Too many non Muslims are reporting how peacefull Muslims are. With few, if any Muslims supporting that view in real terms.

The trouble with the Press is there is no Constitutional obligation to tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth,. So help me God. As is our Justice System. The MSM reports events in a context that supports an Idealogical adjenda. Utopia is not supported by the Truth.

I suspect that even if it were possible to get the 2 sides of Islam to go after each other in a big way. They would still find time in their busy Lives to still come after us. Kinda like who gets the credit for doing us the most harm.

We all have a very long way to go befor any of this ends.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 18, 2007 9:29 AM

The plight of the Baluchis is terrible. Strangely, this is one group of people who feel more strongly about their ethnicity rather than Islam. It is the same mentality the Kurds have. To them being a Baloch or a Kurd is more important than being a muslim. The Balochis have been struggling ever since 1947 against the Punjabi controlled Pakistani establishment. They were coerced to join Pakistan by Jinnah in 1947. Ever since there have been many uprisings against the government of Pakistan. The current one is under way and one of their leaders Nawab Akbar Bugti was assasinated in Aug 2006. If at all anyone or any group can be called liberal muslims, the Balochis can be counted as one. They have always supported India and India has always provided moral support to them.

Posted by: Ishwar at February 18, 2007 9:36 AM

It's amazing to see how the same race of people could hate each other over the way each other think ? Islam is insane.

Posted by: Jeff at February 18, 2007 10:04 AM

"Strangely, this is one group of people who feel more strongly about their ethnicity rather than Islam. It is the same mentality the Kurds have. To them being a Baloch or a Kurd is more important than being a muslim."

How long will that last, once their nationalistic needs are met? All we see with them is priority.
Islam doesn't matter only because their leaders are Islamic. Having their own nation won't make them less Islamic. Do the Kurds or the Baluchis treat non-Muslims any better than the Saudis or the Iranians do? Are there Christian communities within the Kurdish areas or in Baluchistan that live freely and without fear and without paying the jizya?

Western Pakistan is one of the havens of al-Qaeda. Are we supposed to believe that the Baluchis would be less hospitable to violent Muslim theology? They're poor. Why wouldn't they welcome terrorists with cash who are willing to pay for protection?

Posted by: PMK at February 18, 2007 11:05 AM

Hugh: Why do you call us Infidels? The word seems inherently negative (from the latin for treacherous). I know it can be neutral, but it doesn't seem neutral. In your writing you seem to set up Islam as the standard from which we diverge. From a neutral point of view, everyone is an infidel.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 18, 2007 11:08 AM

I use the term "Infidels" rather than the term "non-Muslims" because I want to constantly remind everyone that we are all, in Muslim eyes, "Infidels" (it is a term that they use; in the Western world, no one uses the term "Infidels" any longer to indicate the non-Christians). It is a deliberate choice. I don't think anyone really would gather, from what I write, that I have in any sense adopted the Muslim view of anything. Call it a bit of style indirect libre.

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 11:46 AM

I just finished reading Tom Bissell's "Searching for the Sea" which is an interesting travelog on Uzbekistan. It struck me that one explanation as to why Central Asian Muslims are relative moderate is that since they are not Arabic speakers they haven't been indoctrinated that thoroughly in the Arabic language-based Islamic liturgy. They really drink a lot by the way.
Maybe that could be a reason why Kurds and Baluchis are less extreme? On the other hand, the Iranian regime is really out there, though the people are much less so. Perhaps the holy texts are widely available in Farsi?
Maybe Hugh can help enlighten.

Posted by: jewdog at February 18, 2007 12:46 PM

"Western Pakistan is one of the havens of al-Qaeda. Are we supposed to believe that the Baluchis would be less hospitable to violent Muslim theology? They're poor. Why wouldn't they welcome terrorists with cash who are willing to pay for protection?"

