We probably googled at the same time, I only wonder whether we came to the same conclusions that Oberon intended.
I add this again, because I think it has not gotten the attention that it deserves when I quoted it some pages earlier. Take it as a counter to Oberon's extremely indirect point-delivery
.
Quote:
In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul — and not any physical battlefield — is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”
(...)
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/15_gen...cea2bbd2.shtml
|