| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant |
| 2006-03-01 |
| By Debris Trail I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since. "Very few people were true Nazis" he said, "but, many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories." We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous. Rest at link. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #7 Moose - Anything since the rise of weapon lethality to planetary scale or the astronomical increase in wealth among the worst of the worst of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Iran? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 19:57 |
| #6 History bears me out. In Islam, every now and then, some small group of fanatics goes on a tear. They may go it alone, or they may inspire the majority for a while; but in the long run, either the fanatics get killed, or the whole thing just runs out of steam. It just doesn't have "legs". So then what happens? is the big question right now. Typically in history, they just settle down for a generation, then start cutting up rough again. And since we don't want to have to repeat ourselves, our big alternative is getting them on the secular democracy bandwagon. Secular democracy is the damndest thing, as relates to people. We will not live long enough to know if it re-writes the whole Moslem world paradigm. But I hold high hopes. Much of why their religion is obnoxious is the pre-governmental systems in it. Tribal laws, Sharia and other crap like that *was*, way back when, better than chaos. But right now, in Iraq, even tribal leaders are seeing that democracy is light years ahead as a better mousetrap, and even they hope that Iraq evolves democratic government instead of the old ways. The Moslem world is both terribly stagnant and building up intolerable pressure for change. If they can get that change in a good way, most of their impulses for obnoxiousness will disappear. Or so we should all hope. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-01 19:54 |
| #5 M³= Mythical Muslim Majority. The M³ are totally dominated by the islamofascists The only thing that will counter it is a vice like grip on the islamofascists balls (yes that means killing them too) where ever they are. Plus more steady presure like this other anti-totalitarian political and social pressure on the M³. That might get us through this without having to wipe everyone holding their religious philosophy out. Time is running out and the hour is getting late. Other pressures are building that may just make option #9 the only one. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-03-01 17:37 |
| #4 That sounds really good, Moose. It just isn't working out that way because you ignore The Rule: Muzzy First™. This Rule overrides all other considerations in Islam. Siding with the infidels against the pious? Nope. Not happening. The evidence proves it. The "moderates" are, indeed, utterly irrelevant in defeating the "radicals". Change the verbiage to be "active" and "passive" and it reflects the reality far better. Just my long-considered opinion. I won't ask you to bring me evidence of a moderating influence effectively turning the borderline Muzzy away from active status - that would be unfair. But I can say that until I see "moderates" actually fighting, not writing English language coffee table books which merely flirt with the idea of Islam being hi-jacked, but actually fighting the jihadists, then it's just wanking, at best, and taqiya, at worst. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 16:17 |
| #3 I would agree with this, but add two points. The first is that radical minorities are most susceptible to argument by members of the reasonable majority. That is why radicals hate moderates more than their official "enemy"; even respecting their radical enemy more than their moderate allies. They know where their radical brethren are coming from. The reason for this is that moderates and radicals compete to sway the majority to their way of thinking. Radicals must maintain a monopoly of speech, must stop the moderate voice, or they lose the popular opinion. The second point is that the radicals must always use the majority as "shields" when fighting their enemy. Because there are so few real radicals, the loss of even a few is devastating to their radical cause. But they can lose countless numbers of the majority and not be bothered. So a good strategy, when fighting a majority led by a radical minority, is to come up with some way of bringing the true radicals to the front lines and exterminating them. Far sooner than if you had to fight your way through the majority, the loss of their radical minority will cause their resistance to collapse. For example, in the WoT, the US has gone to lengths to attract radicals willing to fight, to pitched battles with our soldiers. This both takes them away from the majority they could radicalize, and has them concentrated for easy killing, *and* has them fighting our soldiers rather than our civilians. We win three ways. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-01 16:09 |
| #2 Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. The same could be said for "peace-loving" Christians or Jews. The problem is that there is a difference between peace and appeasement. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 11:28 |
| #1 Good. Superfluous to most here---or so I believe---but good. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-03-01 10:57 |