PMK

There are Hindus living in Balochistan and they seem to be better in Balochistan and Sindh than in any other part of Pakistan. Of course, they owe allegiance to the Sardars (tribal lords). I don't know about the Christians of Balochistan. Probably the same as the Hindus. Also the Christians in and around Baghdad have fled to the Northern Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Northern Iraq consists of mostly Assyrian Christians. I believe they are more comfortable there than anywhere else in Iraq. Hugh can weigh in on this. My point is that the Balochis and Kurds seem to be less rabid than the mainstream muslims. I once saw an interview with a Kurdish Iraqi who claims that the Arabs don't consider the Kurds as true muslims. Hence they (the Kurds) would like to consider themselves as Kurds rather than muslims. That could explain animosity towards them by Iraqi Arabs, Syrian Arabs, Turks and Iranians.

Also i don't think that the non arab speaking muslims are less prone to be radical. Case in point being the Pakistanis (non sindhi and Balochi), Bangladeshis, Indian muslims, Iranians, the Indonesians, some Afghans. Again this is my opinion and Hugh can elaborate on it.

Posted by: Ishwar at February 18, 2007 1:23 PM

Excellent and is exactly as I wrote to the President and other leaders in promoting as part of a 3 phase plant of autonomy for various groups. Let us not forget the Syrian Christian and the Kurd also to carve up Iran and Syria.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 18, 2007 1:25 PM

The book by Bissell -- is it about Uzbekistan today, or five years ago, or under Soviet rule? Under the Soviets, the basmachi revolt was crushed, mosques destroyed, public displays of Islamic faith largely prohibited or greatly constrained. Islam was subject to the same anti-religion campaign as Christianity and Judaism. In Central Asia, to some extent, the decades in whcih Islam was crushed did permit the emergence of truly secular locals, who studied in such places as MGU (Moskovskih Gosudarstvennij Universitet) or all kinds of technical institutes, and while they may have resented Russian dominance and Communist oppression, once having been exposed to non-Muslim societies and ways of thought, have not returned.

Or have they? In Kazakhstan, though some rich Kazakhs have taken to building mosques in their villages (not quite knowing what the effect of those mosques may be), out of some kind of felt filial piety, the Kazak population (about 50% of the total) is mostly secular. In Tadzhikistan, the situation is quite different. In Uzbekistan, it is changing, with the re-emergence of Islam. Which is what brings me, by a vicus circumlocuitous, right back to my first question: when was Bissell's book about Uzbekistan written?

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 1:26 PM

The point about the Kurds is that their interests and those of the Arabs who have kept them down, and murdered them, do not coincide. And the Baluchis under such tribal leaders as the English-educated one who was assassinated by the Pakistani army last year, along with his grandson, have had quite enough ill-treatment by the Muslim government of Muslim Pakistan to be not quite so convinced of the benefits of the "umma."

The main point is that wherever there is some ethnic or tribal identity that may work against the tug of Islam, if properly identified and encouraged, and those who share that ethnic or tribal identity can be made to see how Islam has been a vehicle for those -- Arabs in Iraq and Syria, the "pure" Muslims of the government of "pure" (pak) Pakistan -- who have been their oppressors.

Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, or as a vehicle for those who would stamp out any pre-Islamic or non-Islamic identity (and the major political forces controlling Pakistan have been both victims of this nothing-but-Islam-and-only-Islam notion themselves, and inflicted such attitudes on others).

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 1:45 PM

Hugh,
Always grateful for your erudition albeit less for some of your solutions (we should kick ass and win in Iraq).

If the end is to win this jihadi war, the appalling ignorance of journalists, commentators, and politicians is pitiful, even conservative persons and programs.

To hear interviews of islamics trying to catch the gravy train of interview programs or book sales, interviews by incompetent hosts who wont even open a book like the koran - unconscionable.

But to you Hugh, many thanks.

Posted by: dgene at February 18, 2007 2:01 PM

There are two types of people in the world, reflecting a deeper division than Believer and Infidel: those who like Leno, and those who like Letterman.

Posted by: remote_control at February 18, 2007 2:16 PM

REMOTE-CONTROL: "There are two types of people in the world, reflecting a deeper division than Believer and Infidel: those who like Leno, and those who like Letterman."

