The Islamic terrorist attacks are bewildering the Western World for neither the governments nor the population seem to understand the reason behind it. Ayn Rand already explained this many years ago when she spoke of the hate against the good for being the good. Islam is trying to destroy the Western World for it so starkly shows all the filth, the dismay, the miserableness and despondency of the way of life which Islam promotes for all its followers. This is clearly described in „Time Out of Joint“, an article by Professor Sadik J. Al-Azm as published by the Boston Review (www.bostonreviw.net/BR29.5/alazm.html) and the Webpage of the FaithFreedom.org (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm) to which Joel Català called the attention in this thread.
Does the Western World have the power to solve this terrorist problem? It does, as I will detail below, but it requires courage and determination.
First of all it must be perfectly understood that the Islamists living in the Western World came to the Western nations because they were attracted to this way of life due to the promise it offered of bettering one’s own wellbeing. The Islamists came because they were not satisfied with the conditions existing in the Islamic countries and wanted to better their economic situation. Nothing wrong about this, since it is always good to see individuals straining to better the situation of their existence. But they should have left their beliefs where they came from, for a different way of life is so because it is based on other premises. To mix the premises will always produce a contradiction in terms (here we have Rand again).
Basically the problem of Islamic terrorism should, thus, be solved by the immigrated Islamists and their children and great-children themselves. But they don’t do anything about it. They operate their shops, etc. that are frequented by the Western population and, most probably, even support the terrorists with part of what they earn, perhaps because they secretly endorse what terrorists are doing or, else, because they are racketed by the terrorists themselves. It could also be a mix of both possibilities.
One of possible measures to move Islamist themselves to operate against the Islamic terrorism (but this involves in each case a personal decision) is NOT to buy anything from any Islamist nor hold any contact with any of them. This is MY small, personal way of fighting against the Islamic terror. The reader may now smile at such an apparently inconsequential procedure. Truly it is so, but it gives me and my family the personal satisfaction that we do NOT promote the Islamic terror. If many people were to proceed likewise the results would be noticed in a fast and most amazing way… But, as I said, this depends on a personal, individual decision…It could just as well be applied to eliminate dictatorship in China, for example…
There is another way of fighting the problem: Throw all Islamites out from every country of the Western World. No, no violence is involved here. On the contrary, Western governments could even prepare lists of the names and further personal data of the Islamites that must leave the country where they live and give them a documentation declaring that they will be allowed to re-enter the country they are leaving once the problem of the Islamic terrorism has been solved and the Islamic countries agree in WRITING to cease any attack against the Western World.
Is this unjust? Far less unjust that the killing that Islamic terrorists are spreading among the peaceful, productive Western population. Besides, this could by no means be compared to any of the unfortunately famous fascist procedures of racist elimination for no elimination at all is involved here. No Islamist would be killed. He would merely be obliged to leave the country of residence. You would then see how fast THEY would be willing to solve a problem whose effects are suddenly affecting THEM.
And in what refers to any terrorist captured I would welcome the return of the death penalty (American fashion, i.e. putting the culprit to sleep and then administering a lethal dose of poison) for I myself define the death penalty as follows: „The death penalty is the time delayed execution of the self-defense by the representatives of the victim or victims who, at the time of the incidence and due to the circumstances involved, were unable to defend him/themselves personally against the murderous attack.“
Is this a naive way of looking of what is happening to the Western World? Just as “naive“ as any other Objectivist way of handling evilness, I would say.