What I find really interesting is this little bit:
Professor Edsforth presented himself as a “peace activist” and not a pacifist—pacifists abhor all wars, while activists oppose some and support others. He approved of the 2001 Afghan campaign but not the attack on Serbia in 1999. He said “all war is mass murder” and that wars bring out man’s “instinct to kill, our delight in torture.”
The idiocy of this is so astounding that I must dwell on it. He says all war is mass murder yet he supported the Afghan campaign. Why he could support that "mass murder" is beyond my comprehension.
He calls himself a "peace activist" but since he opposes some wars (Serbia and Iraq) and supports others (Afghanistan), how is this even a meaningful term? Hell, I'm a peace activist by this criteria!
The moral preening he is engaged in is outrageous. Some wars are good and some are bad. And he knows the good from the bad because he is a friggin' "peace activist!"
The good professor is wrong about what brings out the instinct to kill and a delight in torture.
What a moron. I trust Hanson gave him a good thumping.