Jays monologues are better; better writing and better delivery. Dave's interviews are better; he isn't as obsequious as Jay and his nervous disposition sometimes lends itself to comedic highs.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 18, 2007 2:50 PM

Well, Cornelius, I don't agree with you about the monologues -- and I have the greatest monloguist in television history on my side: Johnny Carson, who publically said he liked Letterman better than Leno (notwithstanding the fact that Leno was his -- Johnny's -- official successor) and in the last few years of his life actually wrote jokes which he sent in to the Letterman staff for Letterman to use in his monologue.

Posted by: remote_control at February 18, 2007 3:30 PM

"There are two types of people in the world, reflecting a deeper division than Believer and Infidel: those who like Leno, and those who like Letterman."
-- from a posting above

This summons up past postings. For example, this from 2004:

"Were you preparing such plans [by Al-Qaeda to set off bombs in the United States] in Waziristan, what would stop you? Nothing. But what stopped the Red Army from moving into Western Europe was the certainty that the United States would respond, doing this and doing that. If there is no hint of what, in the case of further Muslim attacks on the Infidel enemy, what "doing this and doing that" by the Infidel enemy, led and organized by the United States, would mean, there is no reason to hesitate. So far the response has been, not merely to eliminate the weaponry in one of the most -- but not the most -- dangerous Muslim state (Iran and Saudi Arabia take precedence), but to misallocate resources in order to create a "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" which shows little understanding of the real problem -- not an absence of "democracy" (or the unreasonable facsimile thereof, which is all one can hope for in the Muslim world as long as Islam itself is not bound-and-gagged the way Ataturk did it)-- but the tenets of Islam.

The fact that no one, not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not the BBC, not Le Monde, not any world leader, dares to use, and use again, such words as "Islam" and "Muslim" except to go out their collective way NOT to connect those words either with terrorism or with any other kind of threat -- so that, if Islam itself is really so wonderful, such a "religion" of "peace" and "tolerance," then it seems churlish, and unreasonable -- does it not? -- to worry about the demographic conquest of Europe. Only if there is something about Islam itself, the doctrines it inculcates, which are in no way mitigated by the fact that not all Believers act on those doctrines, not all Believers even are fully apprised of those doctrines (though most are), not all Believers are total supporters of those doctrines (as long as they count themselves among the Believers, they swell the ranks of Muslims, and hence their political power, and ability to inhibit any effective measures of self-defense, including immigration measures, which might otherwise be undertaken by Infidels -- Infidels of all kinds, Infidels who are for Bush or for Kerry or for Fiorello LaGuardia, Infidels who prefer Leno to Letterman or choose neither, Infidels who eat meat and others who are vegetarians, but all of them Infidels, that is to say, non-Muslims, and all equally under threat, if they only knew, from Islam as a belief-system.

Surely those whose duty it is to protect us, and to instruct us, had better begin to think aloud about measures other than the huge misallocation of resources (men, materiel, money, and attention) that Iraq has become (not always was, for the original invasion, the search for weaponry, the destruction of the regime, was perfectly justified -- but that it has become in the expensive will-o'-the-wisp of a "model" government. Just because al-Jazeera and the Arab League seem to want America to leave Iraq does not mean we should not for our own reasons -- better to fight the Jihad with other weapons, including huge sums which might best be spent on energy research and development, for without money the Saudis and others cannot build those mosques all over the West, those madrasas all over the East, they cannot bribe those diplomats, journalists, professors at "Centers of Arab Studies" or "Muslim-Christian Relations." And without spending money in the war of ideas -- and one of those ideas must be to alert Europeans as to three things:

1) the real nature of Islamic tenets including the requirement that Jihad be conducted until the Dar al-Islam covers the globe

2) the uniform treatment, after Jihad-conquest, of the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists who were subject either to death, or immediate forced conversion, or to the imposed status of dhimmi, which is to say a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent insecurity.

