The Reality of Terrorism is Misunderstood by Many

Terrorism is a tactic, as well as an end in itself, as practiced by radical Islamist terrorists.

One purpose is to intimidate the many by slaying the few.  The hope is that if most everyone fears being a victim of the terrorists, they will be deterred from supporting policies opposed to the terrorists.

So Bin Laden destroys the Twin Towers in an effort to discourage America from further involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Many Americans fail to recognize these realities.  So we hear TV commentators lamenting, for instance, what is termed as the “senseless” massacre of “innocent civilians” at the government building in San Bernardino, California.

The slaughter was “senseless” only from a naïve western perspective.  For the terrorist, the destruction was eminently sensible – it was intended to serve a known end – the triumph of radical Islam. 

And that brings us to the second terrorist purpose:  kill.  The term “innocent civilians” is an oxymoron to Islamist terrorists.  Westerners are infidels and, hence, all are guilty of being the enemy.  Their death is ordained by Allah.

 

Notoriously, the Koran contains a passage relied upon by radical Islamists as justification for the carnage they unleash, for instance, in Paris and San Bernardino.  That passage is known as the Sword Verse (9-5):

“So when the sacred months have passed away, slay the idolaters     wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the tax [due from non-Muslims] leave their way free to them.”

Note the modifying final clause.  Extermination can be avoided if idolaters submit to Muslim authority.  However, the radical Islamist terrorists, in contradiction to the Muslim scripture they claim to follow, don’t exactly give their victims the option offered by the Koran.

Revisiting the Constitutional Convention

I recently had the occasion to refresh my knowledge of the 1787 Constitutional Convention while reading a 1971 biography of James Madison by noted historian Ralph Ketcham.

The framers certainly got a lot right as one looks back two hundred and twenty five years:  checks and balances, separation of powers and a recognition of the need for a strong chief executive.  Underpinning these policies was a generally cynical view of human nature.  Building a government on projected good intentions was, James Madison and the founders knew from history, to guarantee failure.

Yet, surprisingly, Madison – the Father of the Constitution – believed naively, at the time, in the value of language to limit the reach of the Federal Government.

The Constitutional Convention, with Madison’s concurrence, rejected a Bill of Rights as being superfluous.  After all, to quote Madison, “in a constitution of limited powers, it was not necessary [because] the Federal Government had no reason to interfere with rights since none was granted to it.”  And, indeed, Article I Section 8 does enumerate eighteen categories in which Congress shall have the power to make laws. 

In The Federalist Papers (number 84), Alexander Hamilton added another argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights.  He contended that doing so “would even be dangerous… for why declare that things shall not be done when there is no power to do so?”

In fact, several states refused to ratify the proposed constitution absent promises by proponents to incorporate a Bill of Rights via the amendment process.  Promises were made and kept.  Thus, the first ten amendments were approved in 1790.

Yet, within that decade, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, the Alien and Sedition Act which blatantly violated the First Amendment regarding free speech.  So much for James Madison’s and Alexander Hamilton’s assurances on the limitation of governmental authority.

The intervening two centuries have repeatedly shown the need for vigilance by those favoring limited government.  People in power are driven by the human impulse to expand their authority.  Our nation’s founders are hardly unique in having underestimated that trait of human nature.

In Defense of Donald Trump

No, The Sensible Conservative is not a Trump fan.  In fact, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, I expect to be faced with a choice next November between two very unsuitable candidates.

But fair is fair.  Mr. Trump has said many foolish and ill-considered things.  However, his comments on the temporary prohibition on Muslim immigration have brought down undeserved condemnation.

Consider these common sense propositions:  self-proclaimed Muslims commit terrorist acts.  Some Muslims wish to enter the U.S. to commit acts of terrorism.  Banning all Muslims will keep out those who desire to commit terrorist acts. 

That each of these is an undisputed fact does not mean, necessarily, that a religious test is the best or most efficient way to prevent future “San Bernardinos”.  Of course, a blanket religious test poses Constitutional problems; excludes prospective visitors not from the Middle East and would bar obvious Muslim friends such as the King of Jordan.

So Trump was being Trump.  He shoots from the hip and makes clear he hasn’t thought through the ramifications or consequences of what he proposes.  Yet, undeniably, his comments, in a general sense, resonate with large segments of the public.

Judging by the often hysterical reaction – from both right and left – you’d think that finally he has grossly stepped over the line.

Liberals called him “fascist”, compared him to Hitler and labeled him “a mendacious racist”.  On the right, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump “has rejected what America is all about”.  Even Charles Krauthammer, usually an astute and level headed conservative commentator, termed Trump’s remarks as “bigoted and indefensible”.

Nonsense.

The fact that thirty-eight percent of Republican voters agree with Donald Trump doesn’t, in itself, disprove the allegations but should generate a healthy dose of skepticism (except for those on the hard left who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or evil).

The clear intent of Trump’s comments (and the millions of Americans who concur) was to prevent future attacks, not to single out Muslims for their religious beliefs.

Ironically, the net result of the nearly universal political and media attacks on Trump was to increase his polling support because of the unfair assault.  And it was.

Note:  there are very legitimate concerns to be had about attitudes toward terrorism in the broader Muslim world.  For instance, a recent poll in Britain showed that twenty-five percent of Muslims “sympathized with” the attack earlier this year on the Parisian magazine which ran cartoons of Mohammed.  And one-third of Muslims students there support killing for religious purposes.  Personally, I find those numbers shocking. 

It is neither bigotry nor paranoia to point out this larger reality which should have a strong influence on our foreign guest and immigration policies.

Radical Islamist Terrorists?

According to the White House and national Democrats, “they” are to be unnamed. 

Some say “they” blow themselves up as suicide bombers, behead captives and massacre Parisians.

President Obama and his fellow group-thinkers apparently believe that by failing to use the highly descriptive phrase “radical Islamist terrorists”, they are avoiding giving offense to the majority of Muslims who are not.

Yet, I suggest that concern with avoiding offending moderate Muslims confuses the American public as to the real nature of the enemy.  The simple fact is that most Americans well know that the terrorists consider themselves to be Muslims.  They do not, however, make distinctions between good and bad followers of Islam but, rather, lump them together.

Thus, in a poll a year ago, only twenty percent of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims in general.  This is much lower than even a few years after 9/11 when one would have thought anti-Muslim sentiments would have been more pronounced.  In 2006, the highly respected Pew poll found that actually a majority of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims.

So what’s happened?  Plainly, the frequent terrorist attacks involving Muslims have influenced public opinion.  So an increase in negative views is not surprising.  However, the failure by the White House for the past seven years to accurately and precisely name the perpetrators certainly bears some of the blame.

To refuse correct labeling fuels speculation that Muslims in general – as opposed to a subgroup- are responsible. 

As a result, the lack of specificity - the refusal to call a spade a spade – causes a broader target to be an object of animosity.  The public does not believe what the Administration would wish which is that the terrorists are simply people of no particular motivation, religion or ideological preference. 

However, the American people are not the fools who occupy the Oval Office and environs.  So the belief develops that the White House (not exactly known for integrity) is trying to hide the truth.  Since it won’t identify the terrorists as radical Islamists, they must simply be Muslims.  So hostility to followers of Islam expands in part due to the addiction of President Obama to being politically correct and not giving offense.

 

He has, in effect, been hoisted on his own petard. 

So stop the harmful and counterproductive foolishness.  Call the terrorists what they are:  radical Islamists.  Good Muslims will be grateful.