Social Sense
I'm not an expert in this type of reasoning, but I'll add a few comments.
"Hypothesis a) For any number of reasons, none of which need to be logical from the western perspective, fundamentalist Muslims will continue to attack non-Islamic institutions, persons, or places with impunity"
I read today that Islam is a much different culture than we can imagine. The author, Kenneth Timmerman, said that in Islam the importance of justice trumps the value of human life. If Timmerman is correct, he may have provided an important insight. Muslims, in general, resent many events which they perceive as injustices--injustices for which they want revenge, even across the centuries. If Timmerman's assessment of Islam's motives of avenging and correcting injustices is correct, perhaps his assessment goes far to explain why reasoning, dialogue, and compromise are not accepted, certainly not by radical Islam.
"Deductive reasoning b) It is impossible to distinguish fundamentalists from so-called moderates by their appearance, or from outside the Muslim community; it is therefore necessary to obtain intelligence information from within the community with those who are:
(1) Already Muslims (an unlikely event)"
Ay, there's the rub! But your following steps appear workable to me--over time.
I'm speaking domestically here....If seditious and treasonous speech is spouted off and if Muslims don't turn in such a rabble-rouser, is it possible to deport the non-citizens or prosecute the citizens--for complicity? I'm not saying this very well, I know. And my idea is probably not practical either, but I'll leave the comment here anyway.
"Theoretical speculation b) The removal of top terrorist leaders will not alter the course of fundamentalist ideologies, including their activities which involve terror or subjugation of non-Islamic cultures"
Agreed! Many Westerners emphasize (overemphasize, in my opinion) the capture and trial of OBL. While such a scenario might satisfy the Western idea of justice, I don't think such an event would have much positive result as he would be seen as a martyr. There are plenty of mini-OBL's out there; it's almost as if the radicals are trained to be a substitute for him.
Cutting off the financial connections might be another avenue, not explored here.
See Deductive Resaoning b(1), then read this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/
007356.php
Scary stuff!
Having read the link mentioned by Always On Watch, I would like to suggest that they learn lessons from Japanese Americans during the World War II. Substantial number of Japanese Americans joined US forces voluntarily to show their loyalty to the free world.
Muslims in the free world must lean this vital lesson. They should understand that they are members of free nations.
How can Muslims accept this idea? More scientific methods, including advanced psychology, are required.
Shah: You have made another excellent point, but please note that in the entire history of World War II, not a single Japanese-American who was serving in the military, ever disgraced his uniform, his ethnic group, or his race. Now fast foward to the Iraqi War, and we find that Sergeant Akbar did all of that before the war started.
Again I ask: Do Muslims, who swear allegiance to the United States, or who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and obey the officers apponted over ther, believe that they are not obligated to such loyalty because of their Islamic beliefs?
Anyone?
Well, Since Anyone seems to have stepped out of the building, I'll try to answer in his place.
Q: "Do Muslims. . .believe they are not obligated to such loyalty because of their Islamic beliefs?"
A: Yup.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
