The Philippines Genocide: 3 million Filipinos Killed

I guess “Holocaust Deniers” all over the world.

Just the excerpts from the reports during the period (Spanish American War 1898).20 dead filipinos

General Bell himself, who said “we estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon—some 600,000 people.” (There is another Bell, George who also fought in the Philippines ).  Also see Gore Vidals reply on comment questioning the numbers.

The Philadelphia Ledger November 1901 their Manila correspondent wrote “The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…

Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses.”

Another Marine officer described his testimony.

The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied “everyone over ten.”


Mark Twain wrote

“…I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the philippines. we have gone to conquer, not to redeem… and so i am an anti-imperialist. i am opposed to having the [american] eagle put its talons on any other land.”

On 15th of October 1900 Twain wrote the New York Times.

We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these providences of god — and the phrase is the government’s, not mine — we are a World Power.” Mark Twain

 Please read the whole Post.  Interesting pictures.  Also President McKinley ‘s Christian reasons for the war.

Published by


I am 3/4ths Sri Lankan (Jaffna) Tamil, 1/8th Sinhalese and 1/8th Irish; a proper mutt. Maternal: Grandfather a Govt Surveyor married my grandmother of Sinhalese/Irish descent from the deep south, in the early 1900’s. They lived in the deep South, are generally considered Sinhalese and look Eurasian (common among upper class Sinhalese). They were Anglicans (Church of England), became Evangelical Christians (AOG) in 1940's, and built the first Evangelical church in the South. Paternal: Sri Lanka (Jaffna Tamil). Paternal ancestors converted to Catholicism during Portuguese rule (1500's), went back to being Hindu and then became Methodists (and Anglicans) around 1850 (ggfather). They were Administrators and translators to the British, poets and writers in Tamil and English. Grandfathers sister was the first female Tamil novelist of modern times I was brought up as an Evangelical even attending Bible study till about the age of 13. Agnostic and later atheist. I studied in Sinhala, did a Bachelor in Chemistry and Physics in Sri Lanka. Then did Oceanography graduate stuff and research in the US. I am about 60 years old, no kids, widower. Sri Lankan citizen (no dual) and been back in SL since 2012. Live in small village near a National Park, run a very small budget guest house and try to do some agriculture that can survive the Elephants, monkeys and wild boar incursions. I am not really anonymous, a little digging and you can find my identity.

64 thoughts on “The Philippines Genocide: 3 million Filipinos Killed”

  1. Certainly not the US’s finest hour. There is a reason that they glossed over this in our US History courses in High School.

  2. Does this mean Indians should be thankful to British for not committing such atrocities? 🙂 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre is an accident compared the Philippines genocide. I don’t know the context to the latter and heard it first time here. Thanks for an informative post.

    1. The British were just as bad. The Bengal famine in India and Sri Lanka the scorched Earth policy in Uva Wellasa.

      In 1815 the Brits finally captured the last hold out the Kandyan Kingdom in the hill country. A story of treachery by native Sri Lankan and story for another day. Then in 1817 there was rebellion against the Brits. The Brits brutally suppressed the rebellion. The aftermath was a compliant population, and would argue the most Anglicized country in South Asia. Easy enough the population was small, less than 2 million in the 1900’s.

      Most have forgotten the aftermath of the 1817 rebellion and I never learnt about it in school.

      Anyway excerpts from Wiki

      The situation prevailing in Uva and Wellassa was so precarious that the English set fire to villages, houses, livestock, and whatever they could burn.

      The British massacred the male population of Uva above the age of 18 years.[9]

      They also confiscated the properties of the people involved in the uprising, they killed all cattle and other animals, burnt homes, property and even the salt in their possession during the repression. Paddy fields in the area of Wellassa were all destroyed. The irrigation systems of the duchies of Uva and Wellassa, hitherto the rice-bowl of Sri Lanka were systematically destroyed

  3. sbarrkum, there is something to what your article is about, but it is incomplete. Note I haven’t read the articles you linked to:

    Are you referring to the Filipino American war between Feb 4, 1999 and March 23, 1901?

    Or the Moro rebellion of the early 1900s?

    The response and context to both is different. The first was a Filipino civil war in which the US joined a side. This war is very complex.

    The Moro rebellion was a war between Islamists and non muslim Filipinos + Americans. The proximate cause was the US decision to ban slavery (which was backed by nonmuslim Filipinos and opposed by Islamist Filipinos). However perhaps ending slavery was just the trigger. Filipino muslims were upset about the dual oppression as they saw it at the hands of the Spanish and nonmuslim Filipinos. They saw a chance to seize control over much of the Filipines, including areas many nonmuslim Filipinos lived and implement Shariah–which believed would greatly benefit nonmuslim and muslim Filipinos alike.

    This led to a violent backlash by non muslim Filipinos and their demanding American military help. This was a very bloody religious war. Far more Filipinos died during the Moro rebellion than during the 1899-1901 war unrelated to the Moro rebellion.

    The US tired of the Filipinos fast and tried to persuade the Filipinos to become independence. To achieve this the US pushed through the 1907 elections. However the Filipino nationalists demanded the following American concessions in return for independents:
    –They feared the US would try to leave the Philippines as soon as possible without building the Philippines military; which would result in Japan conquering the Philippines. As a result Filipino nationalists demanded that the US military stay in the Philippines and help protect the Philippines from the hated Japanese, and train/build a powerful Filipino military. This was not popular in America, because it would cost American taxpayers money.
    –The Philippines was deeply dependent on large scale annual US economic and military aid. Filipino nationalists wanted guarantees that this aid would continue; which to them meant delaying the US withdrawal.
    –Filipino nationalists wanted the US to allow large scale Filipino immigration to the US; which the US pushed back on.
    –In addition to the Japanese threat, one of the reasons Filipino nationalists demanded these concessions was their fear of the Moro Islamists.

    Obviously the US refused these conditions and as a result Filipino nationalists (in many cases anti American ones) refused to sign an independence agreement with the US. The US in several cases threatened Filipinos to force them to agree to independence but it didn’t work. The US was afraid that if they abruptly left the Filipinos against the will of the Filipino people the US would be blamed for an economic collapse, social collapse and vicious civil war.

