Gaza, not Hamas, Attacked Israel

QUORA: ‘Does anyone really believe Hamas attacked Israel?

I posted this answer:

I don’t. That’s too simplistic. The truth is much broader than that.

Analysis of the Gaza conflict grossly misses the point. I think that to say Hamas attacked Israel way understates the full truth and understanding needed to fully grasp the magnitude of what actually happened on October 7. Hamas was not merely some criminal enterprise operating in an underworld of a nation governed more or less under the rule of law, like the Mexican Drug Cartels.

The fact is, Hamas was the GOVERNMENT of Gaza. Therefore, it was Gaza, not merely Hamas the terrorist group, that attacked Israel, just as it was the Empire of Japan that attacked the USA in 1941. And just as Japan got what it deserved because of its Imperial Government’s attack on Pearl Harbor, so it is that Gaza is getting what IT deserves in attacking Israel. All of the suffering and destruction and death Gaza residents are enduring is what THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, not Israel, brought down on them.

It's morally black and white. And it’s not merely about terrorism or anti-Semitism. Israel was the victim of an unimaginably vicious, unprovoked aggression directed at civilian targets (which was arguably morally worse even than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan at least chose a military target). Israel is now defending itself. Who has the moral high ground? By any rational moral judgment, the defender, Israel—100%.

Israel shouldn't be called on to “cease fire” (i.e. surrender). The world should demand that Hamas unconditionally surrender, just as Japan did. And the world should commit to tracking down and forcing Hama members to answer for their war crimes, along with Hama’s state sponsors, just as the Nazis and Japanese war mongers did. The Gazan War would end immediately, just as WWII did.

[Supplemental, posted 5/15/24]

Some of the comments indicate the need for some clarification of my position. Apparently, I left the impression on some that anything Israel does in response to Oct. 7 is justified. That’s certainly not the case.

Israel is not seeking, and should never seek, revenge. For Israel to become like Hamas would surrender its moral high ground. Israel is fighting a war of self defense, not revenge. It does not target civilians. Its goal is military. When Japan attacked America, President FDR set the goal of his defensive military strategy—Japan’s (and the other Axis Powers’) unconditional surrender. It took Truman’s atomic bombs to reach that goal regarding Japan. Israel has set a goal to destroy Hamas. Just as America’s goal was not to kill civilians but to force Japan’s surrender, so it is Israel’s goal to eliminate the Gazan Hamas threat. As long as Israel sticks to that goal, and its military operations are in service to that legitimate goal, all consequences, including civilian deaths, are not the moral responsibility of Israel, but of Gaza’s Hamas dictatorship.

One commenter states that “Every conflict has to have a limit and a line not crossed?” Why? For what it’s worth, that is the “standard analysis.” But it’s not mine. There is no line that Israel must adhere to that stands in the way of achieving its strategic goal of eliminating the threat to its people, which is any government’s first responsibility. Israel is the victim! Any line prior to securing the safety of its people amounts to the victory of the aggressor, a moral abomination. I do not believe in Just War Theory. The only line that should not be crossed is for any country to attack another unprovoked, a line which Gaza crossed. 

Related Reading:

"Who is morally responsible for the deaths of innocents in Gaza?"

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

On “War with Iran” After 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed

On “War with Iran” After 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed

The recent un-provoked killing of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan by Iraqi-based Iranian terrorist proxies led to an exchange on Facebook. Without mentioning names, I republish part of the exchange [sic]. The owner of the Facebook page posted:

I don’t understand how anyone can vote for Biden in this upcoming election.   I understand that our choices for President will…most likely…not be good ones.  But…Iran has attacked US installations over 160 times recently. The most recent attack on one in Jordan killed three of our servicemen and injured many others.  And the administration doesn’t want to escalate anything with Iran!  Iran has been at war with the US for decades and the escalation is obvious.  WTH is this president waiting for to protect our troops.

I commented:

The delusion at the White House is astounding. We keep hearing fears of "a wider war," an "escalation of tensions," and such buzzwords. That's the talk of appeasement, and it's leading us in the direction of World War III. I don't think it will get that far. But that's the road our current policies are pointing to.

Another correspondent chimed in:

A war with Iran is not the way to hold them accountable….. another war??? Seriously no. Not the answer and I hope congress sees that as well

The owner replied:

Then what? Continue to let them bomb and kill our soldiers with no recourse?

