The modern Arab militant is well known for its physical cruelty and physical cowardice. The Islamofascist is incredibly courageous when slitting a female flight attendant’s throat with a box cutter (as happened on 9/11), sawing the head from a bound captive while chanting to Allah, murdering school children at Ma’alot, shooting a pregnant woman in her belly to kill her unborn child, and slaughtering a female aid worker (Margaret Hassan). Its behavior is far different, though, when it has to confront an armed male; then it tends to make itself scarce as quickly as possible.

Cast a Giant Shadow with Kirk Douglas as Mickey Marcus, the American who may well have saved Israel during its War of Independence, shows how the Arab League attacked Israel on its first day of existence. The Arabs enjoyed enormous numerical superiority, training from the British, and modern fighter aircraft and tanks. The poorly-armed Israelis had Jeeps and a Piper Cub, and they had trouble coordinating their operations because their European immigrants did not even speak the same language.

One Israeli, like any other genuine Westerner, is however worth ten Arabs in terms of physical courage and determination. The Arabs were so cowardly that they ran from exploding bottles of seltzer water that were dropped from the Piper Cub. While the Arab is good at murdering defenseless medical personnel as reported here

One of the worst incidents occurred on April 13, 1948. A convoy of 70 doctors and nurses making their way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed by Arabs. This happened 200 yards of a British police station. After a seven-hour shoot-out, during which the British did nothing, all the doctors and nurses were killed. Afterwards, the Arabs mutilated their bodies.

the last thing it wants to do is fight someone who might actually hurt it.

Mutilation (and robbery) of the dead is also a militant Arab cultural trait. The opening scene of the movie Patton, which is based on actual history, shows Arabs joining with vultures and other scavangers in preying on dead American soldiers. One Arab is desperately tugging at a dead soldier’s wedding ring while another takes the boots from a dead body. The militant Arab can in fact be likened to a two-legged jackal or hyena: a scavenger that is at its best when preying on the dead and wounded– preferably killed or wounded by someone else.

The behavior of the Arabs during the Arab-Israeli Wars and Second World War is hardly the only example of their culture’s inherent physical cowardice. Islamofascist North Africans (at least according to Spanish legend) ran away from El Cid’s dead body at the siege of Valencia, and it is a historical fact that the Crimean Horde ran away without striking a single blow at Vienna (12 September 1683).

Although Tartars are not Arabs, their culture is similar; they are a semi-nomadic people that lives primarily by raiding, banditry, and occasional honest work like sheep herding. A Tartar tchambul is, in fact, literally a “flock,” while the Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are literally the White Sheep and Black Sheep Turks respectively. The Crimean Tartars at Vienna were doubtlessly waiting for the Turkish Janissaries to break into the city, and the nomadic Islamofascist has no desire whatsoever to join a forlorn hope in that enterprise. (Forlorn hope = “lost troop,” the vanguard of an assault on a fortress.) The Tartars would have been delighted to ransack the city afterward while raping the women, smashing babies’ heads against walls, cutting the throats of the wounded, and engaging in other forms of TAB (Typical Arab Behavior).

What actually happened, though, was that a European relief army arrived on the morning of 12 September 1683, and the Tartars watched (doubtlessly from a safe distance, well out of musket range) as it engaged in an infantry battle with the Turks. When the Khan saw the Polish cavalry emerge from the Kahlenberg Forest, though, he realized that only two things stood between his army and total annihilation: fast horses and a good head start. (Furthermore, the Poles were too busy slaughtering the Janissaries and then making off with their artillery, coffee, and horsetail battle standards to bother chasing the Tartars.)

The bottom line, though, is that there was a huge difference between smashing a baby’s head against a wall and facing a sabre with the reputation for being the finest cutting instrument in Europe in the hand of a man who enjoyed using it on armed opponents instead of women and children. Meanwhile, Henryk Sienkiewicz’s The Deluge records that the Tartars who came to the Poles as “allies” in a war against the Swedes wanted primarily to murder, rape, and loot civilians (including Polish civilians) instead of facing Swedish reiters.