    A few points puzzled me:
    1) I thought that the Filipines had a population of less than 6 million in 1900. How could over half the population die? Especially when the Filipino population grew rapidly over this period of time? I have seen some post modernist and marxists claim one million Filipinos died. But even that number mathematically is hard to make sense of.
    2) Most of the Filipinos who died 1899-1906 died from a series of health epidemics, especially cholera that killed 200,000. If not for widespread US foreign aid, the death toll from these health epidemics would have been far worse. The Philippines at the time had a horrible health care system. Yet another reason nationalist Filipinos did not want independence at the time unless America agreed to significant concessions.

    This said, there is a lot of truth to your article sbarrkum. I would rather they broke down deaths based on:
    1) health epidemics (a large majority of deaths)
    2) Moro rebellion (most of the human related deaths)
    3) Filipino American war between Feb 4, 1999 and March 23, 1901 unrelated to the Moro rebellion

    And I would hope that articles on this period do not shy away from the important questions of muslim nonmuslim relations and how they can be managed. And how to deal with slavery in a way that doesn’t lead to muslim nonmuslim fratricide? One question that I don’t know the answer to is the story of moderate Filipino muslims 1899 to 1913. What happened to them? Were they attacked by all sides (Islamists, nonmuslim Filipinos, Americans)? I find it puzzling that few bother to write about moderate Filipino muslims 1899 to 1913.

    My own strong suspicion (which could change based on further research and further data) is that most Americans were dumb fools continually manipulated by Filipinos on the ground in ways the Americans were unable to understand. One reason the Spanish didn’t ban slavery is because they believed that it would lead to a vicious religious sectarian fratricide and civil war; as well as a large amount of Spanish treasure and blood being spent. Did American policy makers really not understand the short term consequences of ending slavery? Maybe?

    1. I think Sbarrkum’s article is referring to the Spanish-American War (He has linked to the Wikipedia page on that war). It was victory in this war I believe that gave the US control of the Philippines in the first place.

      He will have to answer the rest of your questions as I don’t know nearly enough about the specific history of the Philippines.

      1. He’s definitely referring to the Philippine-American War, and possibly also the Moro Rebellion. I think 3 million is a bit high, but 1 million is a perfectly reasonable and commonly found number, and either way the crime is horrifying.

        It can’t just be explained away on disease. Even if most people did die of disease (which combined with famine is plausible), epidemics tend to follow war, especially wars which specifically target the civilian population (which is why there’s such a huge cholera outbreak in Yemen right now). In war, people move around more than they usually would, refugees/prisoners/soldiers congregate together in large unsanitary camps, and the famine that usually accompanies war (again, especially common in wars that target the population) greatly weakens people’s immune systems, making epidemics far worse.

    2. AnAn,
      Spanish American War of 1898 and continuing into the Philippine-American war.

      The result was the 1898 Treaty of Paris, negotiated on terms favorable to the U.S. which allowed it temporary control of Cuba and ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippine islands. The cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million ($588,320,000 today) to Spain by the U.S. to cover infrastructure owned by Spain.

      On April 23, 1898, a document appeared in the Manila Gazette newspaper warning of the impeding war and calling for Filipinos to participate on the side of Spain

      Armed conflict broke out between U.S. forces and the Filipinos when U.S. troops began to take the place of the Spanish in control of the country after the end of the war, resulting in the Philippine–American War.

      American forces captured the city of Manila from the Spanish in the Battle of Manila.[94][99] This battle marked the end of Filipino–American collaboration, as the American action of preventing Filipino forces from entering the captured city of Manila was deeply resented by the Filipinos. This later led to the Philippine–American War,[100] which would prove to be more deadly and costly than the Spanish–American War

      The war officially ended on July 2, 1902, with a victory for the United States. However, some Philippine groups—led by veterans of the Katipunan—continued to battle the American forces for several more years. Among those leaders was General Macario Sakay, a veteran Katipunan member who assumed the presidency of the proclaimed “Tagalog Republic”, formed in 1902 after the capture of President Emilio Aguinaldo. Other groups continued hostilities in remote areas and islands, including the Moro people and Pulahanes people, until their final defeat at the Battle of Bud Bagsak on June 15, 1913.[18]

      The war and occupation by the U.S. changed the cultural landscape of the islands, as people dealt with an estimated 200,000 to 1,500,000 total Filipino civilians dead

  4. sbarrkum, here is an interesting question. Do colonized people have the right to become citizens of the country that colonized them and move to said colonizer country?

    The Phillipines demanded Filipinos have the right to move to the US and become US citizens and refused independence over this principled stand.

    Today Hamas is demanding that Gazans be given the right to move to Israel and become Israeli citizens:

    Many Bangladeshis and Nepalis are demanding the right to move to and become Indians. Many muslim migrants are demanding the right to move to and become Europeans, arguing that they are entitled to this right because of colonizalization. Many Latin Americans are demanding the right to become US residents and eventually US citizens.

    Do people in poor or unsafe or dysfunctional countries have the right to move to the countries of former colonizers and former “oppressors” to use post modernist language?

    1. Didn’t many people from former Commonwealth countries move to the UK and become British citizens eventually?

      1. Yes they did and in fact Enoch Powell encouraged it initially. Indian & commonwealth civil servants were allowed to but with a limit of 5gbp to bring with them.

    2. have the right to move to the countries of former colonizers

      The “right” is tricky.
      Colonizers are in a country to exploit resources including labor and/or for strategic location (e.g. Diego Garcia ).

      Colonization ends, either as a result of independence war or because the colonizer finds alternate means to achieve the same wants (e.g. Thru economic colonization).
      Then the colonizer has no need for the colonized population, unless it is for cheap labor (e.g. Bengali/Pakistani to work the textile mills in UK).

      Regardless whether there is a “right” the colonizer is not going to allow an influx of the colonized unless it serves an agenda of the elite/business class.

