I wonder whether those criticizing this particular move of Obama are doing it only to fit the template of 'he doesn't have a clue', or have actually considered the implications of what the policy towards these Turkistan countries should be.

Kyrgyzstan has a relatively new government, but Uzbekistan has the same president that it had since the Soviet Union came apart. True - this president Islam Karimov (despite his name) has been ruthless in crushing his opposition. Guess what - his opposition isn't a bunch of Jeffersonian Liberals & Democrats, but rather, a bunch of Jihadists from a party called the Islamic movement of Turkistan, who would like nothing better than to restore the Timuride empire that existed in the 14th century that would include Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uyghar areas of China, if not the entire Xinxiang and other Uyghar populated provinces.

In 2001, following 9/11, these 2 countries - Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan - responded by offering the US forward operating bases in their countries, which the US initially generously accepted. This turned out to be quite useful, since there was no way the US could establish such bases in Pakistan - as far as the south went, they operated directly from the Arabian Sea.

However, the State Dept, being what it is, continued its previous policy of criticizing countries like Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, despite this support, and despite the fact that unlike Russia, these countries did not have a policy of undermining US moves in Iraq. Finally, after enough heartache, these 2 countries ended the FOB of US troops, and there ended that.

All this was during the Bush administration. Now, finally, the Obama administration, despite everything else it's doing wrong, seems to be getting something right - it's taking the side of anti-Jihadis in Turkestan, which is welcome given the recent fiascos of trying to settle Uyghar terrorists in paradise islands. This is a change that was long overdue - by constantly criticizing these regimes, the US just served to bolster Jihadis amongst their critics.

Given this history, the above comment by RS - that 'the new friend does not consider the friendship mutual' - is unfounded, given that it was the US that chose to disrupt this friendship. And since these countries are still close to Russia, unlike Israel, which tolerates US support to anti-Israel Jihadis like Fatah and Hamas, the regimes in Tashkent and Bishkek have chosen not to take this lying down, but simply tell the US where to shove it. Not all regimes take kindly to US support to Jihadis.

I would have expected this type of analysis from normal Conservative/GOP sites, for whom being anti-Obama is primary. But for a site like this one, which is anti-Jihad before anything else, to see it dis a new policy on these countries just b'cos it comes from Obama - smacks of shoddy analysis.

On a somewhat unrelated note on FGMs, from a past post of Robert on June 25 2007 (Islamophobia is a desease and the doctor's got no cure), I looked back and found this reference to what the madhabs say:

While many say that there is nothing in Islam which requires female genital mutilation, one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal (from whom the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence takes its name) quotes Muhammed as saying “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.”

The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female genital mutilation obligatory. The Hanbalis consider it not obligatory but sunnah -- accepted practice. The Hanafis consider it "a mere courtesy to the husband" ('Umdat al-Salik e4.3).

So we have 3 schools endorsing the practice, from the above. What do the Maliki & Jafari schools say? Robert or anyone?

I disagree w/ you. Why would you not wipe your ass w/ it? It is fit to wipe one's ass w/.

There will never be peace until such time that either they no longer exist, or we no longer exist

Actually, as far as Mohammedans go, par for the course.

Not speechless, but simply yawwwwwwwwwning... What else is new?

It's funny when they describe themselves even more accurately than we can!

I'm not getting this. Robert opposed to the withdrawal of Iraqi troops? Why? This is a good thing. Just that we need to pressurize the government not to pour any more money into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else in dar ul Islam, and everything will be hunky dory.

For bilad ul Kafir, I mean. As far as Iraq goes, a civil war is a good thing

It's one thing to argue where Aryans were originally from - whether from Turan, or Arctic, or Caucasus, or India itself. It's another thing to deny that Persians are Aryans - they very much are. Not Semites, not Turkic, not Mongoloid

Incidentally, how come we have so many trolls nowadays? In the past, Hugh or Marisol would be quick to crack down on them, but now, we just have sooooooo many. And I'm not talking about mere Islam apologists: I'm talking about people who hijack every other thread from the topic being reported/discussed

I'd rather see Xinxiang as a part of China, than see Xinxiang, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan be an Islamic Turkic empire, like it was during the time of Tamerlane. So you're right, but while the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, in this case, they are. It is possible to oppose Chinese policy on Tibet, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Taiwan and North Korea, and yet support them on Xinxiang.