|There is a big logical hole in your hyperbole about the supposed determination of the Muslim masses to wipe all infidels from the face of the earth. First, whatever the plans and motives of terrorist thugs like Bin Laden, it does not necessarily follow that large numbers of Muslims are willing to risk their lives and happiness to attempt to impose Muslim hegemony on the rest of the world. Second, even in the unlikely event that a phalanx of 1 billion angry radical Muslims were prepared to march to their deaths at the command of Bin Laden against the "free world", I doubt they possess the means to successfully prosecute an invasion of the United States, England or New Zealand. Your commentary simply assumes that which you hope to prove, without evidence.
Further, Bin Laden stated publically that the purpose of his terrorism against Americans in Iraq and New York was to force the removal of US military installations in the Middle East. Since the only proper role for a government is to defend the individual rights of its citizens inside its borders, and since US military bases in, say, Saudi Arabia are obviously unrelated to this responsibility, Bin Laden and other anti-Americans in the Middle East have a valid political grievance against the US government. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have lost their lives to US military force, and to the force of sanctions, since the start of the Gulf War in 1990. That neo-objectivists imagine that such carnage and destruction somehow accord logically with defense of individual rights is more than astonishing. It is double-talk reminiscent of left-wing irrationalism.
Finally, George Reisman once wrote that if left-wing authoritarians were really interested in alleviating poverty, as they repeatedly claim, they would almost certainly display more curiosity about rational economic principles. In a similar vein, war hawks are outraged about terrorist murders and threats of more murder. However, they display little interest in the observation that the permanent American military presence in the Middle East, long-term US government support for the state of Israel, and the US invasion of Iraq have the indisputable effect of recruiting terrorists for Bin Laden and other thugs and of targeting Americans for terrorist acts. This makes me wonder if neo-objectivists are more inspired by the prospect of the state as "spiritual enforcer", then they are by the idea that government ought to uphold individual rights.
Of course, none of my comments are intended to give moral sanction to terrorists, who are cold-hearted and vicious enemies of individual rights.