[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.

[Drago]

"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". "

I also suspect you/your missionary friend are about right...also I have heard that Islam is a very "de-centralized" religion...ie. Imam's have great regional/local power, and can sway what local Muslims feel/think.