Numbers really don't matter. The strength of opposition to military objectives matter. Baghdad is not levelled to the ground because it is so unnecessary to do so after the Iraqi army were rolled easy in DS. In both the war against ISIS, the Russian war against Syrian rebels and Ukraine, such destruction is proportional to the amount of resistance the opposition gave to attempted advance. Counter force equals force given, correct ?

If Ukraine happens to just surrender, lay down arms, you think the Russians will spent fuel and ammo trying to bomb you ?

PS : NO I'm not asking you or enticing you to surrender, just in case you think of such.

 

[Ryder]

Why is Russia Using Mosin Nagants in Ukraine?

We examine the Mosin Nagant 91/30 Sniper Rifle variants that appear to be in use with Russian backed militias in Ukraine!

youtube.com

Mosin Nagant built in 1891 still being used in modern day conflicts.

Shows what a good design is when its reliable and still does the job.

It aint high tech but still punches holes for both the Russians and Ukrainians.

 

[Woland]

The very answer of your questions lies no further than the American war on terror. You imply that becasue 'lessons' are learned then armies won't do the very same shit all over again.

It is becoming very clear to many analyst that killings of terrorists leader doesn't contribute much to the zeal,motivation and even operations of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and even Narco terror groups in Latin America. What does the killing of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Pablo Escobar finally achieved to the struggle containing them in both wars in middle east and Latin America ? How about mostly nothing ? How many Taliban leaders are killed each year in 2001-2021, do you know who rules Afghanistan today ? How many Narco boss are killed and extradited since Escobar ? last time I saw Mexico is pretty lit.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481099

Yet the program to detect, track and kill terrorist group leaders continue to this day. If I were to follow your logic the US security apparatus would have stopped the efforts long ago. Because 'lessons are learned'.

You mention the advent of precision weaponry as a differentiating factor that dictates today's rule of air war, yet 45 years after the punishing bombings of WW2 those very same precision weapons are used in modern wars to strike population centers and infrastructures with an even deadlier efficiency than the free fall bombs of WW2. The very same pracrice that we saw Russia uses today in cities of Ukraine.

CNN - NATO strikes knock out Serb electrical power - May 3, 1999

edition.cnn.com

This is what the war against ISIS looks like. Looks familiar to you ?

The only difference I saw is that they garbage the media to make them looks like moving away from Douhet and Mitchells strategems, while at the same time perfected the arts of air power objectives dictated by those two. And when opposing forces does the very same, they whine.

So just because ift seems that civillian bombings doesn't reach the intended objectives as hoped, doesn't mean air forces will leave it just like that, in fact no air forces would and Russian air forces are one of those.




Numbers really don't matter. The strength of opposition to military objectives matter. Baghdad is not levelled to the ground because it is so unnecessary to do so after the Iraqi army were rolled easy in DS. In both the war against ISIS, the Russian war against Syrian rebels and Ukraine, such destruction is proportional to the amount of resistance the opposition gave to attempted advance. Counter force equals force given, correct ?

If Ukraine happens to just surrender, lay down arms, you think the Russians will spent fuel and ammo trying to bomb you ?

PS : NO I'm not asking you or enticing you to surrender, just in case you think of such.

Killing or capturing leaders of Al-Qaeda, Cartels, etc. is not supposed to affect motivation, it's supposed to affect the organization's ability to function. US and others preference for targeting leaders, as you yourself admitted, is evidence of learning that targeted operations are more effective than mass aerial bombing. The fact that Al-Qaeda is now mostly a non-factor, and both the Medellin and Cali Cartels died after the removal of their leadership supports this. Sometimes it takes the removal of successive generations of leaders to make an organization a non-factor, but this methodology is still more effective than mass bombing of the organization's area of control, killing civilians and increasing hatred for the side doing the bombing. Perfect? No. But thinking no lessons have been learned and applied since the 19th century is ignorant.

