[Drago]

Time for Hugh Hewitt to do some Koran and Hadith/Sunnah study:

http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

I am just starting to study the above to determine if the "War on Terror" is a war with some Wahhabi "extremists" or whether we are at war with Islam. If we are at war with a proven minority (<1%?) of Islam then our tactics would be radically different than if we are at war with the religion as a whole. If the religion as a whole is hostile to all "infidels" then targeting concentrations of the enemy would be justified, as in any war. I don't think Hugh knows if Muslims who aren't advocating violence against infidels are just "lukewarm" Muslims, or if a minority of Muslims are wrong about their religion, and advocate violence.

[the_Watchman]

Our church supports a missionary to the Muslims who knows the language and has many friends in the ranks of militant Muslims.

He estimates that 10% of Muslims are radical. (That's quite a LARGE number of people.) He estimates that 10% are led by scholars who do not subscribe to unlimited Jihad. He further estimates that 80% of peoples who refer to themselves as Muslims are essentially "in name only".

Given those proportions we are clearly better off if the 80% can be induced to sit on their hands while we dispense with the radicals and those from the "scholars" community who bother to stick their heads up.

I suspect that this is the crux of the Bush strategy. I also suspect that it is why Iraq was chosen to prove a point in the Middle East. Iraq was NOT a Muslim state and therefore attacking it was less threatening to the bulk of the Muslims worldwide. Deposing Saddam HAS sent a message to Syria, Egypt, and Libya which has seemed to make a difference.