  5. The mongols were just as bad. “Ancient sources described Genghis Khan’s conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Population exchanges did also in some cases occur but depends as of when.[10]

    China reportedly suffered a drastic decline in population during the 13th and 14th centuries. Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people. While it is tempting to attribute this major decline solely to Mongol ferocity, scholars today have mixed sentiments regarding this subject. The South Chinese might likely account for some 40 million unregistered who, without passports, would not have appeared in the census. Entire peasant populations joining or enlisted for labour can result in a large population reduction due to food shortage problems. Scholars such as Frederick W. Mote argue that the wide drop in numbers reflects an administrative failure to record rather than a de facto decrease whilst others such as Timothy Brook argue that the Mongols created a system of enserfment among a huge portion of the Chinese populace causing many to disappear from the census altogether. Other historians like William McNeill and David Morgan argue that the Bubonic Plague, spread by the Mongols, was the main factor behind the demographic decline during this period. The plague also spread into areas of Western Europe and Africa that the Mongols never reached, most likely carried by individuals fleeing invasion. The Mongols practised biological warfare by catapulting diseased cadavers into the cities they besieged. It is believed that fleas remaining on the bodies of the cadavers may have acted as vectors to spread the bubonic plague.[2][3][4][11]

    About half the population of Kievan Rus’ may have died during the Mongol invasion of Rus. This figure refers to the area roughly corresponding to modern Ukraine.[12] Colin McEvedy (Atlas of World Population History, 1978) estimates the population of European Russia dropped from 7.5 million prior to the invasion to 7 million afterwards.[13]

    Historians estimate that up to half of Hungary’s population of two million were victims of the Mongol invasion of Europe.[14]

    1. Invasions (all over the world) are by its very nature horrible. Most invaders were upfront; “we are here to take your stuff and rape your women”.

      Its the West that remains sanctimonious, “we are here for your own good”. Initially it was to spread Christianity and educate the savages. Now it is to spread Democracy and Human Rights.

      1. Yes, just like the fantastic series of conquests that Muslims began during the lifetime of the Prophet. Within 70 years conquests spread from central Asia to Spain but it was all a miraculous way to deliver Islam’s message of peace to all people. Muslims all over the world still swell with pride remembering that rapid empire!

      2. sbarrkum, you are on. How about this: We burnt down the village in order to save it. Why do you ask?

        Anyone remembers this? With much respect.

  6. Zachary say it’s easy for the West to be magnanimous after such a bloody and explorative history

    Anything but magananimity from the West. They continue to exploitative and rapacious and absolutely unprincipled. Two sayings before I expand the argument.

    Watch What They Do, Not What They Say
    Beware The Bearers Of False Gifts

    In order to justify their real agenda, the west used Christianity and Education. In modern times it is spread Democracy and Human Rights.

    Example: Lack of Principle for Money
    Bombing of Syria for purpoted chemical warfare and killing of innocent children.
    Helping Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen and its civiians including children.
    SA has money (for the moment) and will continue to buy weapons from US/UK. Agenda in Syria, annexation or a compliant state and resultant oil/gas pipelines.

    Example: Lack of Principle for Location/local Politics
    Pursuing a UN inquiry for Human Rights Investigation and War Crimes in Sri Lanka (slowed under present Sirisena/Ranil govt which leans west).
    No Human Rights/War Crimes inquiry’s for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Forget about the US/UK record in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Relatively inexpensive way to pursue agendas. The UK agenda is to satisfy the small but vocal and activist Tamil diaspora in the UK. The US agenda; a US compliant govt in a strategic location to counteract China’s influence.

    Even the refugee/illegal immigrant issue is anything but humanitarian. The elite has convinced the avg Joe its humanitarian. More likely cheap labor at first instance. As unrest and destabilization continues, more powers will be be with the state (eg Emergency/War on Drugs and Civil Asset Forfeiture).

    The Scandinavian countries are probably more honest in their motives regarding refugees. Probably why they were never really large scale colonizers. Just sent the poor to the Americas

    Wheels within wheels. The UAE occupation of Socotora island belong to Yemen

  7. Another genocide which took place in South East Asia was the Indonesian Military coup in 1965 against President Sukarno and it’s aftermath. More than two million people killed in ‘anti-communist’ drive. At that time even BBC kept quiet about it since talking of genocide against “Communists” won’t help the Western countries during the height of Cold War

      1. The coup was organized by the military officers in Indonesia. Anyone or any group vaguely suspected of being communist was the target. Bali is now a tourist destination amid rice fields. There were killing fields in the 60s.

      2. Suharto was essentially a US puppet.

        While the newly declassified documents further illustrated the horror of Indonesia’s 1965 mass murder, they also confirmed that U.S. authorities backed Suharto’s purge. Perhaps even more striking: As the documents show, U.S. officials knew most of his victims were entirely innocent. U.S. embassy officials even received updates on the executions and offered help to suppress media coverage.

        Sukarno: The son of a Javanese primary school teacher, an aristocrat named Raden Soekemi Sosrodihardjo, and his Hindu Balinese wife from the Brahmin varna named Ida Ayu Nyoman Rai from Buleleng regency.

        Sukarno himself was contemptuous of macroeconomics, and was unable and unwilling to provide practical solutions to the poor economic condition of the country. Instead, Sukarno produced more ideological conceptions such as Trisakti: political sovereignty, economic self-sufficiency, and cultural independence. He advocated Indonesians to be “standing on their own feet” (Berdikari) and reach economic self-sufficiency, free from foreign influence.[40]

        Towards the end of his rule, Sukarno’s lack of interest in economics created a distance between himself and the Indonesian people, who were suffering economically.[41] His face had become bloated by disease and his flamboyance and sexual conquests – which had once endeared him to the people – caused public criticism and turned support towards the army.

        Read the names in Sukarno family. e.g. Sukmawati, Fatmawati,

        1. Suharto ended Sukarno socialism and started an era of Crony Capitalism . Suharto’s immediate family became immensely rich and so were the army coterie around him. With the US getting deeper into Vietnam War, they wanted pliable leaders to cover their flank. Suharto became a leading light of SEATO. It took another generation before there were mass protests against him.

    1. Since Suharto is coming up. Here are some facts on Suharto. Suharto along with India led the non aligned movement that opposed the US and SEATO. Suharto led the fifth most populous country in the world and together with the second most populous country in the world (India) was creating another block that fought for power with both the US led block and USSR led block.

      Large countries have large country mentality and think in global terms. The US, USSR, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan had this large country mentality. No one else (Brazil didn’t quite have this mentality although it was intermediate). Pakistani Deep State GHQ thinks in global terms while the rest of the country correctly does not (Pakistan in reality is not a large country although Deep State psychosis causes some to think Pakistan is). Large countries see the world as something they touch, influence and lead. Large countries are insular and provincial. In many ways their ecosystem is so vast they think the are the world and that the world is about them.

