But I appreciate you observing the difference between the kind of engagement I was, perhaps poorly, attempting to advocate and that being pushed by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Washington Institute authors and I perceive something close to the same problem, but offer different solutions.

In terms of Zac, your first answer continues to set-out the most likely outcome. But I perceive in your second answer a readiness to engage as you can… and we should not discount the potential of engaging one another.

Regarding the conflation of terrorism, radical extremism, religion, and Islam, I agree it is a problem. My principal reason for leading with the previous day’s post on “Immigration: A religious dimension” was an attempt to insert my own Christian faith as a source proto-terrorist tendencies, and in this way try to address the issue you have raised. I regret I was not successful.

You explicitly say the government may not be in the best position to contest ideas in this space. However, that gets lost in such noise as references to that think tank report (which calls for a significant increase in government participation in this space) as well as general references to “terrorism” and “religion” with the only examples given are those connected to radical Islam.

That is a road I worry too many in homeland security are already going down. One that leads to making the problem worse and not better in the long run.

However, I still think that for cases such as his it is the people in his immediate social circle who can wield the most influence. In the larger picture, it is those within a culture, religion, [insert group here], etc. who can influence the nature of discussion taking place in that social sphere.

Zac’s story could have ended similarly, if not even more tragically, in a way similar to that of the Virginia Tech or Columbine shooters.

I fear that if we look at the problem of radicalized Islam through the lens of a conflict of ideology, government attempts to get involved in religious discussions could result in more Zacs, not less.

Could others? Perhaps. But do not forget that this wasn’t the only path this individual could have taken to act out whatever he needed to act out.

In other words, in another decade he might have taken up “arms” for another cause. Don’t ignore the importance of religious ideas/ideology, but also don’t forget that it wasn’t too long ago that nationalism, Marxism, anarchism, [fill in your "ism" here], was the primary driver for such activity.

The results are the same, the drivers change…