3) Islam as a Total Explanation of the Universe does not admit of free and skeptical inquiry. The tenets of Islam ban sculpture, paintings (of living things), music (except in rare cases). The tenets of Islam, as worked out, stunt the mental growth -- as one can see by looking at how, when the indigenous non-Muslim populations had been sufficiently reduced in size and significance, all real intellectual activity (outside of Islamic commentaries and other efforts all centered on Islam itself) ceased -- which explains why there has been so little contribution in the last 800 years, as compared to that from the West (and indeed elsewhere). The contempt inculcated for all else outside of Islam is reflected in the statistics about the small number of books translated into Arabic -- why, when you are taught, and retaught, that Islam contains All Ye Know on Earth and All Ye Need to Know, ever bother to inquire about other matters, not merely other religions, but all the vast outpouring from political and moral thinkers (can one imagine a college bookstore in Cairo or Damascus offering Locke and Hume and Spinoza to the students? Can one imagine literature courses that really conveyed the variety and size of what, in English, in French, in Russian, in Italian, in Spanish, in German, has been achieved? Can one imagine even books full of pictures of Italian Renaissance Art being offered? One can compare this with the interest and sophistication demonstrated in Japan, Korea, China about all of these expressions of Western culture. In those countries, at least as distant from the West, there is neither indifference, nor hostility (look at where the classical musicians today come from), but interest, sympathetic study, and appreciation.

Islam is a Complete System. It regulates all areas of life. It trammels the spirit; it limits the permissible possibilities of thought. Were mere numbers, mere demography, to lead to a Muslim majority in Europe, this would of course be a terrible military threat (and not only to the United States). But it would be a permanent threat to the very idea of mental freedom, artistic creation, to civilization if that word still has meaning. Everything must be done to prevent that from happening, to keep Islam bottled up and, if possible, its adherents demoralized and divided. The resentments of non-Arab Muslims against Arab Muslims, the contempt of Arab Muslims for non-Arab Muslims -- all of this can be seen in Darfur, in Kurdistan, in the Kabyle.

[Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2004 09:17 AM]

In the middle, you will find the following:

"Infidels of all kinds, Infidels who are for Bush or for Kerry or for Fiorello LaGuardia, Infidels who prefer Leno to Letterman or choose neither, Infidels who eat meat and others who are vegetarians, but all of them Infidels, that is to say, non-Muslims, and all equally under threat, if they only knew, from Islam as a belief-system."

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 3:43 PM

"Leno or Letterman...."

The Red or the Black? The Blue or the Gray? The Federalists or the Jeffresonians? The Guelfs or the Ghibellines? The Colorados or the Blancos? The Liberals or Conservatives? The Democrats or Republicans? ET or Access Hollywood? The English "Office" or the American "Office"? The Little-Enders or the Big-Enders? The wave-theorists or particle-theorists of light? The metaphoric or the metonymic poles? Olive oil or butter? Butter or jam? Jam or patum peperium? Le cru ou le cuit?

Go ahead. Choose one or neither or both.

But when it comes to what Muslim texts describe as the "Believers or the Infidels" for your own sake, and that of your children, you must never choose, no matter what, the "Believers."

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 3:54 PM

The Red or the Black? The Blue or the Gray? The Federalists or the Jeffresonians? The Guelfs or the Ghibellines? The Colorados or the Blancos? The Liberals or Conservatives? The Democrats or Republicans? ET or Access Hollywood? The English "Office" or the American "Office"? The Little-Enders or the Big-Enders? The wave-theorists or particle-theorists of light? The metaphoric or the metonymic poles? Olive oil or butter? Butter or jam? Jam or patum peperium? Le cru ou le cuit?

Not to mention the eternal struggle between Dar al-Ford and Dar al-Chevy.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 18, 2007 4:15 PM

Thx, Hugh. Your point about the Communist repression of religion was well taken and Bissell brought it out (and that would explain a religious rebound after the USSR imploded). I just thought that there was also an Arabic language component. And, certainly, ethnic loyalties and negative experiences with Islamic oppressor states can weaken Islamic loyalty.
Bissell's book is pretty recent - around the late nineties. While he shows a good command of Central Asian history, he is obviously uninformed about Islam and has a tendency to idealize it. For example, he attacks Islam Karimov's suppression of Islamic militants and speaks lovingly of his former hostess's Koran from his Peace Corps days. He also disparages Robert Kaplan, whom I've found to be a better travel writer.