      Suharto and India saw the Non Aligned block as their block and fought to increase the power of their block. The world had three blocks (Suharto India, US led, USSR led) jostling for influence. Suharto and Indonesia would have been shocked to learn that they didn’t lead a powerful global block 1965-1997

      Suharto to my knowledge never did anything to help the South Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laos, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan against communists. Suharto never did anything to help America. In fact he often opposed America from 1965 to 1997. Indonesia had an economic miracle in the 1980s through 1997. The economic miracle in Asia is what ended the cold war and discredited marxism/post modernism for over a generation. The Asian economic miracle demonstrated and still demonstrates that neo-liberalism significantly outperformed (and outperforms) marxist/post modernist systems.

      The trope that Suharto was alligned with the US is a post 1997 post modernist invention and would have been laughed out of the park 1965-1997. Many Indonesian students went to my university. None of them at that time argued that Suharto was a US puppet.

      When Reagan was elected he started pushing for openness inside Indonesia, causing an angry backlash from Suharto. When Reagan visited Indonesia, he publicly called Mr. Suharto Mr. 10%. Suharto did not allow any press coverage of Reagan’s visit or for Reagan to visit with Indonesians. Reagan was isolated and alone and eventually returned to the US. When neoconservative (he was actually a neoconservative unlike most of the people called neoconservative) Paul D Wolfowitz became ambassador to Indonesia in 1986 he pushed for freedom and democracy. The US and Indonesia were not on friendly terms. Suharto was buffeted by the Indonesian economic miracle and felt that the US needed Indonesia more than the Indonesia needed the US. And maybe Suharto was right. America was widely seen to be in decline in the 1980s and Indonesia was a rising Asian Tiger.

      With respect to the events of 1965, this is very complex. What I distinctly remember is that every Indonesian I asked (and some were my friends) did not know what happened and didn’t want to speak about it. They thought it would be many years until the truth came out.

      The green naive clowns at the CIA probably have the no idea what actually happened. [Yes I think most of the people who work for the CIA are not particularly well informed or bright; although of course there are a few very smart people working there. I have rarely encountered a GI, DoD or State Department employee that would have great issue with this assessment.]

      What role Sukarno (Yes he is named after Maha Vira and daanvir Karna–his dad, he and his daughter Sukarno Putri were large fans of Karna) did or did not play is hard to know and perhaps it isn’t yet safe to investigate this question. It is also unclear what role the USSR or China played in these events. What is clear is that the entire senior general staff of the Indonesian Armed Forces was decapitated, leading to relatively junior two star major general Suharto taking over the armed forces.

      The Chinese community and China were blamed–leading to a pogrom that raped, killed and destroyed the businesses and wealth of many Indonesian Chinese. Eventually Suharto established his hold on power and stopped the anti Chinese pogrom.

      One of the great wonders of the world is how the Chinese community came out of 1966 with almost nothing, widely despised and the recipient of substantial state driven and privately driven racism. Yet today 3% of the population owns 70% of the wealth. This is very recent. Even as recently as 1997, it was less than half.

      Suharto and his Indonesian allies killed many communists 1965-1966 and this was condemned by China, USSR and their block. However it was quietly supported by the Indian/Indonesian led non allignment movement and the US led block. The US was heavily occupied elsewhere and mostly watched events unfold. It is possible that the US provided the Indonesian government with a list of Chinese Indonesians linked to the Chinese government–although I don’t know this for sure. If this is true then the US has a slight degree of responsibility for the anti Chinese pogrom. This said the US didn’t actually do much of anything. The US was already exhausted providing foreign aid to many countries and did not want to provide foreign aid to Indonesia too–so the US didn’t provide large economic assistance to Indonesia.

      Note that when the Asian Financial Crisis hit in 1997, then the US and the international community pushed Indonesia hard for all the things that US and international community had wanted for two decades. This contributed to why Indonesia left East Timur and became a free democracy.

      My understanding is that the Indonesian Hindu/Buddhist/Chinese/nonmuslim community broadly supported Suharto. Hindu and Buddhist non-chinese Indonesians are not communist and to my knowledge have not been accused of communism.

      1. There is a novel by an Indonesian writer that I had started reading in English translation. It is a multi-generational saga that starts from Dutch colonialism. I got distracted in the middle and started reading something else, but I had gotten up to the anti-Communist coup.

        Indonesia is a very interesting country. So many different islands that came together to make one nation. If I recall correctly, they even made up a new national language to unite the nation. There was this non-fiction journalistic account I read a few years ago of a white lady traveling all around the archipelago. I can’t remember the name of the book now.

        In all fairness, Indonesia also brutally suppressed the nation of “East Timor” until they were forced to give them independence. I believe there is a similar movement in “West Papua” to break away from Indonesia. I have not followed all these details (India/Pakistan takes up far too much of my mental space).

        My reading has been very focused on India/Pakistan, Palestine and European History that there are large parts of the world I am quite ignorant about.

        1. To be honest, I did not just get distracted. As one review on Goodreads stated, there are only so many rape scenes one can take before one puts a book down. So I ran out of patience around page 300 (out of 470). This was before the narrative got to the Suharto era.

          The non-fiction book I was referring to is called “Indonesia Etc: Exploring the Improbable Nation” by Elizabeth Pisani (I had to do some Googling to figure this out).

          Total Disclosure: My dad used to work a lot in East Asia (for the World Bank) when I was a child. He made many trips to Jakarta (all I got for it was a shadow puppet lol). I have never been to Indonesia.

          1. Kabir, your dad was ground zero for the Asian Financial Crisis 1997. This was one of the three largest financial crisis in the history of the world; the other two being 1929-1932 and 2008. That is extremely interesting. Be very interested in hearing your Dad’s perspective.

            Indonesia was the great Asian Tiger, darling of the world in 1997. Then real GDP shrank by over 20% from Q3 1997 to Q4 1998. Be incredibly curious to learn your Dad’s perspectives from Indonesia.

            Most muslims seem to back Indonesia on East Timur and see the East Timur crowd as propagandists trying to discredit the good name of muslims and the world’s most important the powerful muslim country Indonesia. Kabir, you don’t. Doubt your position is popular inside Pakistan. Please keep your head down and stay safe. 🙂

            Personally I am extremely pro Indonesian and extremely pro East Timur. I am on both sides 😉

          2. How is Indonesia the world’s “most important” Muslim country? It is the most populous, but that’s it.

            Saudi is the “most important” Muslim country because it has Mecca and Medina. Iran is the most important Shia Muslim country. Pakistan is the only Muslim state with nuclear weapons.

