The Telegraph has a pictorial study of what it considers the 20 most dangerous places in the world, and a brief synopsis on why each place is so dangerous. While reading it, though, one is struck by the shallowness of the regional descriptions.

There is no explanation for the order in which the nations and regions are listed, but they appear as follows: Iraq, Chechnya, South Africa, Jamaica, Sudan, Thailand, Colombia, Haiti, Eritea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Pakistan, Burundi, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, India, Mexico, Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories, Lebanon.

Fortunately, there are other resources available (such as Wikipedia and the CIA World Fact Book) to help us more fully understand the danger of these places.

So, what makes each spot so dangerous?

Iraq — armed conflict between the Iraqi government and the United States armed forces against Muslim insurgents, terrorists, and fanatics.

Afghanistan — armed conflict between the Afghan government and the Allied forces against Muslim insurgents, terrorists, and fanatics.

Chechnya — Chechen rebels and separatists (mostly Muslim) rebelling against Russia.

South Africa — very high violent crime in the townships and other areas.

Jamaica — rampant violence in residential neighborhoods and isolated regions.

Sudan — ongoing genocide of the Animists by the dominant Muslims, mainly in the Darfur region.

Thailand — unrest following a military coup in 2006.

Colombia — kidnapping, terrorism, and other violence related to the drug trade.

Haiti — natural disasters and economic hardships have fueled a brutal increase in violent crime and kidnappings for ransom.

Eritrea — recurring border conflicts with its neighbors. Also accuses Sudan of aiding Muslim terrorist groups in attacking across the border.

Democratic Republic of Congo — ongoing brutal civil war.

Liberia — recent civil wars, ongoing violent crime wave.

Pakistan — ongoing terrorism by Muslim militants.

Burundi — recent civil war, ongoing violent crime.

Nigeria — tremendous problems with violent crime, also originator of the infamous “419” e-mail scams and other frauds.

Zimbabwe — President Mugabe’s disastrous “reforms” and oppression have left this once-prosperous nation on the verge of collapse.

India — threats of terrorism from Tamils, Kashmiris, and Pakistani-sponsored Muslims. Recent massacre in Mumbai was committed by well-trained and well-equipped Muslims.

Mexico –High levels of crime tied to corruption, illegal immigration into the United States, drug trafficking, and criminal gangs.

Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territories — constant threat from Palestinian terrorists, predominantly Muslim. (Note that the article lumps in Gaza as “occupied,” in defiance of Israel’s evacuation of the Strip and its utter dominance by the terrorist group Hamas, which has pledged to destroy Israel.)

Lebanon — Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah (“Party of God”) controls southern portion of the country, is integrated into the government to the point where it holds veto power over any actions by the government, has launched several wars with Israel and is committed to Israel’s destruction.

Hmm… what’s the common thread there? Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sudan, Eritrea, Pakistan, India, Israel/Palestinian Territories, Lebanon — all places where militant Muslims are killing people in the name of their god.

One would think that the Telegraph would mention that nearly half of the world’s most troubled regions have a common element. But the word “Muslim” or “Islam” never appears in any of the captions.

In “The Clash of Civilizations?,” Charles Huntington noted that “Islam has bloody borders,” that wherever the Islamic world brushes up against the non-Islamic world, there is often violence and conflict. Note the number of current conflicts that involve Muslims on at least one side. The Telegraph‘s listing provides further confirming evidence.

Pity they didn’t have the courage to do so openly.