Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Unfortunately, 2 isn't very likely. I think 1 is certainly right, in demonstrating that they don't have a viable state, but realistically if ISIS falls some other group is going to attempt to do something similar.
Supporting these reformists won't stop terrorism outright; nothing can do that. But if those people are being used as examples of why the religion needs saving, then the people making that argument have revealed themselves as being part of the problem and their views need to be defeated by Muslims who see the world as you do. I know Nawaz sometimes dramatically calls that process a war for the soul of your religion; a bit much on the rhetoric, but you can see where he's coming from nonetheless. It's a conversation worth having and an ideological debate worth winning.
|
I get what you're saying, I just think that while debates and outreach or whatever have their place, when you have people willing to go into a park and blow kids up then there must be a counter-argument out there somewhere that is convincing enough people to carry out acts like these. That's why I personally think that the only significant dent long-term is defeating Isis militarily- it gives the optics that you're joining a losing team which I think is far more impactful than endless debates.