Furthermore you continue to bring up examples which support my point. Your image is the Battle of Mosul. It certainly looks horrifying. However:
Militants killed: 7,757– 25,000 killed
Civilians killed: 2,521 - 11,000
Moreover, most of the destruction was caused by artillery and mortars, not carpet bombing, and while coalition aircraft played a role, most of the fighting was done by over 100,000 Iraqi + Peshmerga troops. Today Mosul is once again part of the Iraqi state and, to the best of my knowledge, support for ISIS in the city is not significant.

Unfortunately as you yourself admitted numbers and facts don't matter, only how you "feel" about a situation.

 

[Gary]

Killing or capturing leaders of Al-Qaeda, Cartels, etc. is not supposed to affect motivation, it's supposed to affect the organization's ability to function. US and others preference for targeting leaders, as you yourself admitted, is evidence of learning that targeted operations are more effective than mass aerial bombing. The fact that Al-Qaeda is now mostly a non-factor, and both the Medellin and Cali Cartels died after the removal of their leadership supports this. Sometimes it takes the removal of successive generations of leaders to make an organization a non-factor, but this methodology is still more effective than mass bombing of the organization's area of control, killing civilians and increasing hatred for the side doing the bombing.

Extremists group has never had been so widespread ever since the killings of Osama, the war on drugs which actually started as a war against the Medellin's now ended up against multiple cartels that looks more like armies, yet you call it affecting the organization ability to function. It is very clear in the LONG TERM this is not the way to go, more like a short term solution. Yet they're still doing this. So does every branch of the military all over the world.

Just like it takes successive removal of generations of leaders, for the air force it will take successive wave of punishing bombing to achiebve the determined outcome.

You again magnify precision bombing in contrast to mass bombing. The proliferation of precision bombing has very little to do with the urge to reduce civillian casulaties and avoid population anger, rather it's the economics of warfare that dictates the use of such.

You see, Guilio Douhet envision the concepts of 'battleplane' in the 1927 version of his book to deliver 'precise bombings' upon population and industrial centers. This 'battleplanes' should deliver within 500m the destruction that is not needed for re-attack. This is what 'precision' in the minds of Douhet when he talks about this battleplanes.

The concept of precision daylight bombing in WWII is very different from today’s three-meter standards for satellite-guided weapons. With the Norden bombsight, experienced bombardiers claimed impacts within yards of desired impact points from altitudes over twenty thousand feet during training in 1940. 41 Crews bragged about dropping bombs into pickle barrels. This confidence did not completely spill over into the development of Air War Plans Division/1. The war planners assumed far more realistic figures including: 220 feet of “long-short” error and 275 feet of “left-right” error. ​

For a hypothetical 100 foot by 100 foot target, the single sortie statistical probability of a direct hit by any bomb from a series was .012 percent. This drove the need for 220 bombers to attack a target to ensure its destruction in one mission. ​

​

Douhet and Mitchell called for precision strategic bombardment capability. The Air Corps and aircraft industry delivered what they could with the available time, funding, engineering, and aeronautical technology. The result was the B-17. It was an aircraft that, under combat conditions, needed 219 formation members to achieve a 90 percent probability of target destruction. Even if that is an uninspiring statistic by today’s standards, it must be view in light of the fact that the Axis powers did not have any equivalent Battleplane. ​

​

(source)​

In WW2 it would need 200+ planes to deliver what a single 4th gen jet could deliver with only 1-2 bombs. It is not human that is in the minds of air power planners, rather its the efficiency.
Magnifying the use of precision weapons in contrast to mass bombings makes the Russians looked like angels, for developing the expensive but precise Kalibr missile instead of just napalm bombing Kyiv.

The war of Iran-Iraq, Persian gulf 1 and 2, the recent Nagorno-Karabakh war all pointed that air planners, while grasping that civilian bombing won't work, still does it most of the time, and Russia is just operating within the same mentality.

Furthermore you continue to bring up examples which support my point. Your image is the Battle of Mosul. It certainly looks horrifying. However:
Militants killed: 7,757– 25,000 killed
Civilians killed: 2,521 - 11,000
Moreover, most of the destruction was caused by artillery and mortars, not carpet bombing, and while coalition aircraft played a role, most of the fighting was done by over 100,000 Iraqi + Peshmerga troops. Today Mosul is once again part of the Iraqi state and, to the best of my knowledge, support for ISIS in the city is not significant.