Why is cowardice a militant Islamic cultural trait?

So far, we have presented numerous examples of Islamofascist cowardice but we have yet to suggest a theory for this cultural characteristic. We believe it comes from the nomadic nature of life in Arab and steppe cultures. Keegan’s A History of Warfare reports, in fact, that Genghis Khan was himself physically timid. His semi-nomadic followers, however, did not consider this a serious character defect.

The Euro-American admiration for physical courage probably evolved from our agricultural background. A nomad who loses a fight is pretty much free to run away because he carries everything he owns, but a landowner who runs away loses his wealth and his means of making a living. He must therefore stand his ground and defend his farm, and he must usually do so in cooperation with other farmers. This was in fact the basis of Greek phalanx warfare. Greek hoplites– armored spear-wielding foot soldiers– were usually land owners because only men who owned land could afford the expensive armor that allowed them to go spear-to-spear with their counterparts.

The nature of hoplite warfare required enormous physical courage, and it is in fact the origin of contact sports like boxing, wrestling, rugby, and football. Phalanx warfare basically consisted of two formations of large men running into each other and trying to bash through one another (sounds like a familiar Sunday afternoon event, minus the weapons), and no one who was afraid of taking a few hard knocks could participate in such an activity. The Greeks accordingly practiced sports that involved hard contact so they would be used to it when they had to fight other Greeks.

Furthermore, the men had to rely on each other’s courage and teamwork. A nomadic horseman whose courage failed did not endanger his comrades by running away because they also could save themselves by running. A hoplite (or later, a Roman legionary) who broke ranks left an opening into which the enemy could penetrate, which could easily result in the entire phalanx’s annihilation. If that happened, the heavily-armored men could not outrun the enemy and they were likely to be slaughtered. The Spartans considered it the ultimate disgrace for a man to throw away his shield (presumably so he could run faster) and Spartan mothers told their sons to come home with their shields or on them.

These considerations gave rise to a style of warfare that Easterners found totally unstoppable. The Persians, for example, preferred to fight from a distance and they developed excellent bows for this purpose. Greeks considered archers ineffectual and even cowardly, and the challenge, “Prove yourself a spearman” figured prominently in Homer’s Iliad. Fortunately for the Greeks, the armor they wore to protect themselves from other spearmen was also a good defense against Persian archery and, when the phalanxes actually struck the lightly-armed Persian infantry, the result was usually a one-sided massacre. The Persians, in fact, took to hiring Greek mercenaries because their own infantry was relatively useless.

Victor Davis Hansen’s Carnage and Culture shows explicitly why Western civilization has been superior to all other world cultures for two and a half thousand years.

[Xenophon’s] Anabasis makes it clear, however, that the Greeks fought much differently than their adversaries and that such unique Hellenic characteristics of battle– a sense of personal freedom, superior discipline, matchless weapons, egalitarian cameraderie, individual initiative, constant tactical adaptation and flexibility, preference for shock battle of heavy infantry– were themselves the murderous dividends of Hellenic culture at large. The peculiar way Greeks killed grew out of consensual government, equality among the middling classes, civilian audit of military affairs, and politics apart from religion, freedom and individualism, and rationalism. [page 4]

Note that “politics apart from religion, freedom and individualism, and rationalism” are superior Euro-American characteristics that are totally contrary to militant Islamic cultures that prize mindless religious dogma, servitude, and lemming-like collectivism.

In contrast to these enormous armies of screaming “barbarians” without consensual governments and written constitutions– “formidable in outward bulk, with unbearable loud yelling and the frightful appearance of weapons brandished in the air” [today, Palestinians and other undisciplined savages fire automatic weapons into the air, despite the obvious hazards of celebratory gunfire]– “citizens of states like yours,” [the Spartan general] Brasidas assures his men, “stand their ground.” Notice that Brasidas says nothing about skin color, race, or religion. Instead, he simplistically connects military discipline, fighting in rank, and the preference for shock battle with the existence of popular and consensual government, which gave the average infantryman in the phalanx a sense of equality and a superior spirit to his enemies. [pages 6-7]

The most gallant Apaches– murderously brave in raiding and skirmishing on the Great Plains– would have gone home after the first hour of Gettysburg. [page 9]

This brings us back to the theory that nomadic life breeds a culture of raiding and skirmishing in which individual warriors might prove their bravery. Some Native Americans would, instead of trying to kill their opponents, touch them with “coup sticks” to show that they were brave enough to get that close to an enemy warrior. Even the Apaches were, however, unwilling to fight the protracted battles that were characteristic of Western warfare.