The commenter reiterated:

there must be other ways to hold them accountable…… to which you and I rest assured know nothing about. But war with them is not the answer here

I replied:

Our policies since WW II of fighting long, dragged-out, no-win wars, capped by Bush’s failed “nation-building” fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq, have so corrupted our thinking about war that we are reduced to what you are essentially saying—the pathetic belief that the most powerful and moral country in the history of the planet cannot defend itself against a pipsqueak terrorist theocracy that incessantly wages war against us.

You are partly right. Another NO-WIN war is not the answer. Appeasement led to WW II, and an uncompromising Allied policy of unconditional surrender or utter destruction led to lasting peace and prosperity. The crushing of Italy, Germany, and Japan resulted in those nations becoming our allies, friends, and trading partners. They learned their lessons. I’m not a military expert. But I do know that Iran is no Italy, Germany, or Japan. The U.S. can cripple Iran’s economy in hours or days, and neutralize its military, with air power alone. It can be supplemented with massive economic sanctions, enforced by naval blockades and the like. No need for “forward strategy for freedom” or “democracy” campaigns. No need for troops on the ground. Whatever we do, we should make it clear that we will continue to do what’s necessary until the current murderers and criminals ruling Iran are replaced with better political leaders and policies. 

It must be said: The idea that “war with them is not the answer” is a dangerous evasion that leads to a PRO-WAR POLICY OF CONTINUING APPEASEMENT. We ARE at war with Iran—and have been since 1979. They know it. It’s time for us to acknowledge it as well, and act accordingly. Imagine a peaceful, civilized Iran that deals with the West through the shared prosperity of commerce rather than war-through-terrorism.

Related Reading:

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

"Who is morally responsible for the deaths of innocents in Gaza?"

Craig Biddle on Israel vs. Hamas for The Objective Standard: Why You and I and Everyone Should Support Israel Against the Barbarians

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

The moral standing of the latest Israel/Hamas war is as bright a line as you’ll ever see. The aggressor is Hamas. The defender is Israel. From the moment Hamas launched its barbaric attack on Israel, every casualty on either side became the moral responsibility of Hamas, the aggressor. Every brick in the Gazan rubble resulting from the Israeli military retaliation; every drop of blood and every tear shed by Gazans, civilians, foreign nationals, or others, is the moral responsibility of Hamas. 

To be clear, let’s consider the alleged destruction of that hospital that was first reported to have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Hamas immediately blamed an Israeli air strike. It has since become clear that it was an errant missile fired by a Hamas ally. And the death total and damage to the hospital turned out to have been greatly exaggerated. But all of that is morally beside the point. Even if the original reports were accurate, and a strategically targeted Israeli air strike destroyed the hospital and killed many hundreds, the responsibility would be on Hamas. Hamas is the aggressor. Israel is the defender. That strike would not have happened but for Hamas’s attack on Israel.

From here on out, whatever death and destruction results from Israel’s avowed strategy to eradicate Hamas once and for all—including the use of nuclear weapons, if God forbid it comes to that, will be laid at the feet of Hamas and its master, the Islamic theocracy of Iran.

Which brings us to the next point. In 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, Ayn Rand Institute founder Leonard Piekoff went on the Bill O’Reilly show to advocate for the response to the Islamic attack on America that he considered proper. In a contentious interview in which O’Reilly treated Piekoff at times less than respectful, Piekoff argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan was the wrong target. The right target, said Piekoff, was Iran, the spiritual and political head of the entire anti-civilization Islamic Totalitarian movement. Have a listen, think about where we are now, and then dare to tell me that Piekoff was wrong. 

Imagine where we’d be today had America followed Leonard Peikoff’s advice.

Related Reading:

The Jihad Against America and How to End It, by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard blog

Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, by Elan Journo

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Bush's Collapsing "War on Terror"

The "Forward Strategy" for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo

Related: Democracy in Action in Egypt

Ralph Peters: "Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom"

Iraqi Democracy vs. Freedom

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

Yes, Ideas Do Matter, as One Couple Found Out—Tragically, the Hard Way

You may have heard of the American couple who biked around the world a couple of years ago, only to be murdered by ISIS terrorists. The couple believed that 'Evil Is a make-believe concept', and set out to prove it. But as they travelled through territory near Afghan border, ISIS members stabbed them to death.