Posted by: jewdog at February 18, 2007 4:16 PM

Baloch web sites

http://freebaloch.blogspot.com/

http://www.balochvoice.com/

Baloch Warna

Baloch Society of North America

Lots of info about Balochistan with districts

A couple of articles on Balochistan
The Baloch National Question

The resurgence of Baluch Nationalism - Frederic Grare - Carnegie endowment - PDF FILE

Posted by: ik at February 18, 2007 5:25 PM

The News International (Pakistan)
29 July 2000
Op-Ed. (Sorry, no URL)

ORIGINS OF QUETTA VIOLENCE

by Asad Rahman

Since the end of the last civil war 1973-77, Balochistan as a whole has
been spared the bloodshed, terror and brutalisation of civil society
witnessed in Sindh and Punjab until the recent rocket and bomb attacks
over the past few months. From all the reports appearing in the press,
the local administration and security forces seem to be at a loss as to
the identity of the perpetrators. This confusion is a reflection of the
apathy of the internal security agencies towards law and order in a
province that has seen four civil wars.

The genesis of these civil wars lies in how Balochistan became part of
the newly created state of Pakistan in 1947. The first two, 1948 and
1958, lasted a few months and ended in surrender of the nationalist
groups along with the incarceration of the then Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yar
Khan, under house arrest in Lahore for 15 odd years until a few years
before his death. The surrenders were brought about with oath on the
Holy Qur'aan by then Colonel Tikka Khan, later General, to right the
wrongs perpetrated on Balochistan by the federal governments. Nawab
Nouroz Khan, leader of the 1958 resistance, died at the age of 90 in
Hyderabad jail. Six of his companions, his sons and nephews, were hung
until dead in the same jail. His son tied a copy of the Holy Qur'aan
around his neck on the day of his hanging asking for it to be hung along
with him as it was on its oath that they had surrendered.

The third civil war lasted six years from 1962 to 1968. Only two battles
of any note took place in these six years with heavy losses on the
paramilitary side and victories for the Baloch. The Baloch did not
suffer much in terms of human losses but lost a huge number of livestock
(their mainstay economic activity) through bombardment. The fourth and
last civil war, 1973 to 1977, was the bloodiest in terms of human and
economic terms. The army and paramilitary forces engaged in this war
numbered around 80,000 men supported by Iranian helicopter gunships,
armoured vehicles and mortar artillery. It was the first civil war in
which the elite SSG Commando units were also sent into battle. Against
this the Baloch resistance fielded some 1,000 guerrilla fighters at any
given moment with antiquated second world war weapons like the Enfield
.303, hunting rifles and locally made Darra rifles. It is estimated that
the government forces suffered nearly 5,000 casualties while the Baloch
guerrilla forces suffered 1,500 casualties, both combatant and
non-combatant.

The scale in which modern weaponry was used in this civil war forced
some 7,000 families to seek refuge in Afghanistan where they remained as
refugees for sixteen years until their return to Balochistan in 1992.
These wars were the result of political and economic mismanagement by
successive federal governments in their relations and resource
allocations to the smaller (in terms of population) provinces of
Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP. The tribal setup of Balochistan, with some
radical nationalist Sardars, Nawabs and an armed population was always
in the forefront in demanding equitable provincial rights. Instead of
acting in a patriotic, nationalist and accommodating manner, all federal
governments have resorted to repressive force to quell their aspirations
of identity as Pakistanis, economic progress and a standard of living
equal to that of the other developed areas of the country.

With dismal education and economic standards, shackled in an oppressive
tribal system, the general public still has no say in the political
affairs of Balochistan and have to depend on their Sardars, Nawabs and
influentials to represent them at the provincial and national levels.
Historically, the institution of Sardar was democratic and was elected
from any section or family of the tribe whom they felt could best
represent the interests of the tribe. It was British colonialists who
converted this institution into a hereditary one and thus contributed to
the emergence of an oppressive, repressive and exploitative institution.
In the light of this development, some Sardars and Nawabs took on the
role of representatives for the whole of the Baloch nation. Thus formed
the ruling elite of the Baloch who, following in the footsteps of the
national ruling elite, indulged in corruption, repression of their own
people and used their people's armed power to serve their own self
interests, aggrandizement and projection.

This was the situation in the 1970s when a few young educated people
from Lahore and Karachi were invited by (then) radical nationalist
leaders of Balochistan, Nawab Khair Baksh Marri and Sher Mohammed Marri,
to come into their tribal area for social work. These boys not only made
significant contributions in the armed resistance from 1973 to 1977 but
also made another vital contribution in raising the awareness of the
people to the exploitative nature of the tribal and Sardari system. It
is because of this awakening of the people that has led to internal
tribal conflicts between the Sardars and their tribal subjects. These
conflicts are epitomised in the ongoing conflicts in the orthodox Marri
and Bugti tribes. In the Marri tribe, the conflict has its beginnings in
the refugee camps in Afghanistan when the Bijarani sections led by Sher
Mohammed and Mir Hazar Ramkani began to question the role of Nawab Khair
Baksh Marri, Sardar Ataullah Mengal in the 1973-77 resistance war and
the aid that they had purportedly received from various sympathetic
countries and sources for the war effort.

This falling out between the Bijaranis and the Nawab split the tribe
into three factions, the pro-Nawab and anti-Nawab factions and those
that remain neutral. The Bijarani section is the majority of the tribe
constituting nearly 55%, while the Gazainis number around 30% and the
remaining 15% are the Loharanis/Sheranis. Nawab Khair Baksh belongs to
the Bhawalanzai subsection of the Gazainis. The position of the Nawab at
present is very precarious even amongst the Gazainis as most have turned
away from him due to his stance against any economic or political/social
development for his tribe. The Bijaranis on the other hand are trying to
cooperate with the provincial and federal governments to develop the
areas that fall under their control. They have invited the oil company
that holds the lease for their area (block 2 to come in and explore
for oil and gas. On their own they have begun to mine coal from the
Kohlu area against the wishes of the Nawab. The Nawab allegedly
retaliated by having one of the coal transporting trucks attacked in
which one Pathan was killed and some others injured. The mining
operation continued with the Bijaranis providing security to the coal
transporters. Subsequently the murder of Justice Mohammed Nawaz Marri, a
Bijarani, was committed a few months ago. The local authorities arrested
Nawab Khair Baksh for allegedly instigating this murder. The Nawab's
sons are also wanted for interrogation but are absconding.

It is a known fact that Nawab Khair Baksh and Sardar Attaullah have
nurtured the dream of a greater Balochistan for decades constituted by
the Baloch areas of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistani Balochistan. It has
been reported that a hitherto undeclared Balochistan Liberation Army is
claiming responsibility for the recent bomb blasts and rocket attacks in
Quetta. It is also noteworthy that ever since Nawab Khair Baksh has been
under arrest that these bombings have taken place periodically and their
frequency has increased. Is there a connection keeping in view the
history of the four civil wars, the dream of a greater Balochistan, the
attacks on the Bijaranis opposing Khair Baksh, the murder of Justice
Marri and the emergence of the Balochistan Liberation Army? These are
the questions that the investigating and security agencies have to
answer in order to unravel this dangerous situation and stop it from
escalating.

Posted by: ik at February 18, 2007 5:26 PM

This can go on forever:

Harvard or Yale? Exeter or Andover? Oxford or Cambridge? Apple or Microsoft? Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton? Dickens or Thackeray? Shakespeare or Dante? Leonardo or Michelangelo? Dryden or Pope? Corneille or Racine? Ambrose Bierce or Bret Harte? Damon Runyon or Finley Peter Dunne? Benchley or Thurber? Steak or chicken? Sweet-and-sour pork, or sweet-and-sour shrimp? Franks or burgers? Coke or Pepsi?

Thank god I'm running out of paper.

Posted by: Hugh at February 18, 2007 5:30 PM

"Shakespeare or Dante?"

As T.S. Eliot said, "Shakespeare had Earth, Dante had Heaven. There is no third."

Posted by: remote_control at February 18, 2007 5:37 PM

Quite a SURPRISE !

I thought only Nagesh Bhushan.. and sanman etc had written a lot about Baluchis whatever.
REally amazing !!!!@

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 18, 2007 5:44 PM

" . . . this is one group of people who feel more strongly about their ethnicity rather than Islam. It is the same mentality the Kurds have. To them being a Baloch or a Kurd is more important than being a muslim. "
--Ishwar

Ditto for many Persians. Too few Berbers (Algeria, Morocco, Tunesia), still. Indonesians--possibly. It is with the people who feel their ethnic ties first and the ideology that has been imposed upon them by choice or the sword second.

The question to be posed to non-Arab Moslems: "You are not Arabs, why are such dedicated Moslems?"

One answer to which there is no retort, "Because Allah wills it."

You cannot reason with the illogical mind: where reason has been left behind in a "leap of faith" that has landed in an irrational world of epileptic ramblings, a concoction of half-understood bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity, of self-deification to appease earthly appetites.

Forget about those. There are others whose ethnic memory is strong.

The saddest case of all: The Pakistanis--who fancy themselves equal to Arabs in hierarchy of Moslemhood. They are not. The Arabs do not regard them as equals. As for the benighted African Moslems? Look at the black Moslems in the southern Sudan.

We Americans are Americans first, then ethnicity and religion follow. That is why there can be no Moslems that are trustworthy Americans. With Moslems, that always comes first--allegiance to the ummah, unquestioning adherence to the words of Mohammed--often via the mouths of imams and other inflammatory clerics.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 18, 2007 6:03 PM

jewdog said

On the other hand, the Iranian regime is really out there, though the people are much less so.

But how do you know that? How do you know that the "vast majority of moderate" Iranians are much less so "out there" than their "few radical" leaders?

Pundits have been 'splaining about how the Iranian leaders are no longer popular with the people. The reason? The Iranian leaders have promised economic reforms, and those reforms have not taken place.

But how do the pundits know that is the reason? How do they know that it wasn't the broken promises that the Iranian leaders made to "wipe Israel off the face of the map"? How do they know that the leaders aren't the "moderates", trying to ride a bucking bronco of Islamic extremism, and that they are making the threats just to please and appease the masses?

Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2007 6:14 PM

"Thank god I'm running out of paper." Hugh.

Speaking of paper, what about folders and wadders? Will this conflict be ended by those who know not paper? So many questions at (t)issue!

Posted by: USBeast at February 18, 2007 6:17 PM

dgene said

we should kick ass and win in Iraq

Didn't we already kick their ass? Didn't we already win? Saddam is dead, his sons are dead, the Baathists aren't in power, we proved they don't have WMD's, they had elections, Sunnis/Shi'ites/Kurds are sharing power in the government, they have rebuilt their army.

So why are we still there? If that wasn't a "win", then how would you define "win"? When the 1000+ year-old Sunni/Shi'ite split is resolved? When Muslims stop following the example of Muhammad and start acting like followers of Jesus? What? What is our goal now? And whatever it is, is it realistic?

Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2007 6:23 PM

To those who support an independent Balochistan:

I follow your argument, but why would an independent Baluchistan i.e. one more Islamic country, be good for infidels? This is a question that could have been asked in 1971 about Bangladesh. Only 'advantage' I see here is that unlike Bangladesh, Baluchistan doesn't border any infidel country, like India. But if that inspires, say, Sind's independence down the road, wouldn't that cause India to befriend it (like they did Bangladesh post 1971), and gain another enemy?