The Polish cavalry of the musket-and-pike era is truly interesting because of its scientific combination of nomadic and Western warfare. The most prestigious riders, the Husaria, were developed during the reign of King Stephan Bathory (a Hungarian by birth) in the late 16th century. The Hungarians were, like the Poles, outstanding riders and they may have even developed the posting or rising trot that reduces the burden on both the rider and horse. Another Hungarian, King Mathias Corvin, was apparently responsible for the creation of light hussar cavalry.

The word “hussar” comes from the Serbian gusar or bandit. Many hussars, in fact, wore baglike attachments on their caps that made them look like bandits. The image is that of a hit-and-run organization that is best suited for lightning raids and pursuits, i.e. the steppe or nomadic style of warfare. The Polish Husaria, however, took this to another level entirely: a murderous and unstoppable combination of steppe warfare and shock warfare.

Polish hussars often carried the kind of weapons, like bows and arrows, that steppe horsemen favored for fighting at a distance. Mobile horse artillery extended Polish armies’ hit-and-run capability to blasting adversaries from a distance with cannon. This might have been useful against the Cossack tabor or fortress of circled wagons, through which even Polish cavalry could not charge.

Unlike the steppe horseman, though, the Pole was not afraid to close with his enemy and the Polish hussar wore armor for this purpose. The Husaria carried a unique lance, the kopia, whose specific purpose was to outreach infantry pikes. A Banner or squadron of Husaria would in fact behave like a mounted phalanx and charge enemy pike formations; an action that anyone else would consider unthinkable. Furthermore, the tactic was usually successful and even dreaded Swedish pike-and-musket formations were usually wiped off the face of the earth (e.g. Chocim in 1605). Polish hussars also carried other weapons that indicated a perfect willingness to engage in shock battle. The koncerz was a long, stiff, rapier-like weapon whose purpose was to pierce chain mail. The nadziak was a beautifully-designed hammer that could pierce helmets like butter, and the Poles did not hesitate to get close enough to use these weapons along with the sabre that was considered the finest cutting instrument in Europe. It was doubtlessly the prospect of facing such men that caused the Crimean Horde to run away at Vienna.

Hanson continues,

The Western way of war is so lethal precisely because it is so amoral– shackled rarely by concerns of ritual, tradition, religion, or ethics, by anything other than military necessity.
…Western armies often fight with and for a sense of legal freedom. They are frequently products of civic militarism or constitutional governments and thus are overseen by those outside religion and the military itself. The rare word “citizen” exists in the European vocabularies.
…Because free inquiry and rationalism are Western trademarks, European armies have marched to war with weapons either superior or equal to their adversaries, and have often been supplied far more lavishly through the Western marriage of capitalism, finance, and sophisticated logistics.
…Western capitalists and scientists alike have been singularly pragmatic and utilitarian, with little to fear from religious fundamentalists, state censors, or stern cultural conservatives. [pages 21-22]

We conclude, then, that the inbred cowardice of Arab (and other militant Islamic) societies is the result of a nomadic background. Physical timidity is hardly confined to militant “Muslims,” though, as the semi-nomadic Cossacks and even Mongol hordes did not particularly like face-to-face battle either. As stated earlier, the primitive nomad loses nothing by running away to fight again when circumstances are more favorable, but the more-advanced agriculturalist must stand his ground if he doesn’t want to lose everything he owns. If we understand why sports like boxing and football still appeal to us, we will understand why our Euro-American culture is totally superior to the cultures of our enemies and potential enemies.