I haven't listened to the segment yet, but I think the general idea as far as the Muslim community is concerned is this:
If law enforcement is somehow aware that a person may have expressed some radical views or otherwise could be vulnerable to being recruited to carry out an act of violence, doesn't it seem to make more sense for lots of different reasons if Muslims who might have credibility with such a person could work with that person to dissuade them from violent radicalism rather than having the government invest a lot of resources into pushing such people further into radicalism and manufacturing phony plots for them to engage in so that they can be arrested.
I am not saying that the first option is perfect or doesn't require a lot of fleshing out, but the way the FBI is currently handling it certainly creates a great deal of mistrust of the government amongst people who are
completely against violence and who are not radicalized which can't be a good thing overall.
Originally Posted by Simon Willard
I was struck by the suggestion in the last segment, from both of these guys, that law enforcement should be working with the Muslim community to avert the radical desire to engage in acts of terror.
How would that work?
Does law enforcement publicly go to Muslim organizations saying "we want to work with you to insure that your members' activities are consistent with US law and interests"? Wouldn't these guys be appalled at the condescension in their next diavlog? Or maybe it should be done in secret. But how would we know it is or is not happening?
The fact is that Muslim-connected violence hurts the Muslim community. I suspect the only way forward is to let people discover for themselves what is and is not in their best interest.