Nassar al-Ansi – Killed by USA

Abu Sayyaf – Killed by USA

Hafiz Saeed – Killed by USA

Junaid Hussain – Killed by USA

Tibor, the links supply the crimes of our targets. And as you might recognize, my research and composition hours are dedicated to philosophy in the areas shown here: A B (not political, military, or cultural). The first fifteen years after college I was a political activist and I studied and wrote in political philosophy, but in the last thirty, my specialties, as you can easily see from Objectivity (1990-98) and from these two links, are in philosophy not political. This thread, as far as my own contribution to it goes, is just quick notes on our successes against particular jihadi leaders and remembrances of the 9/ll atrocity. I'll continue it in that same way (regardless of who is President, our campaign will continue) and hope to live to see the day we get the other head remaining out there who attacked us on 9/11.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/26, 4:54am)

Abu Omar Al-Shishani - Killed by USA

Bill,

I agree.  Killing leaders is a good way to slow them up (and an act of justice), but cutting off the source of their funds is much more powerful inhibition.  Also, especially with ISIS, taking away their land - their Caliphate - would be an excellent step.  It hits them in an area they hold ideologically dear, as well as denying them a safe place to sit while raising money, training, recruiting and organizing. 

But the biggest and best step is to divide them from the moderate Muslims in a way that encourages the moderates to modify Islam - to reform their beliefs, taking out the political aspects and rejecting them.  This not only is a solid step towards succeeding in the ideological side of the war, but it means that a military/police force could form that we could ally with to have local control of newly taken territory.  There has to be a functional replacement for the strong-man dictators that will police the area against Islamists.  If it is an all Arab, all muslim force it will re-enforce the reformist movement by showing the difference between moderates and fundamentalists.  As the young begin to adopt a philosophy they need to see fundamentalism ridiculed by local, respected, Arab Muslim leaders.

Jules,

It only seems that way because you approach the issue with reason. 

It would look like a movement where people were arguing a more rational approach to what a peaceful, non-political, Islam would look like, and there would be some theological slight-of-hand by important, moderate Islamic leaders to explain why this or that part of the scripture was not really being rewritten, and that slight-of-hand would explain why this was NOT changing the words of Allah, but rather being more true to his actual words.  (Keep in mind that religion is mumbo-jumo to start with and has never made any literal sense.)

Then would come the great divide - the people on one side who want a peaceful religion and have never liked the militant side of Islam, and the fundamentalist on the other side.  It would sound a little like they were making arguments based upon reason, but in fact it would be a struggle of peer-pressure and emotional appeals.  It would grow heated and everyone who is a muslim would have to take a side, and the fundamentalists would be severely marginalized and become outcasts.  Maybe there would be new sects open up in the moderate Islam for peaceful fundamentalism (lots of prayers, dietary restrictions, beards, etc. - but no sharia or jihad.) 

You can't reason people (moderates or fundamentalists) out of positions that they never reasoned themselves into.  This would be an emotion-based movement.

But this reform won't happen until there is a very strong emotional impetus.  There has to be great pressure in society before this would happen.  Political correctness and a failure of different governments to go after fundamentalist Islam keeps the moderates from having to separate themselves.  There is almost zero pressure, now, to overthrow milenia of religious inertia and to suffer the disquiet of dropping this sura in exchange for that sura, and to take an adversarial stance.

As it is said, "It is not our duty to judge him. Only God can do that. Our duty is to see that the meeting takes place."

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/05, 5:19am)