Tragic Bombing in Pakistan, Islam, and Examining U.S. Drone Policy
“I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.”
Ronald Reagan
Pakistan’s central government has taken control of the province of Baluchistan after the deadly bombings in Quetta last Thursday that killed 92 people and injured 120 at a crowded pool hall. The Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani, rather than responding to the outcry from shocked protesters, failed to cut short his private trip to Dubai, which outraged the mourning community.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, flew to Quetta on Sunday, after thousands began to protest, some blocking the roads with coffins from the dead that the local government didn’t want to acknowledge. The Shi’ites refused to bury their dead without promise of security in the region. (This is an extreme form of protest in Islam)
Today, President Asif Ali Zardari approved stripping Raisani’s coalition of all government powers and handing them over to the provincial governor and the army. The governor has the ability to step in and take control for a period of six months. The order issued by Zardari will last for two months. Here is a copy of the notification from the President:
The Prime Minister also announced on national television that he was willing to give in to the Shi’ites demands.
Strife in Baluchistan is, unfortunately, nothing new. However, the media largely ignores the fact that there are specific targets in these attacks: the Shia. Pakistan’s government remains strangely silent while thousands of Shia are massacred within their borders. The Taliban and Al Qaeda, trained and funded by the United States during the Cold War, support the Salafists who have committed genocide throughout the Middle East in their attempts to pit Sunni against Shia and to systematically wipe out the peace loving Muslim minority.
As Americans, our only vision of Islam has been of the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretation (jihadist). These beliefs are not the majority in the world of Islam, but they are certainly the ones that end up on television. The Salafi Jihadists are the extremists, the people behind the scenes in Al Qaeda that want to change the world through violence, whereas there are others who practice da’wa (evangelizing). Both come from a movement that originally began in Egypt and filtered into Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism, in contrast, or more commonly called Muwahideen (monotheist) came about in the 18th century when Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab began preaching a revivalist form of Islam that called for purging polytheism from the faith. The two groups merged with elements taken from each, and in the 1970s, the Saudi government began to separate themselves from these extreme views, calling Al Qaeda a “deviant sect of Islam.”
You can read more information on the origins of Salafism/Wahhabism here.
The Sunni are Salafi, which are those that focus on the literal meaning of the teachings of the Qu’ran, without room for debate or discussion.The Salafi emphasize the teachings of their ancestors as a model of Islam (traditionalist). The Salafi are the “puritans” of Islam. You could call them the Catholics of Islam, wheras the Shiites would be more like the Protestants. The Sunni make up at least 75% of the world’s Muslim population.
The Shia, or Shi’ite, are those who believe that only God has the right to appoint a successor or a prophet. The word Shia means “the followers of Ali”, whom Mohammed chose to be his successor as the first caliph. It has been estimated that 20% of the world’s Muslims are Shi’ite, and the Shia make up 10-20% of Pakistan’s population. That may be a modest interpretation, though, because most demographic information lists all Muslims as Sunni. It’s possible that 57 million people in Pakistan are Shi’ite rather than Sunni. Pakistan is believed to have the second largest Shia population in the world.
It’s difficult to explain the intricacies of Islam when one is not Muslim. However, after many years of study, I have figured out a few things:
1. Salafi Jihadists, who are the radical Muslims that Americans see on TV, make up less than one percent of the world’s Muslim population.
2. The Sunni are considered Salafists. Salafism and Salifi Jihadism are NOT the same thing.
3. Suicide bombing is haram, or forbidden, among the Salafist/Sunni. In fact, those who advocate violent jihad are considered Anti-Islam. Allah forbids Muslims to attack anyone or to start war in the Qu’ran, and only authorizes retaliation in self defense:
In fact, according to Ahmed Mansour, in his article,“Salafi Wahabism is anti Islam”, the Qu’ran says that Muslims cannot kill anyone unless that person has committed murder or is attacking them:
“In Islam, the Quran is the only resource of Islamic jurisprudence which is so simple and flexible that it could be applied any time. In this holy Jurisprudence, it is forbidden to accuse any peaceful man to be infidel or idol worshipper, and the only reason to kill a human being is when he kills some one, or when he is a soldier among army attacking your peaceful country. It is also prohibited to commit suicide through aggression and injustice.[4: 29-30]”
4. Through speaking with friends and through my own extensive study, I have come to interpret the idea of “jihad” in the same way that 99% of Muslims interpret it: a struggle between the self and God. According to the Qu’ran, the term Muslim refers to ANYONE who is peaceful, regardless of faith. The term “jihad” is not a violent one; it is defined as the “spiritual struggle with oneself against sin”. You can read more about the true meaning of jihad and the misinterpretation here.
The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, intended for the nation to be a progressive democracy that embraced all people of all faiths. Three days before the official creation of Pakistan in 1947, Jinnah gave a speech before the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, in which he stated:
” You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state …… We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and citizens of one state……. in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”
Again in 1948, Jinnah reaffirmed his vision for Pakistan:
“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”
The Hazara, which are the Shi’ites of Quetta in Balochistan, are believed to have been specifically targeted by the Taliban in last week’s suicide bombing, followed by a car bomb. Alamdar Road, where the bombings happened, is a Shia name.
The Sunni and the Shia may be split on ideology, but in Pakistan, both sects united together against the bombings in Quetta and held a sit in on Sunday, which prompted officials to take measures to secure the region. This unity gave rise to the removal of the lax Raisani.
All over the world, people have turned out to protest the killing of the Shia in Pakistan. YouTube is filled with dozens of videos, including some from Dallas and Houston, as people express their horror at the genocide of the peaceful Muslim sect.

Children as young as five holding placards that read, “Am I next?” and “Stop Hazara killings in Quetta”, participated in a sit-in at Numaish Chowrangi in Quetta over the weekend.
This comment was seen on Facebook earlier today:
“thanks to All Sunni Muslim brothers who stood with us in our protest against the brutal regime of Pakistan
What others are saying:
“You’ve made us proud, Quetta! Never before did we see such resilience, serenity and unity in protests. Braving the cold, fighting their tears, sitting side by side with bodies of loved ones for 68 hours out in the open. You shook the entire nation. Shia, sunni, hindu, christian, regardless of believes we stood together across the country. You overthrew a provincial government, you besieged the President at Bilawal house, all without breaking a single piece of glass. You give us hope. All is not lost, it’s still not too late. Pakistan Zindabad ♥”
We also thank all our Sunni brothers and sisters, Christian and Hindu fellows and everyone else who extended their support physically or online.” (anonymous)
Amidst this tragedy, the U.S. has begun to accelerate drone strikes. So far in 2013, our drones have killed 35 people. Drone strikes have taken out 22 of 30 Al Qaeda leaders, and last week killed a top Taliban official. However, the victories come at a price. It’s estimated that since 2004, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 700 people; 200 of those have been children.
When do the ends justify the means? As a Republican, I am personally against the current drone policy for fiscal reasons, as well as humanitarian ones. As a mother and a decent human being, my heart is breaking for the people of Pakistan.
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC summed up the attitude toward our drone policy among the Liberty community fairly well when she discussed the current administration’s refusal to speak on drone policy:
“The most amazing thing about this as a matter of policy is that it isn’t a matter of policy,” said Maddow, troubled by what she believes to be “secrecy” surrounding our drone policy. “…The fact that we know that these things are happening and that our government considers these things deniable is frankly one of the more Orwellian things about being an American in the 21st century.”
“We may or may not like what our military does in wartime, but the expectation … [is that] we get to know what they’re doing,” she continued. “Our political leaders can be voted out of office if we do not like what they have the military do. We do not have that luxury, that accountability, when our government does not admit to what we do.”
It’s time that we look at this is context, and ask ourselves why we continue to bomb Pakistan with drones that are killing innocents as well as the intended targets. While most Americans are focused on 2nd Amendment issues, we are distracted from the fact that it is imperative that our drone policy be examined. There has to be a better way.
I would like to extend my condolences to all who lost family and friends in the bombings in Quetta.
“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
Albert Camus


Good article, solid info. The hate that is directed at Muslims is rooted in fear and ignorance. People should learn more before directing their hate at an entire group of humans, based on the actions of a few.
It seems to be an epidemic among all peoples to do exactly that…judge when all of their religions ask that they not judge.
Wonderful article Angie…and heartfelt.
People forget that these people are not so different from us..they live and breath the same as we do..their children are as precious to them as ours to us.They love their God…and they worship as we do.The only difference… they are are “over there” and therefore are of no consequence to most of the American people. Just simply “collateral damage” of an invisible war…and that’s the saddest statement on the loss of our humanity.
Peace~
Agree with you 100%
EXCELLENT article, Angie! Thank you for sharing…I am going to share it around, in hopees to open up some eyes!
Thanks for reading, Terri.
Angie,
I wish I could agree with you, but you have been suckered in by the practice of taqiyya, which denies (or simply does not speak of) abrogation: the fact that later “pronouncements” by Miohammed and those who followed replace – and negate – the earlier, more “peaceful” Sura.
The orthodox follower of Islam (which literally translates as “submission”) does indeed seek violent jihad where he can get away with it. He does indeed seek to kill those who do not believe as he does in the full Qur’an and the Hadith, with Suni killing Shiite over who obtained authority after Mohammed died.
Islam is a violent ideology. It is not simply a religion, but a political system, an attempt to bring the world under the control of Sharia, and is basically ther ravings of a pederast who enjoyed penetrating female chidren, and who rewarded his followers by giving them permission to kill infidels and then rape the wives and daughters of infidels as “war prizes”.
There is much more to disdain about this cult ( such as the practice of having sex with “beardless boys” (bacha bereesh), raping them in most cases, as well as killing daughters and wives who “dishonor” them, or who do not submit to rape.
How any intelligent Western women can believe that Islam has any redeeming value is beyond my comprehension. Try reading Islam 101 by Gregory Davis at Robert Spencer’s web site (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html). It might open your eyes.
I can’t agree, partially because of all the studying I have done; but mostly because I know people who are Muslim…and are not the way you described, nor do they have the beliefs that you describe. As to being an “intelligent Western woman”, I like to think that some of that comes from questioning all ideology, and trying to find answers outside of the box. thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
Angie, that is because they are not orthodox muslims. If they were in a country like Pakistan and Afghanistan, they would be punished or killed as apostates.
Do a little more studying. reading the later Sura wherein Mohammed tells his followers to kill. Look at all of the many instances where muslim girls have been killed, had their noses and ears cut off, were poisoned at their school. These are not isolated abberations, they are the true behavior of true believers.
The so-called “moderate” muslims are either not orthodox, true believers, or they are engaging in Taqiyya – deception for the purpose of advancing Islam throughout the world.
By the way, Angie, that was not meant as a personal slam. It is born of the frustration of seeing how many women and girls have been maimed and killed by muslims, yet you hear _nothing_ from the feminists,n from the women’s rights groups, from women legislators or news anchors or any women who might be expected to speak out against the horror that muslim women experience where muslim men are able to act with impunity.
If you had really studied the Qur’an, you would no that women are considered chattel, with no rights of their own. They may not resist, refuse, or even disagree with their husband, fathers, or other male family members.
If a muslim woman is raped, she cannot bring charges of rape unless she can get four (IIRC) men to state that they witnessed the rape. If she is raped, she can – and often will be – stoned to death as an adulteress, for enticing the rapist and “leading him astray”.
This is no more a religion than Scientology or the Jim Jones cult. It is a made-up ideology that was created by a vile man who needed to excuse his taste in female infants, and in overcoming his enemies (or those he simply wanted dominion over). He enlisted the hundreds (now many millions) who followed him by promising them the same right to rape children, captive women, infidel women, beardless boys, and even each other (DADT was originally a muslim concept).
So, don’t take it personally, but anyone who can believe this is a legitimate religion, that it is the “religion of peace” (again, the translation of “peace” is submission to the will of Allah), that it is possible to “COEXIST” with Islam is very sadly mistaken. And it blows my mind that women can sit silent about these killings, maimings, and degradation. They are all acceptable under Islam and Sharia. To believe otherwise is a mistake.
I would simply love to see some woman who believes otherwise go to Pakistan alone and see what would befall her. I would – and I mean this absolutely – be willing to pay for her ticket over there. If she lived long, or was able to somehow avoid being taken and kept as a sex slave, it would be interesting to hear if she continued to feel the same way about Islam and muslim men.
Oh, I know that you didn’t mean it as a slam.
I do want to look more into your interpretations….they aren’t what I have found or have taken from women that I have spoken with, but it’s possible that I am not seeing it from all sides. Trust me, I am not okay with maiming or killing in ANY religion; however, it seems that religion tends to be the source of a lot of killing, and has been for centuries, including Christianity. I will look into some of the things that you have mentioned, and thank you for your perspective. It’s nice to listen to someone who talks intelligently about a subject, even if they don’t agree…rather than the bigoted “kill em all” attitude a lot of people seem to have.
They are in Pakistan, actually.
Angie, here is a small introduction by a man who is not a rabid “hater” but actually a very articulate and rational fellow. (Hopefully it is not an issue that he is also a Jew.)
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/12/islam-was-born-out-of-child-abuse-and.html
And here is one of my own:
http://sloggingtowardliberty.blogspot.com/2012/10/islam-kills-for-disrespect.html
Not an issue at all
You’ll find my tin foil hat to be rather small. I will try to look at these today, and thanks.
Hey Angie,
Sorry I’m late to this discussion – just became aware of your blog today from a friend. I think Reg T is the one who has been “suckered” by the Neocon front men – David Horror-witts and Robert Spencer. In “Return of the Prodigal Son” at AntiWar.com, Justin Raimondo connects the dots between Islamophobic Spencer, Anders Behring Breivik, [the Norwegian mass murderer]and the Axis of Hate:
Excerpt:
*****in the case of Breivik, however, what Healy misses is the specific content of the ideas expounded in the killer’s online manifesto, and the video which summarizes his stance. For what Breivik and the counter-jihadists are saying is that Islam is at war with the West – and that a “culture of appeasement” prevalent on our side of the barricades is delivering us to the Enemy. If you go through the material published by Robert Spencer, who is quoted in some 64 instances by Breivik, one central idea leaps out at you: we are at war with the one billion Muslims on the planet Earth. Not that we should be at war, or will be at war – the battle, in Spencer’s view, has already commenced, not on account of anything we in the West have done, but because Islamic doctrine is inherently violent and expansionist. Likewise, Pamela Geller, his collaborator in “Stop the Islamization of America” – and its European affiliate, which Breivik supported – denies the very existence of moderates in the Muslim camp. *****
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/26/the-return-of-the-neocons-prodigal-son/
Personally I believe the reason for inciting Islamophobia and the false flag attacks of IX XI (to say nothing of the Israeli attempted false flag attack on the USS Liberty) – blaming “Muslims/Arabs/Islam” – is because Sharia Law STILL forbids USURY.
With Islam THE fastest growing global demographic, the Zionist Crimocracy responsible for IX XI rightly fears losing the reactor core of their power – issuing nearly every nation’s currency as their own PRIVATE bank notes – debt – bearing the nation destroying parasite of USURY – will be brought to an abrupt halt, when the banksters’ heads fall into the basket. As it used to be in Christianity, the practice of USURY is still a capital offense in Islam.
Peace and Love
Jimi