Replies

There are many problems with Islam - its intolerance, the aimless stupidity of its literalism, its refusal to learn from experience or history, its indifference to justice and openness to casual cruelty, its patent falsehood for example. But its belief that war is important and makes for strength, while pacifism is a delusion and a weakness, are not among them.

Consult our actual experience instead of the raging hypocracy of an imaginary western commitment to peace and you will see that those who are committed pacifists within our culture are precisely the useless, unrealistic, and delusional. That men willing to face the reality of conflict and to regard martial virture as virtue not evil, are the better men among us. Yes there are various deep seated cultural traditions in the west that pretend otherwise, but they are pretending and it is a load of crap.

Why would I expect a delusional pacifism from entire civilizations that I can readily see is a foolish weakness when it occurs in my own leaders?

When Bush said the war on terror was a war for peace, he was simply engaged in Orwellian newspeak and confessing this raging hypocracy. But in fact that hypocracy and the moral weakness and unreality it automatically causes, is the main failing the west suffers from in this whole struggle. Churchill knew better; the only thing he truly respected about his Islamic enemies in the Sudan was their bravery and martial virtue, which he knew he and his own country needed to match, not condemn.

Why is this hard to see or say? What moralizing self delusional bee in the bonnet prevents us from calling spades spades, and saying this is not a war for peace but for victory?