In this kind of war, defeat and mass death can be a good, effective opening move. You start a rebellion, knowing everyone who marches out with you will die; you all get wiped out; and a few years later, your successors march into the fortifications of the occupying power.
That’s not a fantasy. It actually happened, more than once—though almost all the examples are recent ones, because this strategy depends on a certain squeamishness in the occupying army, and armies didn’t get squeamish until very recently.
As far as I can tell, nobody saw this two-stage pattern until I spotted it, and goddamn it, I want a little credit for once. Not money, because I know by now that you D.C. schmoozers would sooner die than throw a quarter my way—but a little credit, at least. I’ve had enough of you ripping my stuff off, using me as a natural resource, playing whalefall to your hagfish. So listen up, hagfish: What follows is the Brecher Two-Stage Martyr/Killer Theory of Insurgency, and if you don’t mention me when you get your six-figure, three-letter agency grant to research it, I’ll give you a sample of stage two, if it takes my last wheezing breath.
A quick glance at the article proved sufficient to the purpose of determining the question of further investment of time. (2 statements caught my eye).
Evidently the life-long, unceasing, sacrifice of Yahya (Upon Him Is Eternal Salaam) as an act of 'witnessing to the Truth' (aka martyrdom) is not clear. Indeed Yahya/Yohaan/John (A. S.) -- the name means Living -- was "lucky" but that it not because of the crowning act of his life of martyrdom when he confronted the incestuous Herod (upon whom is infamy) with characteristic directness without a regard for his 'head'.