            I don’t know enough about what happened in East Timor to have a position.

            My dad served in East Asia generally (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines stuff like that). As far as I know, his thing was Urban Infrastructure Development. All we got for it were Vietnamese Dolls and Indonesian Shadow Puppets (and that he was almost always away on “Mission”–but that’s World Bank life for you) . I don’t really know a lot about his work but if you google World Bank reports from that time, he probably contributed to some of them. I didn’t really follow his work. I was too young and economics was never my interest. Neither was East Asia. But I’m talking about the mid to late 90s.

            Other than that one travel book and the one novel I half-read, I know nothing about Indonesia nor do I particularly care. I find Italy and France–the heartland of Western Culture– far more interesting than any other part of the world, except for my own North India/Pakistan.

  8. US conduct in the Philippines was frequently horrendous, though Anan’s distinctions are also important to keep in mind, it was not all one straightforward colonial war. Then commentators brought up other genocides (there are lots to go around), and Sbarrkum commented that the difference is that the West is sanctimonious about them while the others were not. I don’t think that is generally true. Some invaders and conquerors were more upfront than others, but the claim that “we are bringing the fruits of civilization to the heathens” is a very old one, and has been tried by MANY colonial powers. The Romans said it, the Russians said, the Chinese said it, even the Japanese claimed to be liberators (and were in practice some of the most cruel and ruthless colonists of them all). The crimes of Western powers are indeed crimes (some worse than others, some more nuanced than now presented, some really awful ones that most people have forgotten, like the Germans in Namibia), but I dont think they are particularly bad BECAUSE the propaganda was sanctimonious. Sanctimonious propaganda is commonplace, we just know more about the more recent and more successful Western efforts, and it won’t end when the West declines.
    That said, there were instances when the sanctimony was not just sanctimony (i.e. it was not hypocritical). Individual officers were sometimes sincere. Entire policies were sometimes sincere (as in the suppression of the slave trade).

  9. romans are dead, russians, chinese, japanese are not saying it now are they?. Are thieves who stole the entire kingdom worse than thieves who just stole few trinkets? .Objectively yes, because one who steals 10$ shouldnt be compared to someone who did it on a far bigger sclae. Are few acts of terrorism in 9/11 worse than the many bombs that followed afterwards that hurt many more citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq?. Yes again. Objectively Bad indeed.

    1. Bharata, Al Qaeda, Daesh, Taliban and their allies have killed over a million muslims. They aren’t just a few bombs.

      The soldiers of the Northern Alliance and the post 2002 Afghan National Security Forces are fighting because AQ/Taliban (and now Daesh) have killed over a hundred thousand Afghans. Since 9/11/2001, AQ/Taliban/Daesh have already killed over 50,000 Afghan National Security Forces martyrs.

      The Iraqis who have fought Daeash (and AQ before that) do so because Daesh/AQ have killed over 100,000 Iraqis.

      Far too often nonmuslims cavalierly dismiss the large numbers of muslims killed and oppressed as unimportant. After all they are only muslims or only darkies. Post modernists do this all the time. So do conservatives, moderates, liberals, leftists from all over the world. This statement appears to be standard fare among the world’s 6 billion nonmuslims:
      “let Allah sort it out”

      1. To say x is worse is not to say, there are no bad things done by others. Absolute power rests with America, it has over time supported, funded many radicals across the world, altered destiny of countries. It literally used islamist radicals to inflict damage on soviets and less than 10 yrs later 9/11 happened. It didnt go after saudi, from where majority of those criminals came from, it went to afghanistan, later Iraq. It inflicted damage across the region, then has gone on to libya and now is interested in Syria and Iran. What is strange is that, the blame is put on Islam for radicals, but the blame is not put on say, US citizens or US constitution or nationalism. Why is it that way? In a democracy, are people not at fault for electing their leaders and thereby responsible for actions of their leaders.

        People use the cover of “collateral damage”. Number of people dead in 9/11 were just over 3000. Number of people dead as a result of American backlash were much higher. There is no proportionality in violence, that is what makes is much worse.

        1. For once I agree with you.

          Bush II lied to the nation over the reasons for the Iraq war. I was in high school in 2003, but even at that age I understood that the stated reasons for the war were not the real reasons for the war.

          US intervention in the Middle East (or the “Arab World”) has in many cases made things worse and not better. This is not to excuse Arab leaders from the damage they have caused their own peoples.

          1. For once, you agree with facts. Good to know you can look past my grammatical errors atleast here.

          2. I agree with you about these particular facts. I disagree with you on other issues. You are not the god of facts.

            And your English is kind of atrocious but I suppose you never had the opportunities I did. Sorry for poking fun at your grammar.

        2. Bharata, if you are saying that America and other nonmuslims have supported Islamists against muslims and been responsible for the mass slaughter of muslims then Amen! We couldn’t agree more. Please see my articles on nonmuslims:

          I rooted for of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban from 1994 onwards. So obviously I am biased. I think the entire world should have helped the Afghans against the Taliban. And the entire world did after 9/11/2001. on 9/12/2001 the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) met and China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan publicly declared that the Northern Alliance was the sole legitimate government of Afghanistan and that they supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. That was a day of celebration for Afghans.

          Libya, Syria and Iran are all deeply complex situations. US policy regarding all three has been deeply confused, ambiguous, conflicted and divided since 9/11/2001. My own view is that the US and Iran are natural allies and friends (Zachary . . . do you agree?) and should collaborate to solve most global challenges.

          The US has no policy on Syria. No one knows what it is. President Trump doesn’t know. Neither does Putin nor Assad nor Iran nor Turkey nor anyone else.

          Assume you are discussing the 2011 Libyan civil war. That was a decade after 9/11/2001. Do you believe that 9/11 caused the Libyans to revolt against Qadaffi a decade later? The UK, France and Arab League (with the apparent support of Turkey) decided to militarily intervene over President Obama’s strong objections in 2011. President Obama was dragged in kicking and screaming.