Unfortunately as you yourself admitted numbers and facts don't matter, only how you "feel" about a situation.

Not carpet bombing, but hellfires and all sorts of JDAM/Paveway used in the campaign even before the campaign started, the bombings of Raqqa, Mosul, and many major cities like Ramadi started as early as August 2014..lloooooooooooong before the attempt to take Mosul itself in late 2016.

It doesn't matter support or no support, the very same tactics are used. So why should Russia be called terrorist state for using the same manual ?

I don't work with feeling but numbers alone without context is incomplete.

 

[Gary]

Is there a possibility for you, Gary, that world has changed during last centuries? Mongols looted and pillaged greatly in Europe and Russia 800 years ago, but does this really justify the means and methods used today by Russia in Ukraine?

The Mongols doesn't lay the groundwork for land battles the same way Douhet and Mitchell does in airpower theories.

 

[Afif]

Maybe it’s because Europe has become more civilized than in the past, and we no longer accept the barbarism of war. In Europe we managed to achieve free travel between countries (without needing a passport) while 75 years ago we were murdering each other like psychopaths.

We find the Russian invasion and tactics unacceptable because they remind us of our dark past that we want to leave behind for good.

We know very well that this barbarity continues to happen in countries like Lybia, Ethiopia, Myanmar or Yemen, but we find it unacceptable to do this in Europe, because we Europeans no longer do this stuff.

Well, I am not so sure about that.

Bosnian war and what European Serbs did there (Indiscriminate killing and keeping Bosnian women as captives on a mass scale in so called 'rape camps') was much worse then current situation in Ukraine and it clearly wasn’t 75 year ago.

You guys keep saying we don’t do that anymore.
But when does this 'not anymore' start actually?

Because, I have a strong feeling, if given any chance, Serbs would do exactly the same again.

And if Europe left the past behind so much, why France doesn’t apologise for its conducts in Algeria (again, much more horrific than what happening today in Ukraine)
Or brits for their conducts in subcontinent?

if they don’t apologise, it only means they think, on a fundamental level they didn’t do anything wrong.

Only ones in Europe seems to always talk about peace and apparently mean it, are the losers of WW II or small insignificant countries that doesn’t have any ability to anything in the first place.
While the winners, brits and French are continue to wage wars all over the world after WW II to 21th century. (Suaz invasion, Algeria, Vietnam, Falkland, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya.)
Not to mentioned, France to this day kept some African countries as almost de facto half colonies.


So when someone like @Gary argues, 'fundamentally not so much is actually changed, even for Europe. And for now, it is mostly temporary circumstances that are keeping them from exploitating others' maybe he is not so wrong.

 

[Gary]

Well, I am not so sure about that.

Bosnian war and what European Serbs did there (Indiscriminate killing and keeping Bosnian women as captives on a mass scale in so called 'rape camps') was much worse then current situation in Ukraine and it clearly wasn’t 75 year ago.

You guys keep saying we don’t do that anymore.
But when does this 'not anymore' start actually?

Because, I have a strong feeling, if given any chance, Serbs would do exactly the same again.

And if Europe left the past behind so much, why France doesn’t apologise for its conducts in Algeria (again, much more horrific than what happening today in Ukraine)
Or brits for their conducts in subcontinent?

if they don’t apologise, it only means they think, on a fundamental level they didn’t do anything wrong.

Only ones in Europe seems to always talk about peace and apparently mean it, are the losers of WW II or small insignificant countries that doesn’t have any ability to anything in the first place.
While the winners, brits and French are continue to wage wars all over the world after WW II to 21th century. (Suaz invasion, Algeria, Vietnam, Falkland, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya.)
Not to mentioned, France to this day kept some African countries as almost de facto half colonies.


So when someone like @Gary argues, 'fundamentally not so much is actually changed, even for Europe. And for now, it is mostly temporary circumstances that are keeping them from exploitating others' maybe he is not so wrong.

They never left anything, they simply use a different cosmetics for their conducts.

1. Slavery never really goes away, rather they outsource slavery and exploitation to other parts of the world. The chocolate which is sold by European headquartere companies sourced their cocoa from countries which children and sometime entire families are exoloited by the government and the business at those country (usually also prepped up by the West)
2. They care so much about women's rights in the Middle East yet failed to address why so many Romanian women are sold in prostitution every year. I think those women deserve more attention than the 'unfree' women of Saudi Arabia or Qatar.
3. Most of the time they are just as bad as common man.

 

[Chakib.Y]

They never left anything, they simply use a different cosmetics for their conducts.

1. Slavery never really goes away, rather they outsource slavery and exploitation to other parts of the world. The chocolate which is sold by European headquartere companies sourced their cocoa from countries which children and sometime entire families are exoloited by the government and the business at those country (usually also prepped up by the West)
2. They care so much about women's rights in the Middle East yet failed to address why so many Romanian women are sold in prostitution every year. I think those women deserve more attention than the 'unfree' women of Saudi Arabia or Qatar.
3. Most of the time they are just as bad as common man.

couldn't have said it better, and this isn't to side with any side or claim its superiority among the two poles, this is to nullify any attempted moral argument being made for their camp or against those who reject joining it.

their issue with the middle east isn't over muslim women being opressed despite us having lower murder rate for women than they do and the difference between the murder rate for men compared to women in our countries is much higher than theirs, their issue is the fact that there's somewhere someone thinking that their ideals are inferior to what he has, this is the very same ideological vessel for colonial mentality (and its liberal in principle, if you're familiar with the french general assembly debates regarding colonialism you'll know), part of this probably is among their elites they have the idea that the only thing stopping them from direct and full declaration of european historical supremacy is the fact that their borders for almost a 1000 years stopped where muslim borders began and all the holdings out of europe which they lost to muslims were never regained despite everything be it colonialism or other means.

 

[Chakib.Y]

(iran pre khomeini revolution would force women out of hijabs and oppress them, they cheered for it, same with afghanistan pre taliban and islamic rule, they cheer for that, their hatred for everything islam and muslims stand for (regardless of how its enforced) to them is greater and higher in value than their own professed ideals, this is a hallmark for defeat and failure of those ideals when challenged, they failed them themselves before anyone else did or say a thing about them)

 

[Afif]

1. Everybody believes in the superiority of their own Ideals. (Muslims, Christians, East, West no exception)

2. Whoever has the superior economy and leading role in science and technology will try to shape the world in their own image through hard and soft power projection. (Same for everybody, no exception)



In some Muslim/Arab countries There are some severe violation of fundamental human rights of Women. (For example, honour killing, lack of economic independence due to discriminatory law or social conditions, as well as unfavourable conditions against women’s work life.)

Apart from that, there are other broader issues in some Arab and Muslim countries regarding how Women in general socially expected and (often forced) to operate across the (social, economic, and political) spectrum of their lives, which is not compatible with 'modernity.'



Special note- I am not using 'Modernity' as a Western cultural definition.

Rather, I am simply referring to the material changes that humanity experienced in last couple of hundreds years due to rapid advances in science and technology. And if we want to get the most out of it for ourselves and stay on top of 'food chain' without compromising our core values, there are wide range of socio-cultural, economic and political adaptations that are needs to be made in our individual and collective lives.

 

[Chakib.Y]

1. Everybody believes in the superiority of their own Ideals. (Muslims, Christians, East, West no exception)

2. Whoever has the superior economy and leading role in science and technology will try to shape the world in their own image through hard and soft power projection. (Same for everybody, no exception)

3. In some Muslim/Arab countries There are some severe violation of fundamental human rights of Women. (For example, honour killing, lack of economic independence due to discriminatory law or social conditions, as well as unfavourable conditions against women’s work life.)

4. Apart from that, there are other broader issues in some Arab and Muslim countries regarding how Women in general socially expected and (often forced) to operate across the (social, economic, and political) spectrum of their lives, which is not compatible with 'modernity.'



Special note- I am not using 'Modernity' as a Western cultural definition.

Rather, I am simply referring to the material changes that humanity experienced in last couple of hundreds years due to rapid advances in science and technology. And if we want to get the most out of it for ourselves and stay on top of 'food chain' without compromising our core values, there are wide range of socio-cultural, economic and political adaptations that are needs to be made in our individual and collective lives.

1-agreed, that's the norm

2-also agreed, that's the norm

3-well you're begging the question here, human rights as they stand now are a derivation of the natural law which is a product of christian theology, how is that exactly binding to us, a non Christian civilization ? all percieved injustices must be viewed through the lenses of our moral and civilizational framework else we're just trying to be more honest to the enforced ideals we complain from than those who enforce them, a "tread harder daddy" on a national scale, no honest muslim (as per point 1 and 2 you've stated) would agree to that.

4-every society expect things from its members, only thing you can judge it is through the generally adopted ideals, else you're fighting an uphill battle against your people "for their best" and will most definetly endup pushing them back farther towards chaos and blood, algerian civil war, syrian civil war and all the unrest in the middle east can be traced exactly towards this: systems that rules through legal codes and ideals rejected by the absolute majority of the population.


last part is, with all due respect, reflects deep ignorance with the political situation of the middle east post decolonializism, all the legal codes are imports of either french or english secular laws, all still sadly in the gutter despite the encouragement of violation of islamic morality and social norms (and sometimes sanctioning them), so "adapting to advance" is a really weak argument that has no root in reality, its just a massive cope from the local ideological minorities wanting to westernize regardless of the people's opinions and identities.

 

[Afif]

3-well you're begging the question here, human rights as they stand now are a derivation of the natural law which is a product of christian theology, how is that exactly binding to us, a non Christian civilization ? all percieved injustices must be viewed through the lenses of our moral and civilizational framework else we're just trying to be more honest to the enforced ideals we complain from than those who enforce them, a "tread harder daddy" on a national scale, no honest muslim (as per point 1 and 2 you've stated) would agree to that.

No, i am not begging the question here.

Because I am not referring to European definition of 'human right'

I used the word 'fundemental' for a reason, and enlisted specific violations to be more precise.

1. Honor killing is very severe violation of human rights in the most Islamic sense.

2. Classical Islamic law used to ensure economic independence of Women. And now it is more important then ever if we want to compete in 21th century landscape as nation states.

Yet in some Muslim societies Social conditions are restricting Women's 'proper' economic independence.

3. Same is true for Women's work life.

4-every society expect things from its members, only thing you can judge it is through the generally adopted ideals, else you're fighting an uphill battle against your people "for their best" and will most definetly endup pushing them back farther towards chaos and blood, algerian civil war, syrian civil war and all the unrest in the middle east can be traced exactly towards this: systems that rules through legal codes and ideals rejected by the absolute majority of the population.


last part is, with all due respect, reflects deep ignorance with the political situation of the middle east post decolonializism, all the legal codes are imports of either french or english secular laws, all still sadly in the gutter despite the encouragement of violation of islamic morality and social norms (and sometimes sanctioning them), so "adapting to advance" is a really weak argument that has no root in reality, its just a massive cope from the local ideological minorities wanting to westernize regardless of the people's opinions and identities.

Tbh, I am not specifically talking about middle East's political situation here.
Or how brutal dictators ls fucked up everything.

And frankly, i don't care what anybody's Socio-cultural norms are.

Except when certain group of peoples/nations continue to remain at the bottom of the food chain and getting dominated by others in the world stage, it only means they are falling on fundemental levels.

(Which is exactly the case for some Arab and Muslim countries.)

Hence, the urgent need arises for necessary 'modernization' and 'adaptation'.

And generally, I don't advocate for state to enforcing necessary 'modernization' and 'adaptation' process.

Rather, it needs to be a socio-cultural revolution without compromising our core values.
(Malaysia, Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco are relatively successful in this regard. Indonesia and Bangladesh also to some extent.)






Note-@Ryder Your thoughtful takes (apart from fuk this and Fook that) intrigues me on these topics.

If you find the discussion interesting you are very welcome to comment.

