For now, I'm going to assume that the ideological battleground is the Muslim world. I don't think most of these proposals are workable in the Muslim world. A few might have a bit more currency with the non-Muslim world, but I doubt their overall utility there. The ideological war in the West has a lot more to do with the old left/right hatreds than it does with Muslim culture.
One, the only way to convince a Jihadist he's going to hell is for another orthodox Muslim to tell him that. I don't think Ahmad al-Muj is terribly interested in the theological musings of Freepers, but he might listen to a mufti or an ayatollah with a sufficiently large pulpit. He may also listen to a family, clan, or tribal leader -- depends on how far gone he is.
Two, exploiting class-envy to deconstruct religion is a bit too Marxist for me, especially when many terrorists aren't that poor anyway. Disparities of wealth develop anywhere with sufficient wealth, it's only natural for the advantaged to amass whatever wealth they can. We need the Islamic world to reform commerce and property rights so the advantage passes from the de facto aristocracy to a meritocracy. This may be accelerated by instituting representative government while reforming Islamic education beyond the usual array of madrassas and state-sponsored bachelors' in Islamic history. It may be useful to set up American-run universities in Iraq and Afghanistan; they'd be electromagnets for terrorism, but they could train future leaders. We already do it for their military, why not their civilians?
Three, it is a point of pride to orthodox Muslims that they "protect" their women, and to Muslim women that they are more pious than poorly-dressed nonbelievers; to them, we treat our women like garbage. This is a private religious matter for most Muslims. But I agree that those societies that limit the movement of women or submit them to cruel punishments need to reform. After changes in codified law, the best way to deal with it would be to support those ulama who have liberal views regarding women, ideally through open scholarship. Think widespread reports on seventh-century Muslim women going about without veils, or how the change in the sex ratio since then has fundamentally changed marriage. Covert funding and propagandizing might get it done, but if it were uncovered, we'd lose a great deal of face.
Four, we already saw what happened when the Pope brought that idea up. It's a non-starter.
Five and six are pretty good ideas, but a soft touch is needed -- this could best be carried out by the academe, using traditions of Western rationalism (which are uncommon, but not unheard of in the Muslim world). Humanizing Muhammad and recasting the Quran as an inspired text, rather than the virtual embodiment of Allah it's become, would go a long way towards modernizing Islamic culture. It could set up a chain-reaction doing away with established fiqh ("jurisprudence") and bringing back itjihad ("reasoning" in the application of sharia to circumstances unforeseen by Muhammad).
Seven misses the mark completely, since Muslims do not worship Muhammad. Even if they did, telling them that the only way to defend their religion is with violence -- as part of a campaign to delegitimize their religion -- is probably going to provoke more violence.
Eight is another idea that Muslims won't grasp. To orthodox Muslims, Jews and Christians were always safe and happy under the Caliphate. The Crusades and the State of Israel messed things up, but their religion at its height -- the era to which they long to return -- was very tolerant. It might be useful to remind them of this fact, that they've failed in their responsibilities to their dhimmies, but accusing the religion of being inherently violent will shut down the listener and any chance of delivering a message.
Nine, Islam certainly has a concept of forgiveness, and love. (Maybe not the agape you're thinking of, though.) I don't know if it has a "golden rule," but a Muslim would counter that Western culture has no "rule of submission." You're assuming that his values are the same as your values, and that he will find wrong with his religion exactly the same things you find wrong with it. He won't.
Ten is good, but the wording is a bit polemical. (Ya think?)
Please read Mr. Gawthrop's article in the Fall 2006 issue of The Vanguard. He describes the centers of gravity, critical vulnerabilities, and seams that can be exploited in the ideological war.
A perfect example why we are probably going to lose. The utter lack of imagination and ability to grasp the Main Idea.
Propaganda can be anything from subtle to overt, depending on the audience. But the essential idea is the essential idea. You need essential ideas. How you put them across is another matter. What is so difficult about that?
If you read my entire post, you will see that my wish is for clever Americans with the means to do so conduct the propaganda.
No where do I suggest that a sledgehammmer be used on anyone's head, and it would be stupid in most circumstances to use one, but not all.
Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I was suggesting that moslems read Free Republic to have their heads straightened out? Wow.
And the marxist bit? Wow again. Talk about missing the point.
The point is to demoralize mohammed worshippers and make them question their own thoughts, exactly the way they do to us. It could be by way of logical analysis, but it can also be directed to their emotions, and there are a lot of those, including resentment toward those who are exploiting you, as the rich, comfortable and powerful mohammed-worshippers do the poor ones.
moslems have bountiful hatred. It is to our benefit to have then direct it at each other rather than us.