Monday, April 05, 2004
From WorldNetDaily.com:
"If any one cuts the ear of another, his ear is to be cut in return," wrote the sheikh. "If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutliated dead strugglers in the same way it was done to them."
The sheikh cited the Quranic verse: "If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were inflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient."
The Fallujah incident last week demonstrated not for the first time, the perspectival, cultural and response asymmetry in this war. Right from the onset, we are able to see how Americans deal with and react to situations according to the principles of international law, simply because it is deemed a civilized superpower. We also witness how many Iraqis still retort to the unjust occupation by the basis of misinterpreted religious teachings and primitive barbaric means. While military asymmetry might have tweaked the war to the coalition troops' advantage, its commanders remain mere hostages to the game and its soldiers, vulnerable victims to random destructive acts by an enemy who does not play by the rules.
On another note, the superiority of the arms technology does not determine the level of barbaric atrocity. Killings in a war could be justifiable homicide, but no matter how far along we attempt to stretch, mutilation is beyond justification, primarily an act of vengeance that runs tangents off the customary laws of war. In following the argument, the sophistication of weaponry too, may not justify the killings of hundreds of soldiers as well. Explosives used in modern warfare is also capable of killing and mutilating soldiers beyond recognition, in lack of complete remains. Technical failure is common resulting in missed targets and civilian casualties - is that not an act of barbaric atrocity as well, regardless of the 'intention' defence since both paths would result in the same carnage?
Undoubtedly, this will lead to the question of (intended and accidental) participants in the war, where combatant killings are not considered criminal acts but where combatant-civilian killings weigh on a mixed bag of other issues. You may want to go here for a well-written comprehensive analysis which has delved into the said issues, in particular on the - combatant or non-combatant - definition of the contractors' status.
"If any one cuts the ear of another, his ear is to be cut in return," wrote the sheikh. "If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutliated dead strugglers in the same way it was done to them."
The sheikh cited the Quranic verse: "If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were inflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient."
The Fallujah incident last week demonstrated not for the first time, the perspectival, cultural and response asymmetry in this war. Right from the onset, we are able to see how Americans deal with and react to situations according to the principles of international law, simply because it is deemed a civilized superpower. We also witness how many Iraqis still retort to the unjust occupation by the basis of misinterpreted religious teachings and primitive barbaric means. While military asymmetry might have tweaked the war to the coalition troops' advantage, its commanders remain mere hostages to the game and its soldiers, vulnerable victims to random destructive acts by an enemy who does not play by the rules.
On another note, the superiority of the arms technology does not determine the level of barbaric atrocity. Killings in a war could be justifiable homicide, but no matter how far along we attempt to stretch, mutilation is beyond justification, primarily an act of vengeance that runs tangents off the customary laws of war. In following the argument, the sophistication of weaponry too, may not justify the killings of hundreds of soldiers as well. Explosives used in modern warfare is also capable of killing and mutilating soldiers beyond recognition, in lack of complete remains. Technical failure is common resulting in missed targets and civilian casualties - is that not an act of barbaric atrocity as well, regardless of the 'intention' defence since both paths would result in the same carnage?
Undoubtedly, this will lead to the question of (intended and accidental) participants in the war, where combatant killings are not considered criminal acts but where combatant-civilian killings weigh on a mixed bag of other issues. You may want to go here for a well-written comprehensive analysis which has delved into the said issues, in particular on the - combatant or non-combatant - definition of the contractors' status.
