In line with some of this, I once heard an, albeit brief, analysis of the practice of ahimsa, or non-violence, according to which the practice could only be successful in the face of a morally developed opponent. "Existentially," I doubt this is true, but as a matter of immediate political activism, it would seem the the efficacy of ahimsa is that it faces the opponent with their own moral repugnance at the attrocity of their actions. Corollary to this, it would probably be prudent to consider what it is, exactly, that is being doubted when the suggestion is made, in essence, that Muslim extremists are not suitable targets of non-violent resistance. That they lack moral fiber is a proposition without foundation. Rather, I believe, the ineffectiveness would have to do with the nature of the conflict: it's geo-political situation in a sort of trans-national virtual space, as well as in the more significant co-marginalization of religious and market fundamentalism and the parallel sacred and secular forms of state. Where the global community has been so profoundly divided, the claim of the moral is unlikely to be seen as universally similar and its reflection is unlikely to be noticed by the perpetrator. But this is a two way cul-de-sac. Ahimsa, at this juncture, will, above all, require self-reflection.