I don’t disagree with your precepts, but the conclusions you draw from them are flawed. The dispossessed in Islam don’t associate their piss-poor condition with either Islam (as the source of it) or the current tyrant of their piss-poor regime. Because of the complete asphyxiation of rational thought that Islam accomplishes in the mind of its slaves, they (in aggregate) simply can not make that association. To the extent that they despise their tyrants, it is because they are insufficiently Islamic—their very definition and understanding of corruption is different than ours. Islam already provides the scapegoats in the form of the Jews and the mushrikun, that is, we infidels. The result is that when dispossessed Muslims actually perceive the chains they bear, their unchanging and unchangeable Koran and its acolytes stand ready to tell them why they are not superior: because they have been insufficiently Muslim, and so Allah has punished them by making them inferior to us.

This has certain natural consequences. First, the muj (who contrary to assertion are not/NOT cherry picking from the Koran and the Hadith) can preach to a waiting and receptive audience that it is their duty as Muslims to pick up the sword and follow the example of Muhammad and strike at the necks of the infidels. The tyrants just serve as further proof of the ummah’s failure to follow the example of the Prophet, as they are a scourge upon the faithless.

You, as a privileged member of an English-speaking democratic republic, one that has lasted a truly miraculous two-hundred plus years, almost instinctively feel that if only these dispossessed had some form of electoral power, they wouldn’t feel so dispossessed, so willing to pick up an AK or exploding vest, and would set to the slow, painful, centuries-long process of reforming their regimes and religion. But since elections themselves, the concept of a sacred individual expressing an inalienable right to choose his own government, is not only foreign to Islam, but haram (the human will, flawed and evil, can never be allowed to supplant the immutable will of Allah, aka Sharia, as countless fatwas have demonstrated), pushing democracy on an Islamic regime will result only in unintended consequences, most of which involve tremendous amounts of bloodshed and destruction. Should it pit our enemies against each other, so much the better, but when it gives our enemies the means of the state to carry on that which they would otherwise have to carry on via “terrorism,” then it is a fatally flawed strategy.

Which brings us back to Pakistan. No matter who is elected, they will be corrupt, and they will be hated by a huge segment of Pakistan’s woe-ridden populace (remember, to be popular in Pakistan means to be aggressively pro-Sharia, which also means anti-infidel). So it doesn’t matter how it makes us feel, whether their devils are elected or self-appointed. What matters is what actually serves the best interests of the USA, which is the last, best hope of human liberty (those of us who remember the real neo-conservatives, the mugged liberals of the early 1980s, remember their key belief that the USA is the greatest force for good in the world, and that it follows that what is good for the USA, is almost synonymous with what is good for the rest of the world). Forcing a psuedo-democracy on Pakistan simply does not serve the best interests of the USA, our allies, India. Really, it’s hard to think of anyone it actually serves, save the mob leader who wins power from the electoral fray and ensuing civil wars.

To our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong!

Mohammed didn’t die for his people, he conquered for them. Killed for them. Enslaved others for them. The muj pick and choose elements from the Prophet’s testimony that enable the powerless to feel powerful, even righteous when they slaughter God’s enemies, seize their lands and enslave their children.

The key word is “powerless,” and the dictatorships are what reinforce that sense of temporal futility. And while the kid down the street gets cheerfully sent to his death by the bin Ladens and al Zwahiris of this world, those worthies are notoriously thrifty with the lives of their own children. Because they’re not really pursuing the will of Allah so much as exploiting it for personal political gain.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Should we be their defenders? Screw that. You have heard me repeatedly propose possible strategies to put the screws on, from Pakistan to Syria, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (never leave out that Kingdom part, that’s IO at work). But we should be blunt–the only reason we put up with that SOB Musharraf is because the rest of the options can’t be trusted with a used match, much less a small stable of nukes. There’s no reason in the world the USG couldn’t say that openly and honestly, if it had a clue what it was dealing with. And if “disambiguating” means the inmates get control of the nukes, or get to claim some moral high ground in the ensuing civil war because they were “elected” while some sober (we can only hope) element of the military attempts to protect the nukes, well, then I’m agin it.

Well, I guess that’d be me. But remember, I’m also the one who insists that even a bad result at least has the virtue of disambiguating the threat. Our “Good” tyrants hide behind skirts of that same perpetually outraged street whose radicalism is fanned by state-controlled media. “Love to do something about democratizing you know, but look what we’ve got to work with.” *shrug*

In this perverse symbiosis, the radicals – who claim to favor justice over freedom – point to our insincerity in tolerating their tyrants as a reason to reject a message of freedom, democracy and civil compromise.

Elections have consequences: Grow up or blow up. I’m not afraid of that fight. I’m just tired of playing bullsh!t games.

One may have had justifiable illusions about bringing democracy to the charnel house known as Iraq, but Pakistan has long been clearly identified as an insane asylum. Who is more unhinged, its inmates or those who would wish to bring democracy (aka mob rule) to the asylum?

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has now openly said in reference to the suicide bombing and attempted assassination of her what many have more quietly suggested over the years:
She has now openly pointed a finger at some elements within P…