 

[Chakib.Y]

No, i am not begging the question here.

Because I am not referring to European definition of 'human right'

I used the word 'fundemental' for a reason, and enlisted specific violations to be more precise.

1. Honor killing is very severe violation of human rights in the most Islamic sense.

2. Classical Islamic law used to ensure economic independence of Women. And now it is more important then ever if we want to compete in 21th century landscape as nation states.

Yet in some Muslim societies Social conditions are restricting Women's 'proper' economic independence.

3. Same is true for Women's work life.



Tbh, I am not specifically talking about middle East's political situation here.
Or how brutal dictators ls fucked up everything.

And frankly, i don't care what anybody's Socio-cultural norms are.

Except when certain group of peoples/nations continue to remain at the bottom of the food chain and getting dominated by others in the world stage, it only means they are falling on fundemental levels.

(Which is exactly the case for some Arab and Muslim countries.)

Hence, the necessity arises for necessary 'modernization' and 'adaptation'.

And generally, I don't advocate for state to enforcing necessary 'modernization' and 'adaptation' process.

Rather, it needs to be a socio-cultural revolution without compromising our core values.
(Malaysia, Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco are relatively successful in this regard. Indonesia and Bangladesh also to some extent.)

1-presupposition of human rights tied to the fact of one's humanity is an outcome of the secularization of the natural law, there's no universal law for everyone, each got their own laws depending on their conditions. but i'll take your elaboration into account.

2-economic independence in the sense of having their own separate property, not engagement in the workforce which is tied to the society's basic needs in the roles which men cannot fulfill (medicine, teaching other women) within very strict contexts, if that's what you mean you can just argue for sharia law instead of making it a "we need to catchup to the west by emulating it" because that's how it sounded.

"women rights" and whatever progressive nonsense libs might argue aren't what fuels or backs economic and technical progress rather are an outcome of it, when the west peaked during the leading period towards ww1 women were still at the gutter of society and our women in pure theocracies had much more rights, yet they were the subjugators and we were their door mats and they shed our blood and ran like rivers, material advancement is achieved through access to resources and degree of mastery of technologies and sciences among the state's institutions.

3-concept of the nationstate doesn't work in the middle east because you have way too many ethnicities that only got along historically through religious union, in algeria for example we have arabs, Half turks, berbers whom are also branched into many other sub ethnicities, in the sahara we have the touareg, who's national identity are we going to put on top of the heirarchy ? turkey itself is struggling with one minority what do you think would become of us ? fight an unnecessary war or balkanize the country over a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and end centuries of harmony because hey that's what's currently popular in the west ? nationalism and nation state model were dead on arrival and baathism which maximized it led to mass killings, marginalization and political unrest, all because some genius mind thought that civilization is imported and the west is at the end of history and whatever works for it will work for us, simple minds with large sticks.


4-you're proposing something which has been tested and failed and i'm here merely citing the instances of such failure while deconstructing the argument you're making, you don't have to care, you just needed to see it.

if we're talking about modernization in the material and administrative aspect sure we'll agree but the moment you access the area of social and ideological reform then you're simply wrong and need to be made aware of that.

side note: for people whom only seen glory in their history under islam its really hard to convince them that you can segregate it to core and peripheral values, they'll just fail to distinguish you from the same old and will be held in contempt just like the system you'd be trying to replace (algerian regime post independence and syrian and even iraqi (and nassiri along with them) were fairly conservative holding on to their version of core ideals, still were rejected).

 

[contricusc]

Bosnian war and what European Serbs did there (Indiscriminate killing and keeping Bosnian women as captives on a mass scale in so called 'rape camps') was much worse then current situation in Ukraine and it clearly wasn’t 75 year ago.

You guys keep saying we don’t do that anymore.
But when does this 'not anymore' start actually?

Because, I have a strong feeling, if given any chance, Serbs would do exactly the same again.

But don’t you remember that the rest of Europe intervened in the war to stop the Serbs from commiting more genocide? Most Europeans clearly didn’t agree with what the Serbs were doing, and NATO interfered in the war and the leaders of Serbia ended up at the Hague.

That was not very different from what is happening now with Russia and Ukraine, and Europe is reacting in the same way.

Serbia is one of the European countries most friendly to Russia, because they acted in similar fashion.

But with time, the Serbs will change their perceptions and will integrate with the rest of Europe.

 

[Afif]

2-economic independence in the sense of having their own separate property, not engagement in the workforce which is tied to the society's basic needs in the roles which men cannot fulfill (medicine, teaching other women) within very strict contexts, if that's what you mean you can just argue for sharia law instead of making it a "we need to catchup to the west by emulating it" because that's how it sounded.

Meaning of proper Economic independence extends to having the ability choose your work life. (Not just for medicine or teaching other women. In an ideal condition, it should extends to all the professions that doesn't specifically requires physical strength. To name a few, academic researcher, engineers, chemist, physicist, doctors, etc.)

"women rights" and whatever progressive nonsense libs might argue aren't what fuels or backs economic and technical progress rather are an outcome of it, when the west peaked during the leading period towards ww1 women were still at the gutter of society and our women in pure theocracies had much more rights,

Well, that is not I am arguing about.

Obviously Current Western definition of Women rights and it implications are of the outcome of economic progresses that were made in 20th century.

However, my point being- now compared to West where today Women participate in almost every aspect work life and economic activities as Men, if half of your population (Women) does not participate in your Nation's economic and work life, you won't be able to keep up the competition for long.

This is just basic math, not rocket science.

3-concept of the nationstate doesn't work in the middle east because you have way too many ethnicities that only got along historically through religious union, in algeria for example we have arabs, Half turks, berbers whom are also branched into many other sub ethnicities, in the sahara we have the touareg, who's national identity are we going to put on top of the heirarchy ? turkey itself is struggling with one minority what do you think would become of us ? fight an unnecessary war or balkanize the country over a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and end centuries of harmony because hey that's what's currently popular in the west ? nationalism and nation state model were dead on arrival and baathism which maximized it led to mass killings, marginalization and political unrest, all because some genius mind thought that civilization is imported and the west is at the end of history and whatever works for it will work for us, simple minds with large sticks.

Well, the figure out something that works for you.

side note: for people whom only seen glory in their history under islam its really hard to convince them that you can segregate it to core and peripheral values, they'll just fail to distinguish you from the same old and will be held in contempt just like the system you'd be trying to replace (algerian regime post independence and syrian and even iraqi (and nassiri along with them) were fairly conservative holding on to their version of core ideals, still were rejected).

Most of them are incompetent and failed states and were puppets of world powers.

I am not sure, how much people cared about their ruler's so called 'conservative social values' when they were brutally opressing them on so many fundemental levels.

Over the cneturies, some of the islamic practices are blended in Arabic culture as norms. Just having those does not necessarily makes you a conservative, specially when your are licking various world power's boots and politically in bed with 'enemies' of Islam.


As I said before, it needs to be broader socio-cultural adaptation.

And about past glory days, there was a guy in classical era who got the nickname خلكان. Because he himself was an incompetent idiot but stuck with the past of his glorified predecessors.

4-you're proposing something which has been tested and failed and i'm here merely citing the instances of such failure while deconstructing the argument you're making, you don't have to care, you just needed to see it.

In a nutshell, failures of most arab societies to make necessary changes does no necessarily translates to the failure of concepts that I am talking about here, specially when some Muslim countries successfully implemented those same concepts as I mentioned before.


In the end it is very simple, if anybody can't make the necessary changes and adaptation, he is always welcome to continue at the bottom of the food-chain.

 

[Chakib.Y]

Meaning of proper Economic independence extends to having the ability choose your work life. (Not just for medicine or teaching other women. In an ideal condition, it should extends to all the professions that doesn't specifically requires physical strength. To name a few, academic researcher, engineers, chemist, physicist, doctors, etc.)



Well, that is not I am arguing about.

Obviously Current Western definition of Women rights and it implications are of the outcome of economic progresses that were made in 20th century.