          I don’t understand why you value American lives over the more than million muslims killed by Daesh, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their allies? Or the more than 20,000 Indians killed by Daesh, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their allies (Islamists have killed over 70,000 Indians). Or the more than 200,000 nonmuslims killed by Daesh, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their allies. Why are American lives so much more precious than muslim and darkie nonmuslim lives?

          1. The US government should value American lives over the lives of citizens of other countries. It is every government’s responsibility to protect their own homeland.

            Inherently, all lives have equal value. Nation-states however can only protect their own. Playing world cop is not America’s job.

            Protecting Indians is the job of the Indian government. Protecting Pakistanis is the job of the Pakistani government (which it is not doing terribly well). Not America’s headache. Unless terrorists from Pakistan come and threaten the American homeland.

          2. In 2001 then entire world regarded the Northern Alliance as the sole legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance held the Afghanistan seat at the United Nations and all international forums.

            Only three countries recognized the Taliban–Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. The UAE switched to the Northern Alliance after 9/11.

            Every country recognized the new Afghan government in Bonn 2001 as the sole legitimate Afghan government. The UN unanimously created UNAMA and ISIS to support the Afghan government.

            Do you believe that all alliances are wrong? That all international organizations are wrong? That countries should not form alliances to achieve shared values and shared interests? I think that every country in the world shares common values and common long term interests. This is called “externalities” by economists. I believe that the world should collaborate to provide global externalities.

            Even if someone believes that every country should be selfish and should only look after itself, shouldn’t countries collaborate because they share common long term interests?

            The war on nonmuslims cannot end unless the muslim civil war ends. And the muslim civil war can’t end unless muslims have freedom and dialogue; and unless those who engage in dialogue are protected from violence. Unless this happens, groups such as Daesh and Al Qaeda will continue to try to create and rule a global caliphate. Out of a desire to do good and serve the world.

            If the UN, UNAMA and ISIS had supported a Pakistani backed government instead of a Pakistani opposed government, would your position be identical?

          3. It is not America’s job to police the world. I am an American citizen. I want my government to do its job–keeping the homeland safe. This has nothing to do with Pakistan-backed governments or Pakistan-opposed governments. Pakistan supported the Taliban for “strategic depth”. I am not defending that. The Afghanistan War was revenge for September 11th– an understandable instinct but perhaps not a very smart one, given that the US is still stuck in Afghanistan 17 years later and the Taliban seem to be able to keep fighting.

            No, I don’t believe that all alliances are wrong. The UN and the EU serve a useful function. But the Iraq War was not approved by the UN.

            Regarding the “Muslim civil war”, with all due respect I don’t think you know anything about what you are talking about. I will not be responding to you on any issue having to do with Islam. It is a complete and utter waste of my time.

          4. Kabir I am confused by the meaning of:
            “It is not America’s job to police the world” and what if anything it has to do with Afghanistan. Before 9/11/2001 Russian, Iranian, Indian, Turkish money, equipment and trainers were helping the Northern Alliance. When the Taliban were defeated in 2001 there were approximately 500 US special forces and CIA officers in Afghanistan. Albeit there were many more from other countries. It was the Afghan people and Northern Alliance that defeated the Taliban with international help. The Northern Alliance had repeatedly and correctly warned the world that the Taliban and Deep State GHQ were supporting Jihadis that were planning terrorists attacks all over the world and supported a global caliphate. The Northern Alliance were ignored. After 9/11/2001, what country in the world did not support the Northern Alliance? Even KSA and Pakistan publicly gave the pretense of supporting the Northern Alliance led fight against the Taliban.

            You can say that the Taliban has killed over 50,000 Afghan National Security Forces since 2001. But how? The Taliban is a proxy of GHQ Deep State. Could the Taliban have killed over 50,000 ANSF without major external help? Again you imply that America is at war in Afghanistan. 17 Americans were killed (combat and noncombat) in 2017. Over 9,000 ANSF were killed. How can you argue that America was or is at war in Afghanistan? While we don’t know the classified Pakistani Army ISI Directorate casualties in Afghanistan in support the Taliban–it is almost certainly far in excess of US casualties. The Taliban have embedded Pakistani Army advisors in their ranks. Very few international and American advisors are advising at the brigade or battalion level in the ANA–which would be my preference. The vast majority of “advisors” are operating at the Corps level and in Afghan training centers far away from combat.

            Glad you concede that the UN and EU play important functions. The UN and EU have been large players in Afghanistan since 2001. The UN unanimously created UNAMA and ISAF. The EU is one of the primary funders, trainers and advisors of the ANSF. Would it be accurate to say that you support the UN and EU outside Afghanistan but believe that the UN and EU are wrong to support GIRoA (Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) in Afghanistan?

            Perhaps part of the confusion is conflating GIRoA and ANSF to be the same as the US. After 9/11 the Northern Alliance and anti Taliban Afghans persuaded the US and entire international community to support them.

  10. russians, chinese, japanese are not saying it now are they?

    Chinese justify their rule of Tibet by claiming they are bringing economic progress. How does India justify its claim over Kashmir?

    1. India justifies its rule over Kashmir by pointing out that Hari Singh acceded to India. Not that many Kashmiris care what the Dogra Maharaja may have done (He was not a Kashmiri and not a Muslim). But India doesn’t need to claim “economic progress”, it just says Kashmir is our “atoot ang” and the issue stops there (at least for Indian nationalists).

      1. Kabir, the great grandchildren of immigrants are as native to their country as anyone else. This point is completely unrelated to Kashmir. If anyone accused you of not being American they would by 200% wrong and I would argue that you are as American as any other American.

        BTW, enjoy reading your comments. Not much value in reading those who agree with me on everything.

        1. Why are we all of a sudden discussing immigration? If it’s because I said the Maharaja was a Dogra, that is a fact. “Kashmiri” means Kashmiri speaking from the Valley not Dogras from Jammu. It doesn’t change the fact that he was the Maharaja of the whole state. But he was not an ethnic Kashmiri. Kashmiri Pandits are ethnic Kashmiris, though they are not of the majority religion of the Valley.

          I think your analogy with my being an American doesn’t hold. I acquired American citizenship through a naturalization process. I was not born in the country. But through a legal process, I possess a US passport. This doesn’t change the fact that I am of Pakistani origin. But yes, since the State Department has issued me an American passport, I do have all the legal rights of any other American (even those whose ancestors came with the Mayflower).

