Article

2006-03-01 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2006-03-01 10:27|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good. Superfluous to most here---or so I believe---but good.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-03-01 10:57|| 2006-03-01 10:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-01 11:28|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-01 16:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-01 16:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-01 17:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-01 19:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-03-01 19:57|| Front Page Top

23:56 2b
23:53 3dc
23:50 2b
23:42 trailing wife
23:35 3dc
23:35 trailing wife
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
22:59 Remoteman
22:58 Frank G
22:55 RWV
22:50 Photle Graviger5976
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:45 Bobby
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:41 Bobby
22:40 RWV
22:38 DMFD
22:37 SR-71
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:35 DMFD
22:34 .com
22:34 trailing wife
22:32 trailing wife