However, my point being- now compared to West where today Women participate in almost every aspect work life and economic activities as Men, if half of your population (Women) does not participate in your Nation's economic and work life, you won't be able to keep up the competition for long.

This is just basic math, not rocket science.




Well, the figure out something that works for you.



Most of them are incompetent and failed states and were puppets of world powers.

I am not sure, how much people cared about their ruler's so called 'conservative social values' when they were brutally opressing them on so many fundemental levels.

Over the cneturies, some of the islamic practices are blended in Arabic culture as norms. Just having those does not necessarily makes you a conservative, specially when your are licking various world power's boots and politically in bed with 'enemies' of Islam.


As I said before, it needs to be broader socio-cultural adaptation.

And about past glory days, there was a guy in classical era who got the nickname خلكان. Because he himself was an incompetent idiot but stuck with the past of his glorified predecessors.

In a nutshell, failures of most arab societies to make necessary changes does no necessarily translates to the failure of concepts that I am talking about here, specially when some Muslim countries successfully implemented those same concepts as I mentioned before.


In the end it is very simple, if anybody can't make the necessary changes and adaptation, he is always welcome to continue at the bottom of the food-chain.

1-alright then since this is your position better not appeal to sharia because this isn't what sharia declares and mandates with regards to "economic freedoms", appeal to the western norms. in this case then this would turn into what i said previously on adopting western values, this is what the west wants from you, you're just giving it to them willingly x).

=> the moment you send your women out and normalize free mixing you surrendered their expected role (domestic one) to the state's institutions which are usually tied legally to international institutions and regulations which the west dominates, meaning your children aren't shaped by your and your wife's beliefs but by what the west thinks they should be, this is issue 1

=>issue 2 is when you send your women to work and mix you're creating an expectation from them through the motive you issued your male population for increased productivity, i'm talking about the psychological drive for career achievement and recognition from strangers for a job well done on the assembly line or the lab, this will crush you demographics, historically countries with large demographics are the ones that endup evolving into large powers, look at europe's population during the 19th century and compare it to that of africa or the middle east, these two areas were picked due to the proximity in geographics and technical level (with ofc the superiority of the west) to minimize other factors. its not THE main cause for it but its one of the necessary aspects.

=>expansion of the workforce pool isn't in the benefit of the state or the society, its for the capitalists at the cost of the potential and possibly the future of the entire nation, most modern jobs are in the services sectors that doesn't truly generate a surplus value, it serves only for inflation of the GDP numbers without real final material product, services are necessary but at the current level they are inflated and are the counterpart of bureaucracies, their existence is justified by the purchase of social peace.

2-100% agreed they're puppets of world powers, but what you're proposing here is becoming a proactive puppet that follows the order without being told to, you'll be doing exactly what they want you to, in which way the stuff you're preaching here differ from what the west forces us to do and sanctions us if we dont ?

3-you'd be surprised at the level of clarity the people had and the political movements (like the muslim brotherhood, especially pre sayyid qutb's execution) at their political realities, many of which were in mostly benevolent dictatorships like Algeria, they had every chance to adapt and every incentive to do so but the people will choose faith whenever given the chance, election results whenever fair elections were held always brought the islamist parties and the only reason hardliners didn't win is because they weren't allowed to participate from the first place after the algerian experience of 1991 when the jihadi party won by a plurality in the country's first elections, after over 160 years of secularism colonial and national.

=>with the countries you stated prior they really aren't a representative examples, turkey's mainland is mostly homogenous yet it took a worldwar to turn it into a secular modern nation state and despite that it spent decades in political instability, modern image is a product of that and despite that it still has the kurdish problem.

=>malaysia lacks the civilizational baggage our region has in order to pass, their modernization was done at the cost of completely disregarding the faith's political aspect, which isn't far off of what the west requires.

=>morocco's rallying point is the monarchy (from suspicion of a 'republican' neighbor) and irredentism, that's what's holding the country together and keeping the population complacent with the status quo and stopping bigger questions every population would evantually ask when the nation building commences to decide a trajectory and start internal purges, if that's how you envision a superior solution than might as well start treating bad eyesight with sulfuric acid eye drops.