I've got a bone to pick with you, Tavernese.

Sabrina Tavernese, I'm really angry with you. Your article today on the front page of the NYTimes is just plain wrong in its blatant direct linking of Islam to militancy in Pakistan. Ugh, the last thing we need is someone else purporting this hollow stereotype. It is most problematic bc the more we blame Islam, the further we get from a solution to the real roots of the problems there (this case in Pakistan), and the further moderate Muslims move from us.

This line really got my blood a boiling: (Good thing for you, Sabrina, I read it at a bar with a nice glass of full bodied red wine. Is there any other type of wine really though.)

"The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy."

Koran = sympathy to militancy? Please don't tell me you think that Islam is to blame for all of this violence?

Despite these romantic 'violent Muslim' lines, in reading the rest of the article one can see that militancy in Pakistan has other roots, like a lack of economic opportunity (no jobs) and the lack of mobility due to the importance of political connections. Tavernese, however, does not direct us toward these practical explanations, rather she continues to make unsubstantiated claims blaming Islam.

For example, throughout the article she states that despair and poverty and neglect have created this space for the Islamic schools. My response is: Then is it not this desperation and neglect and poverty that cause militancy? Why is it Islam?

Furthermore, just because the kids that go to these schools become militants doesn't mean it's because of Islam, I'd argue it is because of the networks they fall into in these schools and the desparation they feel.

Also, these Islamic schools might teach these kids messed up conservative crap (no music, etc) but most of it, first of all, is not even 'Islamic' and second of all, what they teach is not the root of the problem, why they are there is.

Why are they there? Because there are few public schools and fewer good ones. Tavernese even states that few kids actually go to any school in these regions; Islamic schools make up only 7% of all primary schools. Private schooling is out - too expensive in these parts.

Many kids that attend these Islamic schools have nowhere else to go; these kids are usually the poorest of the poor. Islamic schools don't charge much, if anything, due to financing from the state. It is these kids that are vulnerable to militants, but they are vulnerable not because of their religious feelings but because of their poverty and desperation - their total lack of social networks and economic opportunities and political connections.

These grievances are classic fodder for revolutions, as I commented on here, it has happened plenty of places over time, Iran, China, Russia, the list goes on.