          But the US is not an ethnically-defined nation (at least in theory). Kashmir is an ethnically defined nation. Kashmiri nationalists believe in Kashmir for Kashmiris not for “Indians” (whom they see as outsiders). India, in theory, is not an ethnically-defined nation. There are so many ethnicities within the one country–Tamils, Bengalis, etc. So there is at least an attempt to have a civic nationalism–you are Indian by virtue of believing in the Indian Constitution (Many Kashmiris would say they don’t believe in that document either). Pakistan is a religiously-defined nation. You are Pakistani because you are Muslim (which is obviously very problematic for those Pakistanis like our own Zach who happen to not be Muslim). I wish one day Pakistan could become a civic nation–those born within the territory are Pakistani no matter their religious beliefs (or even if they have no religious beliefs). But given that it is the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan, I don’t see that happening in my lifetime.

          1. One does not “BELIEVE” in the constitution. One abides by it. The constitution defines what is India and that definition can be modified as India evolves. No belief, because then it would become stagnant and dogmatic.

  11. Tried to research Philippines’ population circa 1899 and many different sources greatly disagree with each other which is a long way of saying no one really knows. I however now believe that Phillippines population might have been about 7 million in 1899. See this website:
    Note that Philippines’ population grew very rapidly between 1900-1907. How is this consistent with a genocide or more precisely a major health epidemic?

    In the ancient world populations often declined sharply over decades, centuries and millennia because of health, weather and other pandemics. These were very common. For all we know the population of the Philippines was higher in 900 AD than in 1900 AD. The population in the Philippines only seems to have taken off around 1900 AD.

    Whatever health epidemics the Philippines had in the early 1900s couldn’t have been anywhere near 400,000 for the population to grow rapidly. Perhaps an estimate of 200,000 might be closer to what happened. My best guess is that the only reason the numbers were not much larger was because of an intensive American medical intervention to fight the health epidemic. If you look at the population estimates for the Philippines the population seemed to have dropped sharply between 1876 to 1881 and between 1887 and 1890. Health and weather catastrophes appear to have been common in the Philippines before that.

    I also tried to research the 1899 to 1901 American Filipino war and the source for the large estimates of casualties. Some appear to come from this book:
    I have not read this book and probably cannot comment much without reading it. Let me quote a section from Wikipedia:
    “The total number of Filipino who died remains a matter of debate. Most modern sources cite a figure of 200,000 to 1,500,000 total Filipino civilians dead with most losses attributable to assault, violence, and disease.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][8] In 1908 Manuel Arellano Remondo, in General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: “The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number.”[105] Rummel estimates that at least 16,000~20,000 Filipino soldiers and 34,000 civilians were killed,[9] with up to an additional 200,000 civilian deaths, mostly from a cholera epidemic.[106][9] Rudolph Rummel claims that 128,000 Filipinos were killed by the U.S in democide.[107] Filipino historian E. San Juan, Jr. argues that 1.4 million Filipinos died during the war and that constitutes an act of genocide on the part of the United States.[108] The United States Department of State states that the war “resulted in the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants”, and that “as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease”.[109]”

    Manuel Arellano Remondo appears to believe that the population of the Philippines declined from 9 million to 7 million between 1895 and 1900. This suggests a major health (and possibly climate) disaster. However this appears to have ended in 1900 since the population in 1901 was much higher than in 1900.

    The large population drop in the Philippines between 1895 and 1900 is far too large to explain by the Philippines civil war and war against Spain.

    Any estimate of the number of Filipinos killed by the health pandemic would require a great deal of additional research. Whatever happens appear to have ended in 1900. Unless perhaps the health pandemic was limited to a specific part of the Philippines while the rest of the the Philippines enjoyed rapid population growth. But this explanation seems implausible since the population of the Philippines rose by 1.1% in 1901. Perhaps the population should have grown by 2.1% and 1% died in a health pandemic (70 thousand). Numbers higher than this seem unlikely.

    Will discuss the numbers who died unrelated to health pandemics in the 1899-1901 war and muslim/nonmuslim war in the next comment.

  12. Non health related deaths:

    The Filipino American war lasted between February 4, 1899, to April 1, 1901; when to quote wikipedia:
    “Aguinaldo swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government. On April 19, he issued a Proclamation of Formal Surrender to the United States, telling his followers to lay down their weapons and give up the fight. “Let the stream of blood cease to flow; let there be an end to tears and desolation,” Aguinaldo said. “The lesson which the war holds out and the significance of which I realized only recently, leads me to the firm conviction that the complete termination of hostilities and a lasting peace are not only desirable but also absolutely essential for the well-being of the Philippines.”[113][114”

    Most of the war was one battle–the Battle of Manila Feb 4 to Feb 5, 1899. After this there were smaller engagements. The fighting was mostly over by the end of 1899. The causes of the Battle of Manila between erstwhile allies is deeply unclear and appears to have caught both sides by surprise. Perhaps a miscalculation or mistake?

    The highest estimate I have seen for the numbers of Filipinos (civilian and military) to die from non health related causes is Rudolph Rummel’s estimate of 128,000. It is unclear where his estimate comes from.

    The war appears to have ended mostly due to a politics. Why? Unclear. Some possibilities:
    –did the US offer economic foreign aid?
    –did the Filipinos fighting the US believe that the war was caused by a miscalculation and wanted to end it?
    –if the population of the really did decline sharply between 1895 and 1900 because of a health and weather catastrophe; did the Filipinos fighting the US believe that they needed US medical help to end the catastrophe?
    –did the Filipinos fighting the US want to the US to help train, advise, equip and fund the Filipino military?
    –did the Filipinos fighting the US want to maximize the numbers of Filipinos allowed to move to America and become Americans?
    –did the Filipinos fighting the US want American help to prevent Japan or European powers from colonizing and ruling the Philippines?
    –did the Filipinos fighting the US want US help in the war against the Moro Islamist fighters?

    I don’t know the answer to this question. But probably a major factor was their desire for help in dealing with their health epidemic and fighting the Moro. This might explain why the anti American Filipino fighters avoided fighting the US after 1899.