I’ve been thinking about this episode. I actually agree with their sentiment that most people are decent human beings. That doesn’t mean evil doesn’t exist. But what is the source of evil? 

Let’s define our terms. What is the standard by which good and evil is determined? There is only one legitimate standard--human life and the requirements of human flourishing, qua human being. Simply put, human life is fundamentally individual, and each individual possesses a rational faculty and free will all his own. However much value we get out of social interaction with others, in the end each of us is a complete independent entity--an end in ourselves. The only way for the individual to flourish is to be free to use his rational faculty and free will--to live by the judgement of his own mind--in pursuit of his own values. So the right thing--the good--is to leave others free from physically coercive interference.

But not everybody believes individual freedom is right; i.e., moral. These ISIS murderers truly believe they are doing right--by doing God’s work. Likewise, Nazi or Communist regimes were and are driven by a moral vision they believe is “right”--a collective moral vision that subordinates the individual to the collective, or group. Because both collectivism and theocracy subordinate the individual to a “higher authority,” they are contrary to the individualist requirements of human life, and thus can both be objectively defined as evil. 

Yes, evil exists--and it is driven by inhuman ideologies. The lesson: Evil is certainly not “make-believe”. Ideas are the engine of history and of human action. The source of evil is the ideas that lie behind it. If this couple had taken the time to understand the ideas behind ISIS, they would still be alive today. It’s not like the threat is not well known. Even the 911 Commission recognized “the ideology underlying jihadist terrorism." 

It may seem distasteful to point this out, given the tragic deaths of this idealistic couple. But certainly, no disrespect is intended. It is their misplaced idealism that got them killed. This must be recognized to head off other couples meeting the same fate. Ideas matter.

Related Reading:

Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand (from the book of the same title.)

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam—Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard

The Evil of Whitewashing Islam—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source

Businessman Daniel Kowalski’s Deadly Moral Nod to Socialism and the USSR

In an article published in the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), The Soviet Union Began as a Democratic Experiment in Socialism, Daniel Kowalski starts off with . . .

When Bernie Sanders made his debut on the national stage in 2016, most Americans had never heard of democratic socialism (the idea that the government controls the means of production but we all get to vote). But in the four years following his loss to Hilary Clinton, it’s become a major topic for American politics.

After telling us how democratic socialism in the Soviet Union descended into Stalinist terror and murder, he concludes with the same old stale argument about how socialism is good in theory but doesn’t work in paractice.

And unfortunately, no one person or group is smart enough, wise enough, or capable to micromanage a society. Some theories sound great but when put into practice they get proven to be wrong. With so many historic examples documenting the failures of communism and socialism it’s baffling that so many people in America seem to want to give it a try.

In our modern age of information it’s very easy for us—and very important—to examine the past mistakes of others so that we don’t repeat them.

I posted these comments:

Kowalski entirely misses the point. There is nothing “very nice” or “great” about “the idea that the government controls the means of production but we all get to vote.” The means of production is the individual. Economics is the field of activity by which people support their lives through work, voluntary association, and trade. A government that totally controls the means of production has total control over people’s means of survival. A government with total control over people's means of survival is a government that has every individual by the throat. What freedom, what opposition, what personal choice of any kind is possible under such conditions? Does it matter whether you have a single ruler or a politburo? Whether it is elected or not? Democratic socialism is everyone giving up their personal freedom and individual rights in exchange for a totally useless vote to determine who gets to hold the legal noose. A government, of whatever kind, that has every individual by the throat is a totalitarian state. An elected tyrant is still a tyrant. Stalin’s terror is not an aberration. A government with that kind of collectivist power is sure to produce a Stalin (or Hitler) eventually. Logic confirms this truth. History has proven this time and again. 

But, there is nothing “baffling that so many people in America seem to want to give it a try.” Why? Because it’s supposed opponents keep telling them that socialism is “good” or “very nice” or “great.” 

Of course, socialism as a political system doesn’t work--not if human peace and justice and prosperity is the goal. It never will. But that is not enough to dissuade the next generation from wanting to give it another try--not as long as opponents keep telling them that socialism is morally the right thing to do. If it’s good, there must be a way to make the unworkable work.

There is no dichotomy between theory and practice. Socialism doesn’t work in practice because it is horrible in theory. Only the acceptance of the idea that it is evil and immoral for any government to usurp the individual’s inalienable right to control their own lives can socialism in any of its politically (forcibly) imposed incarnations be defeated once and for all.

Related Reading:

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’

China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom--Carmen Alexe

“Only in a free-market system can we truly achieve individual liberty and human flourishing. Individual freedom can only exist in the context of free-market capitalism.” 

Religion Isn’t Race, and Religious Criticism Isn’t Racism

In Hunterdon County, New Jersey, Raritan Township Deputy Mayor Louis Reiner posted comments on his Facebook page that were harshly critical of the religion of Islam. In Islam 'A Cancer,' 'Violent' Religion, Township Committeeman Says, Curtis Leeds reports:

Saturday’s attacks on a Saudi Arabia oil processing plant – which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has blamed on Iran – is something that Raritan Township Committeeman Lou Reiner isn’t accepting quietly.

Reiner, who has long been an unapologetic conservative, has taken to Facebook in reaction to the attacks.

“I believe Islam is an evil religion, it’s a violent religion,” Reiner said in an interview this morning. “The religion is a cancer … the Islamic position is in fact a cancer.”

Among the memes shared by Reiner includes one that states, “Some cancers must be treated with radiation. Islam is one of them.” The meme’s image is one of a mushroom cloud explosion.

Whatever you think of Reiner’s remarks, they’re certainly not racist. Yet “racist comments” is exactly what a sitting NJ congressman labeled them. In a report on the public firestorm that Reiner set off, Deputy mayor describes Islam as ‘a cancer,’ then apologizes for Facebook post, Caroline Fassett reports for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com:

In an interview with NJ Advance Media before Reiner issued his apology, Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-7th) condemned the post and demanded that Reiner apologize for his “racist comments” or resign immediately.

“This is a leader in his community," Malinowski said. "I represent Raritan Township, and I feel I have a responsibility to speak out when this kind of thing happens. And I would hope that every other office holder who represents that community and Hunterdon County would feel the same way.

“Every time a statement like this is allowed to stand without accountability, people in our community get the message that this is somehow OK. And we see more and more of it.”

I posted these comments under Fassett’s article:

Malinowski (D-7th) makes a dangerous equivocation in characterizing Reiner’s comments as “racist comments.” Racism is judging a person based on genetic lineage. Since race is something none of us has any control over, criticism based on race is racist, and illegitimate. Religion on the other hand is a belief system, which we do have control over. We choose our beliefs, including religious beliefs. A person’s beliefs—his values, ideas, principles, ideologies, philosophies—are legitimate objects of  intellectual scrutiny, including criticism. So, too, is a broad-based ideology, such as Islam, Christianity, socialism, capitalism, and so on. 

Religious criticism can be challenged, but should never be silenced. If we can’t criticize religion, then we can’t call out Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism in pursuit of a worldwide totalitarian caliphate based on Sharia Law. Nor can we call out Christianity for its reigns of terror and endless religious wars, which led the Founding Fathers to separate church and state with the First Amendment.

Christians and Muslims should not be universally condemned for the murderous acts of fundamentalist practitioners of their respective religions. But equating Reiner’s remarks as racist is tantamount to giving religion-motivated terrorism a pass. Given the violent history of religious conflict, we give religion a pass at our peril.

Related Reading:

‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ is Not a Bigoted Term

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Clarion Call for Islamic Reformation—Craig Biddle

The Evil of Whitewashing Islam—Craig Biddle

Trump’s Ban-All-Muslims Policy Undermines the Fight Against Islamic Jihad

Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, by Elan Journo 

A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source

A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source

After the 9/11 Islamist attacks, President GW Bush and the Congress created The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission. It’s final report was issued on July 22, 2004 (PDF Version). It’s mandate, according to the preface, was to answer the question “How did the happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?” The report “provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. It also includes recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.”

The 2004 report was widely anticipated, publicized, and debated, and most of its practical recommendations have been wholly or partially implemented, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). What has not gotten much coverage is a new BPC report authored by the original 9/11 Commission members.

John Farmer Jr summarizes the new study in a guest column published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on September 11, 2017. Regarding the BPC report, “Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism: An Assessment of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy From 9/11 to ISIS,” Farmer observes that although . . .

the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct far-flung, sophisticated operations like the 9/11 attacks has been disrupted if not totally degraded, [the BPC report observes that] "the threat of terrorism has metastasized. Last year, terrorists launched five times as many attacks as in 2001 . . . For each threat defused, another soon takes its place; for each terrorist group disrupted, another soon arises; for each terrorist killed, more eager recruits appear."

The BPC reports that “It is impossible to conclude that the enemy has been defeated,” and attempts to answer the question, “Why?” Hearteningly, the BPC report reads like a breath of fresh air—and truth. As Farmer writes in these excerpts:

Our successes have been significant, therefore, but largely tactical.  "For all of its battlefield and intelligence successes," the BPC Report notes, "the United States has demonstrated little ability to degrade support for the ideology underlying jihadist terrorism."

That ideology rejects the idea of a nation state as a western creation foisted upon Islam by colonial powers. It advocates a world as a unified caliphate under a single Islamist banner, and rejects utterly the notion of the separation of church and state, believing that "the Koran is our constitution" and that religious law should inform all aspects of daily life. It offers the disaffected a simple answer to every grievance, a simple solution to the world's complexities: violent jihad.

Its allure has proven extremely powerful as Islamic State has emerged from al-Qaeda.

Just as only Muslims can be effective in countering the Islamist version of Islam, only America and the west can be effective in countering the Islamist totalitarian rejection of our freedoms and way of life.

As a culture -- not just as a government -- we must expose the Islamist sloganeering of "Democracy hypocrisy! Democracy go to hell! Freedom go to hell!" for the prelude to tyranny that it represents. [My emphasis]

If this analysis sounds familiar, it’s because is mirrors what some voices have been saying since 9/11. And Elan Journo, co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond, wrote in 2016:

The problem goes way beyond ignorance. Ignorance is where everyone starts out. But the jihadists have never made their cause secret. Our enemy is defined, not primarily by their use of terrorist means, but by their ideological ends. They fight to create a society wherein Islamic religious law, or sharia, dominates every last detail of every individual’s life, a cause inspired and funded by patrons such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and above all, Iran. In our book, we call this political-ideological movement Islamic totalitarianism. [My emphasis]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also comes to mind with her book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, in which she calls on Muslims “to bring their religion out of the seventh century and into the twenty-first.” Is their message finally breaking through to the “mainstream?”

What’s particularly noteworthy about the report Farmer summarizes is that the BPC group that authored it was co-chaired by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, who headed the original 9/11 Commission Report. John Farmer Jr. himself has impressive credentials. He was New Jersey's attorney general on Sept. 11, 2001, a former senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and is currently a university professor and special counsel to the president of Rutgers University. Farmer also contributed to this latest report. While I have not read the entire BPC report, I think that, given Farmer’s credentials and ties to the Commission, we can trust that he accurately summarizes the essentials of the report.

We can debate the recommendations of the BPC report. The main value of the report is that it identifies the true nature of the enemy as fundamentally rooted in Islamic text, rather than whitewashing this fact by trivializing the terrorists as “hijackers of a peaceful religion” or some such nonsense. The question is, what effect will the report have on the policies of our political leaders? Unfortunately, the BPC report hasn’t, to my knowledge, gotten much coverage. This is surprising, given the wide attention given to the findings and recommendations of the 2004 9/11 Commission Report. We can only speculate. But perhaps too many people don’t want to go where this report leads, for fear of “offending” rank-and-file Muslims. Just a few weeks after Farmer’s column, there appeared in the Star-Ledger a guest column by Muslim-American Fakhruddin Ahmed titled Trump's unwelcoming message to Muslim Americans like me, in which Ahmad criticized President Trump’s use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism” because it “conflate[s] Islam itself with terrorism and offend[s] the world's 1.6 billion Muslims who do not see a link between the two.” If Muslims themselves won’t acknowledge the obvious connection between aspects of their religion and terrorism, how will Muslims ever “be effective in countering the Islamist version of Islam,” as the BPC report urges?

Still, the report has been written and published. Have we reached a cultural and political turning point, where we can toss the “War on Terror” into the dustbin of history and finally acknowledge the much broader scope of the fight? Or will Kean, Hamilton, and Farmer be brushed off as another group of “Islamophobes”, or simply ignored for running afoul of political correctness?

That would be a shame. This report deserves the same wide exposure as the original report. We better hope this report is a cultural wakeup call, because right now the Islamic totalitarians are militarily weak—which is why they rely on terrorism against civilians. The fundamental battle is ideological, as Farmer observes. What will happen if our leaders continue to evade the real nature of the enemy until the Islamists acquire the military capacity, including nuclear weapons, to back up their ideology?

Only time will tell. But Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism: An Assessment of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy From 9/11 to ISIS is a hopeful sign. Farmer’s column is titled N.J.'s attorney general on 9/11: How to defeat Islamist terrorism, and is an interesting, worthwhile, and encouraging read.  

‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ is Not a Bigoted Term

In a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column, Trump's unwelcoming message to Muslim Americans like me, Fakhruddin Ahmed wrote:

Muslims immigrate to America not to change the American way of life but to embrace it. Muslims are attracted to America because of the way it is; they have no intention of changing or harming America. Muslims know that if they had settled here first, modern America would probably look like the Middle East, and would not be a welcoming beacon of freedom and innovation. Few Muslims dream of emigrating to China or Russia!

Muslims are traversing the same path of hope trodden by millions of immigrants before them. If President Donald Trump understood these simple truths, perhaps his misgivings about Muslims would subside.

As more Americans decouple from organized religion and embrace tribal and racial identities, some fear that Muslims will fill the religious void. They need not worry.  Muslim Americans are following the same trend that has delivered other religious groups to the doorsteps of secularism.

Ahmed goes on to back up his contention, which I believe is largely true. I think it’s also largely true that “The overwhelming majority of Muslims are on America's side as it fights these terrorists.” But does that invalidate Trump’s (and others’) “rationale for repeatedly brandishing the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’,” which he say “conflate[s] Islam itself with terrorism and offend[s] the world's 1.6 billion Muslims who do not see a link between the two?”

I left these comments:

I sympathize with the sentiments expressed here. Muslim Americans should not be automatically lumped in with and treated like terrorists.

But there is one glaring problem—Ahmed’s rejection of the term "radical Islamic terrorism.” It is a serious mistake, especially for Muslim-Americans, to evade the actual nature of the terrorist movement, which is precisely motivated by a totalitarian ideology rooted in the Islamic religion. If this barbaric movement is to be wiped off the face of the Earth, all people—Muslim and non-Muslim, religionists and atheists—must properly identify this enemy of civilization.

The Star-Ledger recently ran a guest column by John Farmer Jr., doing just that. Farmer informed of a new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center, chaired by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton of the original 9/11 Commission, which attempted to answer the question of why the Bush strategy failed. Key quotes from the column:

"For all of its battlefield and intelligence successes," the BPC Report notes, "the United States has demonstrated little ability to degrade support for the ideology underlying jihadist terrorism."

That ideology rejects the idea of a nation state as a western creation foisted upon Islam by colonial powers. It advocates a world as a unified caliphate under a single Islamist banner, and rejects utterly the notion of the separation of church and state, believing that "the Koran is our constitution" and that religious law should inform all aspects of daily life.

Just as only Muslims can be effective in countering the Islamist version of Islam, only America and the west can be effective in countering the Islamist totalitarian rejection of our freedoms and way of life.

Ayn Rand Institute scholar Elan Journo makes the same point:

[T]he jihadists have never made their cause secret. Our enemy is defined, not primarily by their use of terrorist means, but by their ideological ends. They fight to create a society wherein Islamic religious law, or sharia, dominates every last detail of every individual’s life, a cause inspired and funded by patrons such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and above all, Iran. In our book, we call this political-ideological movement Islamic totalitarianism.

These are not Anti-Muslim bigots. These are not “Islamophobes.” These are sober, objective intellectuals. “Radical Islamic terrorism” does not mean all Muslims. It does properly conceptualize the faction of Islam we are fighting. Proper identification is the vital prelude to winning. It’s great to know that “Muslim Americans are following the same trend that has delivered other religious groups to the doorsteps of secularism.” They must be explicit. Just as American Christians rejected their totalitarian Inquisitional past by embracing the separation of church and state, so American Muslims must reject the totalitarian branch of their religion and explicitly embrace separation of mosque and state. That will definitively distinguish peaceful Muslims from the jihadists. Freedom of religion and conscience is a core unifying principle of all Americans.

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Clarion Call for Islamic Reformation—Craig Biddle

The Evil of Whitewashing Islam—Craig Biddle