...yet another instance of Muslims declaring war on itself....I sit back and think of the times in Mohammeds life 1400 years ago when he was battling one nomadic tribe after another and then I realized in 1400 years , the Muslims have accomplished absolutely zip....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 8, 2007 12:39 PM

I do not want to simplify this as "all politics is local", but people too often equate all Muslims as Muslims. The above article speaks to that bias.

Muslims have as much rivalry like Americans do in high school football games....their's though are much more deadly.
The same is true down to the mosque or imam which they choose to follow.

Yemen is but a microcosm of a more explosive part of Islam. Call a Afghanie and "Arab" sometime or refer to the Arabian Empire to a Persian and you will get the same scowling looks of not wanting to be knows as "those people".

In essence, you have black Muslims, Turk or sons of Esau Muslims, sons of Lot Muslims in Jordan, the Ishaelite sons of Islam in Arabia, the semitic offshoots of Persians and Afghanie, to the north African Egyptians to Algerians. Couple that with the Chinese to Indonesians and you have a mix which might call themselves Islam, but they are biased to the extreme.
If you mix in Islamocommunists and Islamofascists, you get another layer of "Islam".

This is why Ahmadinejad is so fixated on the forces to drive Islam apart. For students of history Islam never has been one voice. Muhammed butchered people to gain control as much as Persians, Arabs and Ottomans. They always are fighting and if they didn't have an America...then there was a Mongol.....then there was the British...then there was the Ottoman...and when they don't have someone else to attack they start attacking themselves.

Until those 20 to 30 million young, angry, well fed and healthy Muslim males get old and start taking naps, there is going to be a warrior ride for 30 years in the middle east.
The only other alternative is war to kill all of them and it looks very much like that is what was decided on sometime last year as the love thy Muslim policy of Bush can not overcome the "hate everyone who is not Muslim" policy of Islam.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 8, 2007 12:43 PM

The implications here are staggering, implying the Shia-Sunnis are at war . . . and not just in an unfriendly standoff, but more like dry wood on a windy, sunny day, just waiting to catch fire. Yeman's government, not just 'isoloated Salafists' but by formal decree the govenment is killing their own fellow Muslims who happen to be Shia. Isn't their a border b/w Yeman and Saudi Arabia? I can't imagine the Sunnis and Shias in Saudi Arabia ignoring what is happening next door . . . in Iraq and now in Yeman.

Lebanon too is a tinderbox, although, for long, the 'story' has been about the Christians and the Muslims, but within Lebanon the Sunnis and shia are increasingly facing off.

The little King Abdullah, son of Hussein of 3000 dead Palestinians of Black September fame, lectures us how Israel is of central dispute in healing the world, and through 'solving' Palestine, we bring peace to all. Somehow, I don't see how Israel is very much a major issue concerning Jihad declared by a Sunni government against her own Muslim brothers.

Posted by: biorabbi at March 8, 2007 1:19 PM

B-b-but, Muslims killing Muslims? That can't be. The Qur'an forbids it. And D'Souza and Eteraz assured us that Muslims have lived in peace with each other for over a thousand years. The whole Sunni/Shia split is a fiction created by the CIA and Mossad.

GWB, help me out here, what was that beautifully peaceful line in the Qur'an? "If you kill one man it is like killing all humanity"? Oh, that's right, in context, that was Muslims warning that if a Jew kills one Muslim, Allah will justify killing as many Jews as desired. Doesn't apply here.

Posted by: special_guest at March 8, 2007 1:22 PM

But isn't this an "approved" jihad? I mean it is state-organized, state-supported jihad. Wasn't it only a few days ago that one of our "enlightened" Muslim guests was telling us that only the state had the authority to call for real jihad?

Posted by: teachingmyown at March 8, 2007 1:54 PM

Quelle surprise.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 1:55 PM

Lame Cherry -- your comment on Muslim rivalries being akin to American High School football brought to mind for me something the comedian John Caponera said about training for suicide bombing...

"I mean, can you imagine, here's the coach... the suicide bomber coach, if you will, and he's got his team together for practice...suicide bombing practice, right?..so he calls them together and says, "Okay, guys now pay attention, I'm only going to show you this once...."