    In my view the Moro war is far more ethically worrying and troubling than the 1899-1901 American Filipino war. Since very likely far more people died in it and it was a sectarian fratricide bloodbath between muslims and nonmuslims. If the US agreed to help nonmuslim Filipinos fight and win this war in return for ending the 1899 Filipino American war; then the US is complicit in a major slaughter of muslims. This would be by far the largest example of the US joining a nonmuslim war against muslims.

    [In Iraq the US sided with the majority of Iraqis in a war with a minority of Iraqis, non Iraqi Arabs and Pakistanis; it mostly wasn’t a nonmuslim against muslim war]

    sbarrkum, could you write another article about the Moro war? Why do you think it started [other than the usual US banning of slavery trope]? How to prevent muslim nonmuslim wars in the future? How come accounts of the Moro war do not discuss the role of moderate muslims? Why in general is the role of moderate muslims understated?

    In retrospect is it possible that the Battle of Manila Feb 4 to Feb 5, 1899 was seen by the Moro as an opportunity to win control over a large part of the Philippines while their “enemies” fought each other?

    1. bud dajo massacre was part of the muslim nonmuslim Moro war.

      Battle of Luzon was part of WWII. It is interesting that the Filipino army, American Army and General MacArthur were celebrated as heroes in the Philippines in the 1940s and 1950s for fighting the Japanese. By contrast few Americans know who General MacArthur is today. As you point out an enormous number of Filipinos died in WWII.

      1. This Luzon genocide was not in WWII

        William Pomeroy’s American Neocolonialism (1970) cites 600,000 Filipinos dead in Luzon alone by 1902. This is backed up by General Bell himself, who said “we estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon—some 600,000 people.”

        1. Thanks for the clarification sbarrkum. I would love to learn more about this. As I said before; far more people died in the Moro war than the Filipino American war .

          I don’t know why there isn’t more research into it. Perhaps one reason is because nonmuslim Filipinos and Americans shared responsibility and this subject is still controversial among nonmuslim Filipinos. The Filipinos who fought America during the Filipino American war fought alongside Americans in the Moro war. Which means that the nationalist “heroes” of the Filipino American war might be discredited by their complicity in the Moro war. The Philippines still has a major terrorism challenges with AQ and Daesh. The war is not yet over. Albeit now moderate muslim Filipinos are more overtly leading the fight against Islamists alongside their fellow nonmuslim Filipinos.

          With respect to the Filipino American war Rummel’s estimates of 20,000 Filipino soldiers and 34,000 Filipino civilians being killed might be accurate.

          However it is conceivable that over 100,000 or over 200,000 muslim Filipinos were killed in the Moro war.

          I don’t question your quote of General Bell on Luzan. But could 1/6 of 600,000 people have really been killed? That is 100,000 muslims! Did they all die in one year? The population of the Philippines appears to have grown rapidly between 1900 and 1901 and 1901 and 1902. Maybe they died over several years? If they did die in one year then the Philippines must have had a high birth rate in 1902, which is possible.

          Religious fratricide is horrible. Yet another reason that muslim nonmuslim relations need to improve. And why the muslim civil war needs to end. And why muslims need freedom and dialogue to end the muslim civil war.

          Did you see my previous comment that Manuel Arellano Remondo appears to believe that the population of the Philippines declined from 9 million to 7 million between 1895 and 1900? If anything remotely like that happened . . . oh my goodness.

  13. Appears that the Battle of Luzon was pretty bad too.
    This is backed up by General Bell himself, who said “we estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon—some 600,000 people.”

    The Moro war will leave for another day.

  14. @anan, Because my principles are mostly similar, it takes aeons for some kind of structure to form, some form of legitimacy, when that is thrown out altogether, there is chaos and what follows is terrible pathology.

    Give you a context, Iraq war and British colonialism in India. Right after british conquest, whose real victory was over marathas, it removed them, their soldiers had no employment, they became the thugee cult. And all the orientalist trope can be added to this. Some thing similar happened in Iraq, US govt removed iraqi soldiers, many joined ISIS. And you see something similar with all critique on Islam being piled on, which as many will know, I agree with partially. My reasoning is not left, my reasoning is centrist if not a bit conservative. Muslims can make up their own damn minds, If you believe that principles of liberalism, rationalism etc are universal , then why not trust in them and wait for them to come around by themselves?.

    1. Bharata, is this in reference to another thread?

      The English supported a side in the 1775-1782, 1803–1805, and 1817–1818 Maratha civil wars. The side the English supported won. The Marathas conquered the Marathas and India for England. Indians conquered India for England. Many Indian princely kingdoms sought out alliances with England. England didn’t conquer India with a few exceptions.

      You appear to be saying that several princely states reduced the size of their armies in India under the Raj. Isn’t that a good thing? Armies are very expensive to operate.

      Iraq has been in a civil war since 1979; although that civil war might not be ending. I think you are referring to disbanding the Iraqi Army in 2003? You are correct that Paul Bremer disbanded it. The Iraqi anti Saddam resistance leaders played a large role in that decision, and initially it was very popular on the Iraqi street. In the long run it was a mistake. Sometimes following fickle public opinion is unwise. The US opposed the creation of a large powerful Iraqi Army until 2006, when facts on the ground forced Rumsfeld to drop his opposition. This was a mistake.

      The last part of your comment is unclear to me. Muslims cannot “make up their own damn minds”. Muslims don’t have freedom of art, speech or thought. Muslims cannot engage in public discussions about Islam without a high risk of getting killed. One of the main objectives of Jihadi Islamist groups is to prevent muslims from having public discussion of Islam and the holy Koran. A large number of the more than million muslims they have killed were killed because they publicly discussed Islamic theology. Did you read:
      This is the problem. If muslims have freedom and dialogue the fourteen century Islamic civil war can end.

      The primary reason nonmuslims are killed in over a hundred countries is because of the Islamic civil war. If the Islamic civil war ends, muslim-nonmuslim relations will sharply improve and terrorism against nonmuslims will also mostly end.

  15. west supports islamists or gives cover to them, say in Syria. I dont see morality in foreign affairs as their primary concern.

    1. “west supports islamists or gives cover to them, say in Syria” True. Self destructive stupidity appears to be the primary concern of the West. Personally I don’t like the word “west” since I think it is rapidly losing its meaning.

      Islamists want to establish an extreme interpretation of Shariah all over the world. Anyone in the West who is okay with that might want to check themselves into a medical health clinic.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits