Only A Small Portion
A commonly repeated refrain concerning the War on Terrorism is:

"Only a small portion of Muslims are Terrorists, therefore it is wrong to accuse Islam of being Violent."

The starting premise may even be true, but is the conclusion arrived at valid and/or relevant?

What does History tell us about philosophical movements with small violent minorities?

Before the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was ruled by a Totalitarian Dictator, the Tzar and controlled by a ruling Oligarchy, the Nobility.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia/the Soviet Union was ruled by a Totalitarian Dictator, the Party Chairman and controlled by a ruling Oligarchy, the Party Apparatichiki.

At no time was Party membership more than 3 to 4% of the population, which was about the size of the previous Nobility as it turns out.

So it would seem that a small violent minority can indeed direct the vast majority to its own ends to catastrophic results.

In the case of Marxist-Leninism the cost in human lives is considered to be above 100 Million.

So far Islamofascistic Jihad has a body count of probably between 5 to 10 million and has displaced on the order of 50 to a 100 million, but this version of Islamic Jihad is relatively young and just getting started.

Claims will be made about what Islam really means, what the Quran really says. What really matters are not words claimed but the millions of bodies that have soaked the earth with their blood.

This War, which to my mind should be called The War against Islamofacsism instead of the War on Terrorism has many battlefields,and to each distinct battlefield different tactics are required.

Some have made claim that the War in Iraq is a distraction. If that were true the former Abu Musab al -Zarqawi should have been delighted that the US was distracted in Iraq.

As I recall he was not, but was in fact worried that Al-Qaida was losingin that theater of . His mentor Ayman al-Zawahiri describes Iraq as "the greatest battle for Islam in our era.". In February 2004, Zarqawi acknowledged a democratic Iraqi state would mean defeat for Al-Qaida in Iraq. To defeat democracy, he has pursued a strategy of relentless, nihilistic bloodbath. It's a brutal irony of war: In doing so, he is losing the war for the hearts and minds.

But we do have those here in the West, who to advance their own political aims would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Some of them have pointed out this last roundup of terrorists in the UK as proof that Iraq is hindering the War. They claim the intelligence and investigation used for that event is the only way to fight see how it was?

I mentioned earlier, this a War with many different battlefields which require many different kinds of tactics.

To them I say, yes the Carrier Tactics used some 60 years or so ago were highly effective and led America's first real victory in the Pacific, but No, I don't think they would have done much good during the Battle of the Bulge.

When will this War be over? When it is over. How many centuries did the Romans battle barbarian hordes on their frontiers? The day came when they were at the Gates and Inside.

Today the Barbarians are at the Gates, some of them may very well be inside. They are will to take as long as it takes to either kill or enslave us.

Are we willing to take as long as it takes to remain Free?

Linked to
OTA Trackbacks Here from The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

|