Seriously though, American High School football is nothing compared to Muslim rivalries, Southeastern Conference Football, maybe. But not high school football...

Posted by: teachingmyown at March 8, 2007 2:04 PM

Takes bite out of pulled-pork sammich, followed by sip of Heineken....

Posted by: MP at March 8, 2007 2:25 PM

Well, guess when all the infidels are exterminated then they can concentrate on exterminating each other.

Posted by: americaningermany at March 8, 2007 01:19 PM

And that WILL come to pass. Because unlike the infidels who fight them, these people will show no mercy whatsoever to their own "brothers" once they fight each other. The Iran-Iraq War will look like a war game by comparison.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 8, 2007 2:33 PM

The first chapter of J. B. Kelly's "Arabia, the Gulf, & The West" (1980 Basic Books) is titled, "The Abandonment of Aden". It describes the behavior of the British government in the 1960s, as Britain extricated itself from its prior commitments (protectorates), and colony, in South Arabia and Aden (later to become part of the current Yemen, after unification with North Yemen).

Kelly writes (pg 46): "Whatever view one takes of Britain's retreat from empire since 1945, it is impossible to avoid the sombre conclusion that Britain betrayed her trust and ran away from her responsibilities in South Arabia. Faced with a terrorist movement which was determined, ruthless, and implacable, the British government of the day displayed none of these qualities in return. In a contest of wills it proved spineless"

This was before the current resurgence of jihadi islam. The terrorists he refers to were not particularly driven by islam. They were secular ideologues, some influenced by camel nasser, some more or less nominally "socialist", some just thuggish. Of course however, per Hugh, the attitudes and atmospherics of their societies were greatly influenced by islam. Also, Kelly does not discuss Shia/Sunni conflicts in South Arabia (became South Yemen). Presumably more of these conflicts occurred in North Yemen, where the Shia Zaidis had recently been overthrown.

Now: I'm not opposed, in general, to peace-on-earth. But, I am uncomfortable with the assumption of responsibility to enforce peace-on-earth, as it is a fool's errand, even if well meaning.

Perhaps Hugh could provide some insight about what would have been his recommended course of action, by the British, in South Arabia, in the 1960s. There is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't quality to the story, similiar to presentday Iraq, although Iraq was never our "colony" or protectorate. The biggest mistake, by "the West", is in assuming responsibility for the well being of these places at all. That is where Dubya and his advisors truly blundered, and where the British blundered in South Arabia. However, the assumption of responsibility (seizure) for Aden had occurred in the 19th century, not recently.

Kelly's analysis is scathing, and seems to pre-echo (?word?) the views of some in the US administration and Army about Iraq.

Personally, I dislike forced analogies, so I apologize if the above is a somewhat forced analogy. Thanks for any insight.

Posted by: del at March 8, 2007 2:49 PM

Do these mo-foes have any other tool in their workbox besides 'declaring jihad'?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 3:07 PM

"Do these mo-foes have any other tool in their workbox besides 'declaring jihad'?"

...a compass, so they will know which way to urinate...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 8, 2007 3:10 PM

Well, I'll tell you what J. B. Kelly told a high-ranking Pentagon official, on a conference call (the third party was Bernard Lewis), back in 2003. I know the exact contents because Kelly called me just afterwards. And this is what he said: Get out of Iraq just as soon as you can. The British couldn't hold it. It is a violent place, and it cannot be held, and there is no gain to come from staying there. Let them do to each other what they will do.

That, not verbatim, is what he said.

And today what does he say? Well, I tell him what I put up at JW, and he has never disagreed. Not a bit.

He did think the British government -- not the army -- behaved with pusillanimity in Aden, not permitting sufficient force to be used if it meant to use force at all. And he was against the withdrawal of British garrisons and military advisers in the smaller sheikdoms and in Oman, his favorite country, but he was leery of having anything to do with that awful place, Saudi Arabia. The political and diplomatic history of which he likely knows better than anyone else on earth.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 3:20 PM

Teachingmyown, does the Third Saturday In October have any special meaning to you?

Posted by: Pelayo at March 8, 2007 3:36 PM

del quoted J.B. Kelly

Faced with a terrorist movement which was determined, ruthless, and implacable, the British government of the day displayed none of these qualities in return. In a contest of wills it proved spineless

What would the British have gained by obstinately and generously staying in Aden? Would the Yemenese have become 40 years more friendly towards the British? Would the Yemenese have picked up 40 years worth of British values? Would the British have gained 40 more years of macho swagger by showing they could "take it"?

I don't understand the desire to continue to interact with the anti-Western Islamic world, either in an attempt to "save" them, or to "subdue" them. Anything beyond removing their ability to attack us, I don't understand.

Posted by: special_guest at March 8, 2007 5:01 PM

Great, superb - what I like to hear.

Perhaps the entire Yemeni nation can become shaheeds against each other. And hopefully Iran will feel obliged to help the Yemeni Shiites

Of course I would rather they abandoned Islam and lived in peace with each other but if it cannot be that way - muslim killing muslim - pure music

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 8, 2007 5:23 PM

If memory serves, Aden was of particular value as a coaling and victualing station on the sea way to India. By the sixties, its strategic utility to the British was rather limited. While still a choke-point, from a naval perspective missile-firing submariness and carrier-based air power would both serve to severly limit its utility. OT - I have a friend who served in Aden in the Argyll & Sutherland Higlanders in the waning days of British rule. He mentioned that when things got hectic, the local police force mutinied against the British. A soldier in the ASH has the distinction of being the last (known) British serviceman to use the bayonet to take out an enemy.

Posted by: MP at March 8, 2007 5:31 PM

biorabbi wrote:

The implications here are staggering, implying the Shia-Sunnis are at war

==

Yes. And sooner or later I expect Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria & Lebanon to go up.

Bush and Blair look on it as horror.
I dont. It aids the West. Civil war would be great - just stay out of harms way.

==

Saudi Arabia have said that if the US & UK quit Iraq, then they will aid the beleagured Sunni minority.

And most Sunni Islamic countries were very nervous and silent over Hezbollah activity in Lebanon.

Bahrain has ruling wealthy Sunni minority and a large poor Shia majority - exactly the right conditions for revolution.

The Shia inside Saudi Arabia are increasingly vocal particularly against Sunni clerics that damn them as heretics.

And the minority Alawites ruling Syria are very nervous about their large Sunni population deciding to get rid of them and view them as heretics (it is a Muslim sect).

Yes, conditions are good.
Just sit, wait patiently and watch horror unfold.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 8, 2007 5:37 PM

The mention of Shi'ites and jihad necessarily brings to mind Iran, and its possible involvement; this is all the more the case as Iran maneuvers for dominance against both Saudi Arabia and other Sunni arms of the jihad (both those directed as not-Muslim-enough Muslims-- various, mostly non-Sunni sects-- and at just-plain-non-Muslims.).

Iran has already been implicated (along with Libya, interestingly). But it will be interesting to observe as time will tell if, with this step by the Yemeni regime, Iran (if involved) has bitten off more than it can chew. Or, perhaps it thinks it's getting what it wanted at the moment, keeping in mind the propensity for megalomania among the Iranian regime in general, and Ahmadinejad in particular.

In either case, it could serve as a distraction from Iran's other jihad-oriented projects throughout the world and further divide oil revenues already going to, among other things, Palestinian groups, Hizballah, Iran's nuclear program, Shi'ite groups in Iraq, and so on.

Then, this could not only curtail Iran's activities abroad, depending on how messy things get in Yemen, but could also stir up trouble at home, as one more program competes for funding with Ahmadinejad's original campaign promise of sharing oil wealth more equitably among the Iranian people-- another distraction one can hope for.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 8, 2007 6:16 PM

Pelayo -- BEAT BAMA!!!!

Posted by: teachingmyown at March 8, 2007 6:20 PM

Hugh,
It is certainly unfortunate that the US gov't listened to Bernard Lewis instead of J.B. Kelly, about Iraq. Thanks...I realize that my comment was tangential. Perhaps you could, at some point, write an essay exploring the appropriate place and use of intervention and force, around the world, both unilaterally and in group, or UN actions. It is a sticky subject, deserving of some clear thinking, particularly because future US Presidents and future leaders of all Western countries should be evaluated, before election, on their wisdom about the subject.

special_guest,
I agree with you. The British would have gained little, except for "face", and they would have lost that as well, eventually. However, I find it difficult to respond to statements such as J.B. Kelly's, concerning responsibility. If you click on the link (above in Robert Spencer's post) to Jane Novak's blog, you can see a couple of comments at the bottom of the item. In the first, a commenter basically says: let them [Yemenis] go to hell, he doesn't care. In the second, Ms. Novak responds that she does care. Who, with a shred of compassion, can not care? She doesn't specifically advocate intervention, but, many readers must wonder: what is an appropriate response to this? Write letters to the local Yemeni ambassador? Send in another UN "peacekeeping" force? Or be satisfied that muslims are killing muslims (and not killing us), as the commenter at Armies of Liberation said? I prefer to acknowledge that it is up to the yemenis to get a clue and change their society and beliefs; that there are limits to what can be done in these situations, particularly by outsiders.
I brought it up because it is related to the headline about Yemen, I have been thinking about that quote for a while, and because Hugh generally holds J.B. Kelly in high regard.

Posted by: del at March 8, 2007 8:41 PM

The little King Abdullah, son of Hussein of 3000 dead Palestinians of Black September fame, lectures us how Israel is of central dispute in healing the world, and through 'solving' Palestine, we bring peace to all. Somehow, I don't see how Israel is very much a major issue concerning Jihad declared by a Sunni government against her own Muslim brothers.”

In the final analysis, Israel’s role as the institutionalized whipping boy of Arab despots and Islamic extremists must be seen as a penultimate concession of Muslim weakness and incompetence. It is as if the tiny nation of Costa Rice managed to persistently and convincingly defeat The United States’ combined armed forces on a routine basis.

That surrounding Arab nations continue in their reluctance to collectively absorb the relatively small Palestinian population reveals their abject refusal to seek any resolution of this crisis. All protests to the contrary aside, it also demonstrates unanimous Arab approval, both tacit and overt, of Palestinian terrorism. That so many Middle East dictatorships and totalitarian Arab regimes all hold up lack of solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict as their excuse for not implementing long overdue reforms is transparent nonsense. Europe’s willing support for and acceptance of this blatant ruse is a hallmark of lingering anti-Semitism that disgraces the entire continent to this day.

Finally, it is extremely telling that absolutely nobody wants to adopt the Palestinians. It is as if the MME (Muslim Middle East) has bred up a particularly ill-tempered attack dog that not a one of them would possibly consider having in their own home. This is bigotry writ large and yet the international community, especially the United Nations, all play along with this eternal Arab blackmail over resolving their own self-inflicted wound.

”They were secular ideologues, some influenced by camel nasser …”

I hadn’t heard that particular nickname before. Is that what his pool boy called him?

”Do these mo-foes have any other tool in their workbox besides 'declaring jihad'?”

Yes, there is seething and dire revenge. But that pretty much wraps it up.

As to this new bout of internecine Arab slaughter, I’ll close with an observation from "The Three Conjectures" by The Belmont Club’s Wretchard:

”Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.”

Posted by: Zenster at March 9, 2007 6:56 PM

" '...camel nasser'

I hadn’t heard that particular nickname before. Is that what his pool boy called him?"

gamal = camel

see, for example: http://lexicorient.com/e.o/camel.htm

I am often impressed that so many converts to islam, and non-muslim Americans, choose the name "Jamal", considering what it means (to me, a nasty foul tempered critter). But then i guess it is fashionable for some, and fashion runs many people's lives, and in islam and among arabs, a camel is seemingly looked at with reverence.

Posted by: del at March 9, 2007 8:34 PM

del, thank you so much for clarifying. One would think that Muslims would abhor this animal. After all: (from your informative link)

Originally, the camel came from North America some 10 million years ago, where it became extinct about 2 million years ago.

Posted by: Zenster at March 11, 2007 4:12 AM