posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:31 PM
I just read the 28 page pdf provided by the link.
It assumes or states (in writing) the following:
It is theoretical. The model explored is intended primarily to facilitate academic strategic discussion of how to deal with current and future radical
It requires looking at radical islam threat capablities and goals based on their own publications, operations, training programs, propaganda, etc;
instead of through the "political corectness" of Western thought. (He notes that this was done with the Soviet threat as an ideology, but not with
Islam because we view it as a religion).
It states that we begin to look at radical Islam as an ideology instead of a religion.
It assumes a deterrence ability to radical islam cannot be found or if found has not worked
It assumes that certain articles of the Geneva Conventions would have to revaluate how non state players (such as Al Queida or Muslim Brotherhood)
interact with host states allowing population centers of support states to be attacked (such as MAD with the soviets) should deterence fail.
It assumes that this ideology is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and therefore we need to come to the understanding or
view point that "tolerance" of said religion (now an ideology) is an unaccaptable response when that ideology wishes to destory the very principles
(of the Bill of Right)s that allow diversity within the US and radical Islam's own existance within the US.
It declares that a better understanding of what exactly is a "moderate" muslim needs to be evaluated. How many muslims are "radical" vs "moderate",
"moderate" doesn't nessecarily equate to "mainstream" either.
Overall, I couldn't necessarily disagree with what the information was stating. I say teach away and don't judge a book by it's cover.... Flame away
edit on 11-5-2012 by SrWingCommander because: clarification.
edit on 11-5-2012 by SrWingCommander because: grammer