Could be worse: they could have stayed in Minnesota

Somali-Americans leave homes, friends in Minnesota to fight alongside ISIS jihadis | Fox News:
(June 22, 2014)

 As many as 15 Somali-American men have left their homes in Minnesota in recent months to travel to the Middle East and join up with ISIS, the jihadist army at war with Syria and Iraq, according to Minnesota Public Radio.
 The fighters appear to have made the decision to go fight with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Levant while the terror group was fighting to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but some may now be in Iraq, where the marauding group is seeking to topple Baghdad.
 "A Muslim has to stand up for [what's] right," Abdirahmaan Muhumed told MPR News through a series of Facebook messages dating back to the beginning of the year. "I give up this worldly life for Allah." 

It's just a short step from leaving America for the sake of committing Jihad in the Middle East, to deciding to stay in Minnesota for the same purpose:

Overthrowing a political entity which holds goals and values with which the "Jihadists" do not agree.

Well.  Americans did the same thing in the 18th Century, and for much the same reason.  Is that the same thing?

Possibly.



The difference?   The American Revolutionary War was based on economic reasons as much as it was based on political:  "No Taxation Without Representation!"   And the revolutionaries fought their war on their own home ground.

But there are differences between "Jihad" and Colonial Revolution.

First, the American Revolution was NOT based on Religious Interpretations.   Instead, one of the reasons was to insure that religious freedom was guaranteed.  For jihadists, if you choose to worship your god in your way ... you are a target.  There would be no 'amnesty' for those with religious differences.  (Curious, in that the Koran specifically requires that non-combatants are not to be killed; enslaved, raped, yes --- but not killed.)

Second, the American Revolution did not specifically target innocents.  
The "Tories" (also referred to as "Loyalists"), those citizens who supported continued English hegemony ... were not exactly given 'favored nation status', but their persons and their families were generally not targeted for slaughter.  After the war, they were permitted to stay and (usually) retain their property.  Some Tories stayed, some were expelled, some were physically attacked, some were tarred and feathered (which was not only 'shaming', but also painful and physically debilitating). Some had their property confiscated.  They were abused, certainly.

But there were no general movements to hunt down and slaughter The Tory, or his families.
Still, there were 'exceptions'.  Yes, besides shame, torture and confiscation of property, some Tories who fought on the British side were killed during the war.  Shamefully, some were murdered after the war.

The typical Tory was Conservative, established, often wealthy, often believed that revolution against the "home country" was a shameful act.  The greatest extent to which Tories were "purged" during the American Revolution was that they were sometimes driven out of The Colonies ... which wasn't an entirely bad consequence for the average Tory, except for the shame and confiscation thing.

And don't think that foreigners were not involved in the American Revolution.   Remember  "Lafayette, we are here!"?  Jean Fafayette (LaFitte?), a Frenchman, fought if favor of the revolutionaries.  Well, the French were at war against the English at that time, and France included supporting the American Revolution as just another branch of the current war; it was exceedingly cost effective!  And (perhaps) General John J. Pershing was recognizing the French contribution to the American Revolution when his troops, in 1917, supported the French Republic by sending troops to France during WWI (The War To End Wars).

So What's The Difference, Now?  (As Hillary Clinton famously asked)

The American Revolution fought Power against Power.  Armies battled Armies.  When and if innocents were killed, it was a part of the "Fog of War", or it was the result of extremists who couldn't separate political and cultural differences on the part of non-combattants.

Jihadists don't care about Power against Power conflict; they are all about Terror.

They don't have the Power to fight a powerful opposing army, so they inflict Terror upon non-combatants, which is one of the primary elements of  Guerilla War.

The Jihadists are ALL "extremists".  It's not that they can't separate individual beliefs from political beliefs; it's that the individual beliefs (usually Religious Interpretations or Cultural Observances are what they are all about.

They are Terrorists; that's their only available tool.  That's how they conduct their Guerrilla War.  They terrorize the general public .. which usually just wants to be left alone ... in pursuit of their political (or more often religious) goals.

Their most "popular" tactics are rape, maiming, massacres, mutilation ... no act which inflicts terror on the general populace is beyond consideration, and acceptance, and embrace.   They not only prey upon the weak and the unarmed, but they seek them out.  Their purpose is to make any organized government fold because The People (who may or may not embrace them) turn away and offer support, sustenance ... ANYTHING that the Terrorists require, just to keep them from predating upon them any more.

I saw that in Viet Nam in the 1970's.  It was inhumane cruelty made 'legitimate' by the vicissitudes of War.

So, when I learn that Somali citizens of the United States of America have gone to a foreign shore to practice their innate terrorist version of war, I say ... good.  Go away.  Go to some far land and rape their women, kill their children, burn their villages. We're better off without you.

My Government is making no effort to stop you.

Why should I?

And then I ask myself ... am I so fearful, that I should wish this upon a weak people whom I do not know?

I think about my grandchildren, and I answer:

Probably.