Also, unlike Kurds, the Baluchis aren't subjected to Arab supremacy, and are therefore less likely to associate their persecution by the Shia Iranians, or the (comparitively less Islamic) Pakistanis with the gift of Islam. Also, on the Pakistani side, Quetta, the capital, is a Pathan, rather than a Baluchi dominated area just across the border from Kandahar. How exactly would Baluchistan, if independent, be a thorn on the side of the ummah?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 18, 2007 6:37 PM

special_guest questions how I know that the Iranian people are less radical than their leaders.
-----------------------------------------------
I know, or can surmise, because of consistent election results which often show selection of the more moderate voices within the permitted list, as this last go-around when Borat Ahmedinejad's slate lost. Also, Israel's Farsi language station is very popular in Iran.
I've read that ~70-80% are anti-Mullah.
But, who really can tell with such a closed and repressive society?

Posted by: jewdog at February 18, 2007 6:38 PM

jewdog said

But, who really can tell with such a closed and repressive society?

Exactly. That's why it is so frustrating to hear our leaders and pundits tell us so authoritatively that most Iranians are more moderate than their leaders, that they are being held hostage by a few radicals, that the reason they didn't vote for Ahmedinijad's party was because they were rejecting Ahmedinijad's threats to obliterate Israel.

We heard the same "vast majority of moderates" mythology before invading Iraq. Now we're hearing the same thing about Iran, again with no evidence to back it up. I don't buy it.

Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2007 6:56 PM

About Baloch independence

Apart from the various reasons stated by Hugh above

cutting Pak and the Iranian mullahs down to size

The presence of large amounts of Natural Gas along with a small population makes the country economically viable - potentially. This also decreases the financially viability for the Pakjabi state.

the United States need no longer rely on the less-than-trustworthy Pakistan army and ISI, to aid its efforts against Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements in and around Quetta.

a free, independent and democratic Baluchistan would put paid to any possibility of a Chinese presence cropping up in the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar. Islamabad would no longer be able to extract leverage and concessions over the United States by playing on its flirtation with China over Gwadar.

the presence of such a free nation would provide direct access to Afghanistan and Central Asia beyond, as well as an outlet to the Arabian Sea, enabling the construction of a pipeline for oil that has otherwise been a difficult prospect owing to the mistrust Pakistan engenders in neighbouring governments.

encouraging sub nationalisms would encourage freedom from Arab imperialism. The bangladesh problem arises because of a huge population - baluchistan does not have a huge population.

read the following Christopher Hitchens article
Facing the Islamist Menace
Excerpt
Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of "Islamic solidarity". Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then-foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements-such as the Baluchis-within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.

Posted by: ik at February 18, 2007 7:40 PM

Leno cannot carry Dave's water, sorry. He's a complete ripoff. Letterman is far more iconoclastic than Leno could ever dream of being.

It's typical for mediocre TV shows to place people like Leno ahead of a true talent like David Letterman. Even though at times he waxes a bit too liberal for my taste.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at February 18, 2007 7:50 PM

Quoting jud:
Hugh, after reading with great care all you have written about Islam above, I conclude that you are telling us, in a not so round-about way, that those religions that believe every word of the Koran is true and infallible, are inherently anti-freedom, and pro-slavery and murder and the establishment of a perpetual servant class. Would it be a fair estimate on my part then to consider that you are saying clearly that this type of Islam is basically against all meaningfully human civilization and is totally irreformable and therefore should be shunned and wherever possible, eliminated?
Posted by: jud [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 18, 2007 04:40 PM

Boy, isn't that the heart of the matter - "what can we infidels do?"

Looking forward to Hugh's reply but if I may offer my $.02:

Would it be a fair estimate on my part then to consider that you are saying clearly that this type of Islam is basically against all meaningfully human civilization and is totally irreformable....

Can't disagree there.

"...and therefore should be shunned and wherever possible, eliminated?"

I don't think so. I think it need only be rendered relatively powerless. As Islam thinks like a bully, it is easily cowed by real toughness. If it understood that anything that looks like Jihad will be met with total spine, with completely determined response, by the Infidels, and with a ruthlessness that befits the attitudes within jihad, Islam would give up on taking over.

And it's a lot cheaper (and cleaner) than near-endless global warfare with a billion people.

Real spine takes away Jihad's power.

Posted by: WestwardHo at February 20, 2007 1:29 AM