THERE IS A SAYING THAT the age of chivalry died with
the invention of gunpowder. Today the West still lives in the age chivalry[1]
and it could help bring it to its ultimate ruin. Unable to adapt to the age of
gunpowder, because it represents having to kill men women and children in order
to defeat an enemy whose ultimate purpose is to kill your own men, women, and
children; the West now sinks even deeper into the moral abyss. Such is the
power of gunpowder over the sword and lance, that it obliterates bystanders…
who we, in the modern West, refer to as
civilians.
The
days when two armies confronted each other to indulge in mortal combat, in a
field somewhere in Europe without any civilian involvement, have long gone. The
age of lance, musket, fife and drum; and the squares at Waterloo have long
since passed. Civilians have become as much part of war as the combatants
themselves. Chivalry is dead. Weaponry and munitions have moved on, even if the
modern liberal West are fearful of using them to their full potential because
of guilt and the many sleepless nights feared by our politicians, who are unprepared
to be classed as 'war criminals' and pre-dated upon by human rights lawyers.
Churchill
regretted but did not fear the bombing of the German cities during the Second
World War; and he carried the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths
in order to advance the completion of the Second World War.
There
were no Cameron or Obama-like uncertainties to undermine the great man. What
had to be done was done. Churchill never became a Nazi or Communist for his
exemplarily ruthlessness against German Nazism; or even through his alliance
with Stalin's Soviet Communism, and neither did both the American and British
nations.
Churchill
did what was needed to defeat Hitler; he was a patriot and a democrat and did
what was required to salvage that cause…and so it should be the case today in
planning the defeat of ISIS. If politicians fear sleepless nights,
unpopularity, and human rights lawyers because of their actions; then they
should not be leading a nation - especially one they tell us is under threat
from ISIS. Because if this nation is under such a threat that those MPs who
voted for action over the skies of Iraq believe; then when we release the dogs
of war, they should be unleashed and not held back by politicians fearful of
the next day's headline.
AS ANY CHILD knows or should know; war is an
appalling business that should not be entered into flippantly, especially by
career obsessed politicians of the calibre of Tony Blair. War is a bloody, cruel,
and a sadistic enterprise to embark upon; which is why particularly Western
nations in the modern era are loathe to engage in them.
But
a nation or nations can be propelled into conflict by the unfolding events of
history. War cannot in many circumstances be resolved through negotiation. The
Second World War sits as the template for such an axiom. A piece of paper
signifying 'peace in our time' is a barren guarantee when you are up against an
enemy in full ideological certainty that their cause is right, such as Nazism
who cared little for such documents – as ISIS does today.
As
with the imperial nature of Nazism and their design for a Greater Germany; ISIS
also believes in a Muslim imperialism; a caliphate spreading, in its infancy,
throughout the Middle East. But its ultimate and ambitious reach spreads
further still. They no doubt hope that their ambitions for their Muslim
caliphate[2]
will eventually traverse the European continent as earlier centuries old
intrusions once attempted. But Islam no longer has to fight its way into Europe, as it once tried. Today 15 million
Muslims live throughout Europe and over two million of them live in the UK.
As
we are constantly told whenever an Islamist outrage is committed on our soil,
the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by such an act. It is only a minority
of Muslims that embark upon such acts of terrorism. The Muslim community as a
whole deplores such acts.
But
how do we know this? I am sure that there are many hundreds of thousands of
Muslims in Britain who abhor such acts of terrorism. But the Muslim population
represent a great demographic forest on UK soil. A forest among which Jihadists
and ISIS members can hide at will when they return from Iraq and Syria. I am
not saying the Muslim population of Britain are culpable; but only that they
represent the foliage among which the Islamists can hide; and if discovered can
seek protection under the European Court of Human Rights.
We
have, through our liberal progressiveness and liberal imperial guilt, allowed
the intrusion of Muslims into our nation: as has also happened in other parts
of Europe, and for the same reasons. The whole of Europe are now seethed with a
Muslim population of some 15 million people. The demographics will dictate the
future direction of Islam on the continent of Europe
The
point is that Islam has arrived in Europe, and has done so without bloodshed as
it once suffered through combat in the past, when Europe stood in its way
militarily, and were fully prepared, whatever the cost, to defeat its invasion.
Today Islam is flourishing throughout Europe without a single shot being fired
in opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment