ISIS murder Copts2
Christian Persecution

Britain paved the way for the slaughter of Libya's Christians

 

They were ‘the people of the cross, the followers of the hostile Egyptian Church’ who had been held in captivity for weeks. They were marched to a beach in their orange jumpsuits, forced to kneel and gaze straight ahead for the camera. They said their final prayers, and then these 21 servants of the Lord were simultaneously beheaded by the black shadows standing behind them. And so the sea turned red as the Islamic State claimed its latest band of Christian martyrs – this time Copts – and Egypt weeps for her sons.

Before their throats were cut, one of the militants raised his knife and pronounced: “Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for.”

It seems in the Islamic State that all Christians are crusaders – even those from Egypt. It is the simplistic historic parallel and moral equivalence favoured by President Obama: as Christianity is tarnished by the blood of the Crusades, so Islam is shamed by barbarism of its Caliphate. Jesus and Mohammed were prophets of peace: it is militant mankind which defames the sanctity of their religions; it is a few misfits among the faithful who rape, torture, behead and burn their prisoners alive. And by such ahistorical distortion and perverse relativism, these murderers are excused. Mohammed came after Jesus: the Christians started it.

Hence the justification for the terrorists’ declared geopolitical objective – helpfully stated in English – to “conquer Rome”. They can’t really march from Syria or drive from Iraq. But in Libya the Caliphate has established an outpost less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy. They are coming, if they’re not already there. And we aided them in their conquest. For many of these militants are the very ‘rebels‘ with whom we fought to defeat Muammar Gaddafi. Britain, France and the United States effectively facilitated the al-Qaeda take-over of Libya. It didn’t seem to matter who they were as long as they wanted what we wanted, at least in the short-term. The Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (Europe) confirmed that there were ‘flickers’ of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah among the Jihadis ranged against Gaddafi. But we greeted their black flags with delight: our enemy’s enemy is our friend, and all that.

It was and remains far more complicated than the British Government ever seemed to grasp. Libya, rather like Iraq and Yugoslavia, is an artificially-constructed state, forged out of distinct and separate tribal identities: east Libya has historically been in conflict with what is now the west. Benghazi in the east was part of a Greek region known a Cyrenaica, and Tripoli in the west was a Punic settlement, both separated by Mediterranean trade agreements, language, culture, ethnic temperament and 600 miles of desert. This is how it remained as empires came and went – Greek, Roman, Ottoman and British. It was not until an invasion by Italy in 1911 that the two entities were forcibly united by Mussolini, with a central governance in Tripoli. Ever since, the Cyrenaicians have considered themselves a people oppressed and a land under occupation: they were Gaddafi’s Basque region; his IRA and his PLO all rolled into one. In Benghazi, they were freedom fighters.

The weakening of the strongman in Tripoli was the fulfilment of a century (to the year) of longing for independence. The conflict which we aided has precipitated a bloody civil war, the outcome of which is Libya’s reversion to its constituent regions, with certain ‘freedom fighters’ now determined to cleanse the land of alien crusaders. And so the Caliphate is built – the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram.. they are all one and the same.

Wherever the devil rides, the Christians will die. While the FCO naively hopes for the region’s dictators, tyrants and medieval monarchies to be replaced with liberal democrats, our brothers and sisters are being crucified and beheaded. The lucky ones are shot in the head. May God forgive us our blindness, indifference and crass press releases of official condemnation.

  • len

    Having destabilised these Arab countries the West has now washed its hands and left Christians(and others )at the mercy of this satanic death cult known as IS….

  • Anton

    Your Grace might mention two sackings of the city of Rome from Africa: by the Arian Visigoths who had crossed from Spain and settled in Africa after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West; then by Muslim forces not many centuries later. I believe it is Arianism which caused the collapse of the church in Western Africa when the Muslims came, for it survived identical conquests in Egypt where the Arians had not reached. A committed church does not die out under persecution.

    “It is the simplistic historic parallel and moral equivalence favoured by President Obama: as Christianity is tarnished by the blood of the Crusades, so Islam is shamed by barbarism of its Caliphate. Jesus and Mohammed were prophets of peace”

    IA good summary indeed of what Barack Hussein Obama preaches. As a politician formidable, as a theologian negligible. One need only look at the New Testament and the Quran to see that Jesus advocated peace and was a man of peace, Muhammad the opposite. As for “interpretation”, the definitive interpreter of the Quran is Muhammad and he took jihad as physical.

    I must say that if you wish to visit St Peters, you might do well to go soon.

    “And so the Caliphate is built – the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram.. they are all one and the same.”

    To non-Muslims, yes; but mercifully they do tend to fall out with each other. The Sunni-Shia split goes back to the first generation after Muhammad. It’s not a religion of peace even within itself.

    • Watchman

      7 The angel of A DONAI found her by a spring in the desert, the spring on the road to Shur, 8 and said, “Hagar! Sarai’s slave- girl! Where have you come from, and where are you going?” She answered, “I’m running away from my mistress Sarai.” 9 The angel of A DONAI said to her, “Go back to your mistress, and submit to her authority.” 10 The angel of A DONAI said to her, “I will greatly increase your descendants; there will be so many that it will be impossible to count them.” 11 The angel of A DONAI said to her, “Look, you are pregnant, and you will give birth to a son. You are to call him Yishma‘el [God pays attention] because A DONAI has paid attention to your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man, with his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, living his life at odds with all his kinsmen.” (Genesis 16)

      And, hence, so prophecy is fulfilled!


    • Your Grace might mention two sackings of the city of Rome from Africa: by the Arian Visigoths who had crossed from Spain and settled in Africa after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West; then by Muslim forces not many centuries later.

      Moslems sacked Rome??? When was that?

      • Anton

        846AD. The core of the city was protected by walls but plenty of the urban area got trashed. See

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome

        • Well you learn a little something every day! Thanks for that.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Puts the actual Crusades in a slightly different context doesn’t it?

          • Not to me.
            Christian leaders have no business preaching up a war and making false promises to those who go.
            ‘The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, under God’ (2 Corinthians 10:4).

          • grutchyngfysch

            You’ll get no argument from me on that front: I meant rather that the war appears less the sole product of rapacious Western colonialism – qua the now-standard schools’ historiography – when seen against the backdrop of an expansionist Islam that, throughout the Middle Ages, posed a serious threat to the heartlands of Europe. A comment on the justifications of an historic war, rather than to advocate that it is the Church’s role to ferment one.

    • Old Nick

      Sorry to be boring, but your history is more than a bit off. The Visigoths sacked Rome for four days in 410 (as made famous by Augustine’s City of God), having come originally across the Danube and won a battle near modern Edirne (Thrace) in 378. They were Homoeans, though their enemies called them Arians. So were the Vandals who, having settled in Africa, sacked Rome in the 450s. Vandal Homoeanism came to an end when the (Orthodox) Byzantines took (back) Africa in the 530s – and they kept it till the Islamic invasions from the 640s onwards. The fate of North African (as opposed to Egyptian) Christianity is a big mystery – the sources are very poor. The Muslim armies never got Rome – and did not succeed in taking Constantinople New Rome until 29th May 1453.

      • Anton

        Nick,

        My interest was in who sacked Rome from Africa during the Dark Ages; I was operating from memory and I stand corrected that it was the Vandals rather than the Visigoths – thank you. You say they were Homoeans but I regard that belief as a subset of Arianism, and I do think it is this heresy which caused the church to fail west of Egypt when the Muslims came, whereas the church survived in Egypt where Jesus was rightly understood to be equal in divinity to his father.

        Rome was indeed sacked by Muslim raiders, a decade earlier than the Vandals; the heart of the city was protected by walls but plenty of the urban area including old St Peters (just outside the walls) was trashed for loot. I’ve learned, however, that the raid was not conducted directly from Africa; see:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome

        • bluedog

          Quite so, Anton. No true Muslim should miss an opportunity to take up the sword of Allah so as to purify the earth from the filth of polytheism, centred as it is in Rome. No wonder IS keeps declaring ‘We will take Rome’.

        • Old Nick

          I am afraid that your chronology does not work. The Hijreh (which marks the start of Islam) occurred in 622. Belisarius, the general of Justinian, removed the Vandal kings from Africa in 534 and imposed orthodoxy. Though the Vandals were Homoean, most of the population of Latin-speaking North Africa was not (as is rather vividly attested by inter alia the diatribe of Victor Vitensis), and even some of the Vandal kings had eschewed Homoeanism (the belief that the Son is like the Father, as opposed to the Arian position that the Son is similar to the Father but subordinate to Him). On all this there is excellent recent work by Anthony Merrlills of Leicester. In any case there was over a century of solid orthodox Christianity in Africa before the Muslim armies arrived.
          Incidentally, one suspects that the present terrorists who threaten to attack ‘Rome’ have in mind as much ‘Rum’, that is to say Asia Minor, as they do Old Rome.

  • Dreadnaught

    A brutal dictator assaults his own people with indiscriminate bombing and gassing and the West responds with air support for the resistance forces and we are supposed to carry the blame for the consequences? Leave it out Cranmer.

    We are, although politicians won’t accept the fact, in a possibly worse situation than 1938.

    Europe is ‘home’ to 45 million Muslims. The UK alone has 3 million Muslims; potential ISIS supporters and jihadis. If one percent, just one percent form a cohesive attack unit the consequences would be severe. The moderate Muslims who recently took to the streets of Whitehall and climbed all over statues of Montgomery and Allenby, did so in protest they claim over the Charlie Hebdo cartoon but not – to protest the besmerching of their poxy religion by or the murdering Muslim attackers of unarmed journalists and Jews who somehow still ‘don’t understand’ that Islam is a religion of peace.

    What has to happen before the politicians will get off their fat arses and mobilise the military in to defending European borders and rooting out the Islamist factions?

    • CliveM

      In UK terms, what military? The Dads Army that the current Govt have created are to small to do anything useful anymore.

      • Dreadnaught

        Its no Dads Army – most have already been in front-line combat. No time for levity Clive. Can you imagine if the was ever a general mobilisation? – our defence forces would be packed with the bloody enemy!

        • CliveM

          One of the mistakes our politicians make is the belief that technology can replace boots on the ground. It can’t, you need numbers.

          One of the little known facts of the last few years is the numbers of Territorials who refused to answer the mobilisation. It is on these people that the current Govt is basing its strategy for the army.

          • Dreadnaught

            Its not just the polies. The Media, fronted by the BBC, national press, the educators and academics that run the universities and education system are pack with appeasing lefties with shit for brains when it comes to the realities of out times.

          • CliveM

            Well I agree with you there.

            My son came home after RE at school recently extolling the virtues of Islam. I re-educated him.

            BUT and here’s the interesting thing. Although it is a CofE school, with close links with the Parish Church, a monthly school communion service held in the Parish Church, weekly services held in the school by the Priest, the teacher was simply doing as the law demands. If the school didn’t do it would be put into special measures and shut down.

            Idiotic, brain dead, left leaning experts you see, with none of our institutions challenging this group think.

          • Anton

            Michael Gove was working on it. But he got sacked.

          • CliveM

            He was working on education but I see no evidence that things as they relate to Islam would be different.

          • Anton

            You were complaining about “Idiotic, brain dead, left leaning experts” in the education system and Gove was working on that.

          • CliveM

            Granted, but I was also by inference complaining about how Islam is presented in our schools.

          • Anton

            The Trojan business in Birmingham shows that Ofsted are at least partly aware; the trouble is that they are liable to crack down on all “fundamentalism” including evangelical Christianity. The other problem is textbooks that rattle on about the “religion of peace” and suggest that jihad means “spiritual effort” rather than “holy war”. I take it that this is what your son encountered and which you rightly corrected by pointing out which interpretation Muhammad took. The word Jihad frequently occurs in the Quran in conjunction with the verb qatala, which means to kill. So far no school of Islamic scholars has asserted that this means spiritual death.

          • Uncle Brian

            Mohammedanism, as it was called then, was not often mentioned by teachers in my long-distant schooldays. The only time I can remember it being mentioned at all was in a history lesson, in connection with the Mahdi, Gordon, and Kitchener. The expression “fanatical dervishes” was, I think, the stock label at the time for the Mahdi’s Sudanese followers.

          • CliveM

            Corporal Jones’s Mad Mahdi!

            I don’t think I did anything on Islam at all.

          • Uncle Brian

            As far as schooling goes, then, it looks as though you and I were both better informed about it than your son is today at his C of E school. At least our teachers didn’t try to whitewash it.

          • CliveM

            Ignorance use to be bliss. Sadly that is no longer possible or sensible.

          • Coniston

            A young relative of mine recently left a state comprehensive school. I checked what she was learning in RE on the school website. In the first year (Year 7) she did some work on what Christians believe about Christmas and Easter. After that, nothing on Christianity that I could discover, but lots on Islam, Sikhish and Buddhism. Then something labelled ‘ethics’.

          • Anton

            Was she an Ethics Girl?

        • dannybhoy

          As I said, our politicians put their faith in E, D and I. Backed up by the Human Rights legislation they think the whole word will make obeisance.
          Of course it won’t. It is because the western world has peaked that an unreformed religion from before the Dark Ages is now bidding for supremacy.

          • Anton

            It’s going through its reformation right now, ie back to its scriptures, and pretty much on schedule if you are into Toynbeesque cycles. Read those scriptures and see what is happening in the world today.

        • Inspector General

          Taking a leaf out of Indira Ghandi’s book, we may have The Kings Own Islamic Guards under, and of course guarding, Charles :->

          • bluedog

            An astute insight, Inspector.
            One can well imagine HRH commanding the raising of such a unit as a third division of The Household Cavalry. Splendidly attired in gaudy sub-continental uniforms and armed with fearsome edged weapons, the dusky warriors would clatter along beside open landaus, agonising whether to behead the pukka sahibs today or tomorrow, Allah be praised.

          • Inspector General

            Allah be praised indeed, old hound…

            Here’s an idea. A troop recruited exclusively from Rotherham. The Kings Underaged Islamic Fckers…

          • bluedog

            Yes indeed, Inspector. Until the infidel harlots have known the swords of Islam their short lives are incomplete, those daughters of dogs.

          • Inspector General

            Good point, Bluedog. Maybe it is that unless a muslim has killed, his life is not complete…

      • Dreadnaught

        Hello David and thank you for taking the time to get back to me your adv.ice is much appreciated.
        I may have to choose another dentist in another town if access is so restricted
        again thank you very much.
        kind regards Ted Matthews.

        • CliveM

          ???? I think this is an error.

          • Dreadnaught

            I replied to your post from the disqus alert e-mail which was meant for elsewhere – thanks for the headsup.

          • CliveM

            Pleasure.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        I have been thinking…oh I know, it doesn’t come easily…but if the politicians are effectively saying Paris and Copenhagen were ‘lone wolf attacks’ (and nothing to do with Islam) and that we must get used to this sort of violence, then there is a strong argument for repealing gun laws and restoring the right of all citizens to bear arms. The police cannot be everywhere – therefore the Peelite bargain has broken down. If that idea is beyond the pale (and one suspects it is) then we need to think again about local militias, a restoration of the county yeomanry and the fencibles. The public are not cattle to be slaughtered as and when the barbarians feel the need.

        • Uncle Brian

          When you say “all citizens”, Mrs P., you’re including, of course, UK citizens with names such as Abdullah and Mustafa?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Oh dear Uncle Brian, I see your point…a conundrum indeed! But what do we do?

          • Linus

            Women aren’t their first targets, so as long as you keep a burqa folded neatly away in your reticule and are ready to pop it over your crinoline the moment you hear the sound of Kalashnikov fire, you should be fine.

        • CliveM

          I fear Uncle Brian has identified the nub of the issue. Obviously we can’t include anyone with Mohamed in the name, but how do we keep track of the converts?

          • bluedog

            No need, Clive. Discrimination by post code is the way ahead.

          • CliveM

            As long as the converts stick to known post codes!

          • bluedog

            Birds of a feather flock together, Clive. But Mrs Proudie’s idea of arming the population would appear to be suicidal. There would be an AK 47 in every dwelling. Look at the figures for death by firearm in the USA vs the UK.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

        • bluedog

          ‘The public are not cattle to be slaughtered as and when the barbarians feel the need.’
          Most certainly not, although the public could be more accurately described as sheep. Reprisals are called for nonetheless.

        • Merchantman

          Agreed one thinks of the Rifle Clubs formed at the zenith of Empire.
          The membership was closely monitored then and should be now. Probably followers of ‘the religion of peace’ would by their pacifist leanings exclude themselves from joining.

    • Coniston

      I agree with the Green Party on at least one point. We need a Home Defence Force. Plus of course beefed-up regular forces.

      • bluedog

        And what if the Muslims decide to enlist in discrete and localised ‘Home Defence’ units? The police would need armoured personnel carriers to enter the British zones sensible.

  • Merchantman

    Surely this was not a Christian Crusade at all, but one formed by the Liberal Western Elite and their voicepieces. Since when did Christians form a significant part of their concerns?

  • IanCad

    Let’s not be coy YG.

    Name the incompetents who got us into this mess.

    We had the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and still the astonishingly inept William Hague is yet untarnished; as is Cameron. The pair of them would have had us in Libya and Syria backing ISIS.

    Now the same gross silliness is being demonstrated by Philip Hammond through his idiotic grudge against Assad – the strongest bulwark against the spreading of the Caliphate.

    We are truly governed by minnows.

    Here is Hague banging on about our “success” in Libya.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18861795

    Surely evidence for the necessity of intelligence tests for our representatives.

    • Watchman

      What about intelligence tests for the voters who put them there. It’s “democracy” that is such a farce.

      • IanCad

        So true! This came up a few threads back.
        Even government by lottery would be better.

        • Anton

          Lottery, pottery…

    • dannybhoy

      The tragedy is that we as the UK are so weak, and so desperate for recognition we followed the USA into Iraq and Afghanistan and were even prepared to jump in against Syria’s elected leaders..
      The USA has peaked. It has lost its way morally as have we.
      The West having abandoned Christian ethics is now bound to Tony Blair’s
      Equality -Diversity – Inclusion package. Such is our arrogance we assume the rest of the world sees it that way too.
      This is why we are getting ourselves into such a mess. We think that lamentations and Human Rights are sufficient in themselves to bring peace and order to the world.
      Not so.
      It is the economically and militarily strong that bring or impose peace.
      Our Christian brethren are suffering because the West from a position of military strength and moral confusion, is interfering in the affairs of other nations. We are increasingly seen as morally weak, pathetic and anti or indifferent to, the fate of Christian minorities.
      Our enemies will act accordingly.

    • Anton

      They’re intelligent alright. But wisdom tests are a lot harder.

  • Athanasius

    I seriously doubt if “Egypt weeps for her sons”, since Egypt treats its Christian citizens like the soil on its shoes. What you’re seeing in IS is Islam pure and simple, and most Muslims – if push came to shove – could live with it, including those living in the UK.

  • B flat

    IanCad is nearest to identifying the root of the problem, I believe. Our societies have abandoned wisdom, so choose leaders with qualities which they find appealing. I suggest that intelligence in our leadership is also a red herring. It is measured by the same shifting standards which undermine our public morals – hence the decay and proliferation of our schools which are called universities in mockery of the real thing.

  • educynic

    Either one rules a country, as one did in colonial days, and takes full responsibility, or one doesn’t. The idea that relatively low cost tinkering can bring a desired effect is misguided.

    The Gadaffis and Husseins were extremely brutal but, by being effective, had a security in their positions and granted relative freedom to religious minorities. Our tinkering has produced insecure and fragmented replacements, and given rein to elements that are much more wicked.

    • Dreadnaught

      Gadaffi and Saddam both lead us to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction and prepared to use them against us or Israel – a wrong action for the right reasons can’ so casuallyt be condemned.

      • educynic

        Fair point with regard to Saddam. But the West, in the 1986 bombings, properly showed Gadaffi that interference with Western interests would have an appropriate response – if you wish us to leave you alone, you must leave us alone.

        The West handled Saddam badly, seeking to change the regime, rather than deterring the regime from behaviour detrimental to Western interests. So far as the former is concerned, you either govern it, or you don’t. If you do, it is expensive. If you don’t there is a range of actions you can take, many of which are less disruptive than have been our excursions into Iraq and Libya.

  • Royinsouthwest

    This brutal massacre did not received much attention in the British media yesterday. No doubt the BBC and Guardian think that it should be down-played to avoid the dangers of stirring up “Islamophobia.” There doesn’t seem to have been much reaction from “moderate” British muslims either, even though many of them are quite happy to demonstrate against Israel or perceived insults to their religion.

    In an article about the murders in Copenhagen at the Guardian’s website yesterday I pointed out that moderate muslims should be outraged by the atrocities committed in the name of their religion and that they should show their disgust. The comment was removed by a moderator because it “did not abide by the Guardian’s community standards.”

    Thinking that an over-zealous moderator might have gone too far I re-posted my comment with slightly different wording and added a sentence saying that the Guardian is always calling on white British people to make immigrants feel welcome but immigrants, too, have a duty to fit in and that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    However, my revised comment was also deleted. To the liberal mindset in Britain and other European countries any suggestion that muslim immigrants have obligations is VERBOTEN.

    • Anton

      Raise the stakes by reposting it unchanged with a PS asking why it was deleted.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I had already posted it twice but not long afterwards the Guardian stopped allowing new comments on their article. Most of the comments were rather critical of the Guardian’s pro-appeasment line.

    • Athanasius

      Politically incorrect comments in the laughably named “comment is free” section of the Guardian taken down, Royinsouthwest? Well, I’ll go the the foot of our stairs, as they say in’t northwest.

  • Royinsouthwest

    I am writing this while listening to the BBC News at 1pm. Egypt has launched air-strikes against Libyan terrorists following the massacre of the Coptic Christians. Not only has the government done that but Egyptian people, not all of them Copts, have damned the terrorist in outspoken terms that would make the editors of the Guardian and the moderators of the Guardian’s blogs feel very uncomfortable.

    If Egyptian Muslims can criticise Islamic terrorists with no ifs or buts, why can’t Muslims in the West?

  • Politically__Incorrect

    To be honest, when I heard this news, my gut reaction was a desire to go out and throttle the nearest muslim. I didn’t of course.

    I do however, wish Egypt every success in its military action against IS, whatever the Egyptians motives may be. The only good jihadist is a dead one, so I hope these agents of satan will soon be condemned to the eternal torment they so richly deserve.

    • Coniston

      We quite rightly criticise the secularisation of the West. But in majority Muslim lands secularisation is to be welcomed. Muslim lands where the state is to some extent secular are far less likely to persecute non-muslims, even when (as with virtually all Muslim lands) they are undemocratic and sometimes military dictatorships. The alternative (as we are discovering) is far, far worse. When will our politicians realise this?

      • Anton

        And some say that secularisation is a real challenge to Islam in its heartlands. The point is that secularisation is winning in the cities and militant Islam in rural areas. We in the West do not always realise how riven the Islamic world is.

  • john in cheshire

    Just about all muslim lands were Christian lands before the murdering hordes of muslims came, raping,pillaging and indulging in their favourite pastime of mass torture and killing. If anyone is an invader it is the muslims and they should be sent packing from all Christian countries including all those middle east countries which they have turned into Godforsaken hell holes.

  • Cressida de Nova

    How can we watch this genocide of Christians and do nothing ?Drastic measures need to be taken.It has to stop. Why isn’t anyone intervening to help?

  • sarky

    My father in law is an eqyptian copt, so this one hits pretty close to home. I remember him saying at the time of the gulf war that something like this could happen. Saddam and gadaffi were bastards, but they understood and knew what it took to control their people. We made the mistake of looking at the situation through Western eyes and not understanding the complexity of the tribal factions.
    We have inadvertently unleashed the dogs and now have no clue how to get them back under control.
    p.s. My father in laws best friend is a muslim, so maybe there is a small hope of reconciliation.

    • bluedog

      Tribalism is the enemy of the rule of law and modernity. Not understanding ‘the complexity of tribal factions’ is a virtue that our Hellenic thinking civilisation should never be ashamed of. Where ever there is tribalism, and that includes parts of the UK best left unsaid, there is bitter dispute, feud and poverty. The West could do worse than declare war on tribalism.

      • Athanasius

        “Parts of the UK best left unsaid”? Yes, those damned English just think they own the island, don’t they?

        • bluedog

          Perhaps that should read, ‘the British Isles and Ireland’.

      • sarky

        I dont mean understanding in a lefty way, but in a know your enemy way.

  • Charles Cottam

    Lets hear it for the crusaders. ISIS’s barbarous antics forces a reappraisal of these brave freedom fighters. After all were they not struggling to liberate their own peoples, indigenous Christian people who had lived in the own land since the time of the apostles but who had been conquered by an intolerant, oppressive upstart religous sect?

  • Inspector General

    The wise man will always view the immediate from a historical point of view. Hence, we are seeing the dawning of the age of Islam, and not the Aquarius we were promised. Bit of a bugger that. We are / were so unprepared for that misfortune. Godless man deserves better. Sure you’ll agree.

    We forget what a dangerous place the world used to be in an age before effective medical treatment. Diphtheria, Typhoid, Small Pox, syphilis, and much else all conspired to bring us down and put us out of our earthly misery. Today’s disease of prominence, Islam, has no effective treatment as yet, so takes the aforementioned place. Whether it will surpass the present champion when it comes to sudden death, road traffic accident, is not yet clear. But we do know that it silently stalks the streets of Christendom as well as noisily in the desert looking for victims.

    We might as well get used to it. Get used to this stain on the marvellous lives we now live with in the West. It will always be amongst us, because there will always be the lesser races for whom Islam appeals amongst us now. After all, if you have so little empathy with your fellows, an excellent qualifier for the dubious honour of being described as a ‘lesser’ thing, that you wish to bump them off, adhering to a religion who will send you to a rogues heaven for it really is too attractive an invitation to turn down.

    Of course, it’s been going on for centuries, “over there”, when the front line was far from our shores. We just didn’t want to know, even after Western Imperialism was condemned as an evil, for some reason beyond the Inspector’s understanding. Perhaps we unconsciously felt it was the natives right to ‘express’ themselves in a manner to which suited, and we know ethnic sensibilities rival western civilisation every time. They wouldn’t be free otherwise, you see. And all men need to be free to do what they want, don’t they?

    • We might as well get used to it. Get used to this stain on the marvellous lives we now live with in the West. It will always be amongst us

      I fear you are absolutely right, Inspector. Increasingly, I find myself drawn to the prophesies of Jeremiah. Consider Jer. 5:6. ‘A leopard will watch over their cities.’ Is that not the case in Britain right now? That evil men are watching and waiting for the right moment to commit some ghastly act of terror? It is only the efficiency of our security services that has given us some protection until now.
      .
      And what is the reason why God has allowed this state of affairs to come about? Read Jeremiah 5:1-6.

    • Merchantman

      Masterful, you should teach reality politics at the LSE; the field is wide open.

      • Inspector General

        I think we both know this man wouldn’t leave the LSE alive, don’t we…

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I just read Archbishop Welby’s response to this and other recent Islamist murders. He sats we should “weep” for the victims. Yes Mr Welby. That will help a lot. Nothing spurs the world into action more than the sight of a few weak-kneed Brits sobbing. One wonders what course history would have taken had we responded to the invasion of Poland with nothing more than tears.

    There are unfortunately some wars which need to be fought simply as a matter of survival. Just as with the Nazis, the Islamic threat is growing insidiously and nobody wants to confront it. War should either be avoided totally or started with the sole intention of winning it. “Degrading” the enemy is not enough. As with the Nazis, we should go for complete annihilation of ISIS, or not get involved at all. Better to go for all-out war now than wait untill we are fighting them on our own streets.

    • Inspector General

      Not at all PI. Don’t forget the airstrikes against IS, and just as importantly, no bleeding heart journalists around to report the carnage. Rather reminds a fellow of the British Empire when we took the necessary steps for order, and no one was any the wiser who wasn’t there, what!

      • bluedog

        You really are on a roll, Inspector. Who can forget the sight of RAF Westland Wapitis dropping surplus WW1 poison gas on Iraqi tribespersons to quell revolt. Saddam must have wondered what he was doing wrong when the West chastised him and Chemical Ali for similar practices.

        • Inspector General

          You might remember a time when the Kurds where the darling of the BBC News office. The Inspector does. But sooner or later, the truth about these particular muslims came forth. And horror of horrors, they behaved as type…,

          • bluedog

            But the Kurds are a Persian people, like the Armenians if the truth be known, and possibly more civilised than the Bedou of the Mesopotamian plain. It’s all relative, of course, but the Beeb may be backing the better class of barbarian.

          • CliveM

            I have read that in ME Islamic circles, if someone is seen as a bit uncommitted in their faith ( ie not howlingly fanatical) they get called Kurds. Seemingly by tradition Kurds have always been seen as less fundamentalist.

    • Athanasius

      Careful, PI. The Catholic Church called the crusade against Islam once before and we’re still being beaten over the head with that one, notwithstanding that we were right.

      • Anton

        Yes and No. As an episode in the ebb and flow of power blocs the Crusades were an entirely reasonable response to centuries of Islamic violence against Europe. But it was not right of the Pope to sell them as a Holy War, ie Christian jihad, to recover the Holy Land for Christendom. The One in whose name it was done said that His kingdom is not of this world, at least during the church era.

        • bluedog

          But in those days the Pope, or Popes, sold everything.

          • Anton

            Truth is not for sale. But I’d rather concentrate on the Crusades as the issue here, and speaking politically rather
            than theologically I have no problem with them.

          • bluedog

            You should make your views known, robustly, to President Obama, Mr Anton. The US President’s approach to the Crusades could be described as Islamocentric, at best.

          • Anton

            What makes you think he doesn’t already know the truth? Go by what he does, not what he says…

          • bluedog

            Ah, that explains the tacit approval of an Iranian bomb!

    • Merchantman

      Annihilation- tush, tush. A mild slap on he wrist is all you can expect. The Guardianists will have rushed to stand in a protective shield in front of the Moslem jihadists if they are cornered.

  • “Wherever the devil rides, the Christians will die …. May God forgive us our blindness, indifference and crass press releases of official condemnation.”
    Amen to that.

  • CliveM

    I have a problem with this. The only people responsible for the murders of these men, are the bastards who killed them and the equal bastards who ordered it.

    Did Britain and France make a mistake? Possibly. However to say we ‘paved the way’ suggests that in some way we caused this. That we are the guilty party. I don’t agree with that. To suggest this, effectively diminishes these men’s guilt. They have no excuse, they decided to perpetrate these acts. They will answer for it.

    To suggest otherwise, is to excuse and to do so would have no more justification then those who suggest that the Treaty of Versailles caused the Second World War, and not the nasty bunch of psychopaths who actually did so.

    • Doctor Crackles

      I agree that it is the butchers who should carry the blame, but haven’t we armed them, gievn them other material support and stopped their destruction by neutralising the Gadaffi’s military?

      • CliveM

        Dr Crackles

        I think Dreadnaught addressed this best. Gaddafi was happily slaughtering his people before the intervention. He had sent out death squads to kill dissidents. Amongst various terrorist groups he had armed was the IRA. Saddam, in addition to the torturing and rapes had managed to kill between 250k to 1 million of his people. Typically through mass hangings and poison gas. Minorities were safer as long as you weren’t Kurds or Marsh Arabs.

        Did the West make a mistake, should it have done differently? Probably. But these things are so much easier in retrospect.

        It still doesn’t fit well with me to remove any of the responsibility for the murders of these men from those responsible, ISIS.

        The much harder question is what do we do, if anything.

        • Doctor Crackles

          Clive, we instigated the uprising against thee Gadaffi regime and when he responded we came to the aid of our allies.

          I know all about Gadaffi’s butchery and the links to the IRA, but that didn’t stop Blair and Brown cosying up to him and treating him like a long lost brother.

          We are responsible for the carnage that is Libya today.

          • CliveM

            Dr Crackles,

            I don’t believe we instigated the uprising, although we were happy to fan the flames.

            It is often to easy an excuse to make, but being able to judge after the event is straight forward. We know the outcome of events. Making decisions at the time events are taking place is much more difficult.

          • One of the worst aspects about the West’s role in Gaddafi’s downfall is that while he had indeed been a VERY bad [email protected] in the past, arming the IRA and all sorts of global revolutionary skum, he then he DID A DEAL. Like the deal Blair did with Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness and all the other Irish Republican criminals. OK, it made decent people feel sick, but it stopped the killing. Someone once said ‘you do not make peace with your friends, but your enemies.’

            Gaddafi stood down his anti western terror activity and WMD research etc and toned things down a bit in return for being left alone, lifting sanctions etc. AND THEN as soon as the opportunity presented itself, the West knifed him in the back (literally). Thereby establishing a rule for dictators: never trust the West, they may smile in your face but they are only practicing takkiyah.

            Imagine you are Bashir Al Assad, knowing all this. After what happened to Saddam and particularly Gaddafi, would you want to do a deal? No. so you will kill, and kill, and kill to stay alive.

            Thanks, ruling munchkins, for permanently screwing any possibility of making ‘imperfect but less bad’ deals with dictators.

    • educynic

      Of course a man is only responsible for his own sins. But, wicked though they were, the regimes of Gadaffi and the Ba’athist party in Iraq were the best protectors of minorities in those countries that we are likely to get. Those who orchestrated their removal were just as responsible for the consequences as one would be if one removed a poor man’s house because it was a slum and then tried to claim that the culprit was the bad weather.

      • grutchyngfysch

        I doubt the Kurds would agree.

        • educynic

          Point taken completely. On the other hand, it ain’t easy for the Kurds now.
          About 25 years ago the Kurds were in the news. I met an Iranian woman and asked her about the Kurds’ position. ‘Oh the Kurds are a nomadic people,’ she replied. ‘If they had wanted their own homeland they should have decided that three thousand years ago!’ A shade unsympathetic, I thought.

    • dannybhoy

      We do have to accept responsibility Clive, because our own history knows that dictatorships are how these countries are run. They don’t do democracy.
      We knew that, but in our shortsightedness and ignorance we decided that we should overthrow these governments we had supported so that what…?

      • CliveM

        Hi DB

        Hope you are well. My question about this is where does ‘taking responsibility’ stop? If we are to take responsibility for these murders (and btw buying into ISIS’s view of events) why not for WWII?
        After all history tells us you can’t appease a Dictator, but we tried. So by doing so are we responsible for the horrors of this conflict? We could have prevented it.

        Yes we can agree we made mistakes, but the responsibility, the guilt needs to reside with the perpetrators.

        It sort of reminds me of the criminals excuse, “it’s not my fault, it was society wot done this to me”, but in an international context. “It’s not my fault I hacked off the head, it was the western Crusadors who made me do it”!!!!

        Apologies for slow response, very busy today.

        • dannybhoy

          Good that you’re busy eh?
          Yes Isis needs defeating, and as a citizen I say “take no prisoners,” No trials no rehab, because society can’t take those kind of chances with its future security,
          But we have interfered in Islamic internal affairs, and in our ignorance and arrogance we have made things worse than they need be..
          That’s my take anyway.

    • He who shuts down the police force that restrains evil in an unruly populace has some responsibility for the outbreak of criminality that will inevitably follow.

      • CliveM

        But this wasn’t a police force, ithe better analogy would be Gestapo.

        It is difficult. If it was easy we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. I am just not willing to excuse ISIS any of their guilt.

        • Fair point Clive. Its a matter of degree-would you rather be raped, or raped and murdered? Not much of a choice.

          My point is that things are much worse since our government intervened, and that this was predictable, therefore our government bears some culpability.

    • Anna055

      It seems to me that Biblically we are supposed to pray for our governments (even if we live in Libya under Colonel Gaddafi) not become freedom fighters or the equivalent. So our governments shouldn’t have supported the freedom fighters anyway. Not sure how this fits in with Nazi Germany though. It is never that simple! I do however wonder what would have happened if the German people had systematically prayed for Hitler et al. …… though I’m not great at praying for our governments either so I can’t throw stones really.

      • CliveM

        To be honest except for scale, I’m not entirely sure that Hitler, Hussain or Gadaffi are all that different (or Stalin for that matter).

        The difficulty is deciding what the right action is. I’m glad I won’t ever be in the position to have to make such a decision.

        It’s so much easier to pontificate on a blog!! :0)

        • Anna055

          Yes – I’m really good at that! 🙂 I do find it really interesting reading people’s thoughts though.

          • CliveM

            Agreed and this is a very good site for different views.

  • David Camoron and others who blindly follow America’s vile meddling and
    exploitations in foreign countries are clueless idiots. Their
    intelligence really is questionable.

    How awful if the blood of Christians washes up on the shores of Italy,
    that’s really nasty.

  • grutchyngfysch

    The Crusader epithet was particularly crap in being applied to Copts – who predate Islam. If anything, it is historically the Copts who have been invaded by foreign interlopers from the Arabian peninsula. But why should the “Caliphate” care about that? Might makes the history it wants.

    • Anton

      Furthermore the Copts are Orthodox Christians and the heart of Orthodoxy, Constantinople, was itself sacked by Crusaders in 1204.

      • grutchyngfysch

        It is certainly true that the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, and did a great many evil things, not least by starting in the massacre of European Jews who had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict and posed no threat. However, Copts haven’t been Orthodox Christians since the Council of Chalcedon – and the Eastern Roman Empire had its own patriarch in Alexandria to counteract the Copts whilst it still governed the region. So doubly not Crusaders – and I still doubt that ISIS will be concerned by the finer points of Christology.

    • Liz Eph

      I agree. Just a small historical detail, I think that you’ll find that Egypt fell to Muslim invaders in the year 639 although the Coptic Christian Church welcomed them because they were less opressive than Rome or Constantinople had been. The Copts did pretty badly during the crusades as far as I can tell, being caught between the Muslims who had finally turned on all Christian groups in Muslim countries, and the Latin Christians who saw the Copts as heretics. In fact I get the impression that the Copts may even have actively opposed the Crusades.

      • grutchyngfysch

        That’s certainly been the traditional historiography – but it’s beginning to be challenged (the wiki entry is, like many historical subjects, a rather poor representation with a pretty sparse number of authorities). The Copts certainly didn’t enjoy marked freedom post-Chalcedon under the ERE, but nor did they under Islamic rule. The problem with the liberators view is that it is virtually entirely unsubstantiated in contemporary sources – it’s largely retrospective works written in a period where Copts had been further put into a position of subjugation (bearing in mind that for a long time, the “Islamic World” consisted of an Islamic elite and a non-Islamic majority populace).

        The more specific point, I suppose, is that Christians have lived under Islamic rule for a long time. In fact, they are currently doing so under ISIS. Christians who have paid the exorbitant jizya are able to survive under ISIS’ intolerable rule. The question is whether we think that such mercurial security, purchased under threat, constitutes liberty. The orientalists, and indeed many contemporary historians of the Middle East, thought that it would indeed be a liberty to be oppressed by those as enlightened as the Muslims. I’m afraid I’m not so convinced.

        • Liz Eph

          Yes, it seems to have only been relatively better, not necessarily good. Very ironic to link them to the Crusaders who, as part of the Latin church weren’t known for their warm fuzzy feelings towards those they identified as heretics.

  • Martin

    Jesus and Mohammed were prophets of peace: it is militant mankind which defames the sanctity of their religions; it is a few misfits among the faithful who rape, torture, behead and burn their prisoners alive.

    Excuse me, Mohammed was a warlord, his aim was to force his religion on the people by the edge of the sword. And if they wouldn’t submit, then to tax them into penury. No, Mohammed wasn’t peace loving and don’t place him alongside my Lord.

    • Doctor Crackles

      I noticed that but wasn’t sure if it was meant to be ironic. Sometimes Cranmer can be a bit opaque.

      • Anton

        He did waver a bit in the 1550s, but the passage in question is clearly a paraphrase of what the politically correct believe.

        • Martin

          Anton

          He now has the opportunity to tell us.

        • Anna055

          The colon after “President Obama” in paragraph 3 is easy to miss in online text, but in fact makes it clear that the stuff following (ie all the stuff about Jesus and Mohammed both being peaceful etc) is a collection of things that Obama appears to believe…..I’m not sure he actually does believe that, but it wasn’t a great time for him to start talking about the crusades.

  • len

    The accusation made against Christians that they are guilty of crimes because of the ‘Crusaders’ is an allegation which is made by Muslims possibly to justify Muslim acts of violence.
    The only way that anyone can get to the bottom of this accusation is to study the lives and the works of Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
    Jesus Christ told His followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ and not to respond to violence with violence , this goes beyond an instruction and is a direct command.
    Mohammed not only instructed the use of violence but used violence personally to further his aims.Mohammed is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ so it is perfectly obvious that they cannot both represent the same God but opposing spiritual forces.
    Those killing Christians may think they are doing their god’ a service’ but one day they will have to confront the reality of the true identity of the spiritual power that energised them.

  • About 3 years ago, unable to sleep listening at around 4 am in my earphone to BBC world service, I have a very clear memory of an interview with one of the leaders of the ‘Syria Free Army’.

    The man, in perfect English, explained to the BBC lady what was required. ‘No need for Western boots on the ground. The West MUST help us with drones and war planes to take out Assad’s tanks, artillery and aircraft JUST AS THEY DID IN LIBYA (my capitals) and we will do the rest.’ He was most insistent. This was in fact the BBC line, although of course they will deny it

    The images of children shot through the head were part of the plan to guilt trip us into doing just that. Remember Cameron almost did it.

    Every day that goes by, some of the pronouncements of the late and generally unlamented Fred Phelps make more sense. He used to assert that God, sick of the West’s general degradation, immorality and Christlessness, was bringing about our destruction by putting hooks in our leaders’ noses to drag us into foreign wars that would destroy us.

    Did we really learn so little from the Iraq catastrophe that intervening in Libya and then in Syria seemed in some way reasonable? My autistic daughter could have made better decisions. Arab Spring my fat hairy @***.

    There may be a better explanation as to why Cameron followed Blair into an insane adventure that would inevitably, as a Saudi foreign minister put it prior to the to 2003 Iraq invasion, ‘Open the doors of Hell.’ but I am at a loss to know what it might be.

  • Muhammad a prophet of peace?

    Hmmm…let me see now…..

    Matthew 24:4-5
    John 14:6
    1 John 2:22
    Galatians 1:6-9
    Revelation 20:4

    Cryptic. Exactly . Not.

  • doctordeb

    Very erudite and eloquent, Your Grace, but why the reference to one of these murderers as a ‘militant’?
    Is this not BBC-speak? I heard on two occasions a Pakistani politician/spokesman interviewed on the Radio Four ‘Today’ programme who referred to the perpetrators of the recent massacre at the school in Peshawar as ‘terrorists’. In the eyes of the BBC, however, they were ‘militants.’

  • STEVE A

    “The church confesses that she has witnessed the lawless application of brutal force, the physical and spiritual suffering of countless innocent people, oppression, hatred and murder, and that she has not raised her voice on behalf of the victims and has not found ways to hasten to their aid. She is guilty of the deaths of the weakest and most defenceless brothers of Jesus Christ.” “Ethics” p50 Bonhoeffer.

  • CliveM

    A man with a plan!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31523213

    I think I will leave this comment less.

  • Albert

    The Western view of the rest of the world, and particularly Muslim lands was shown to be wrong as long ago as the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. As always, the secular assumptions of policy makers, prevent them from seeing the reality, and the result is usually hell for ordinary religious people – especially Christians.

    • Merchantman

      Remaining in the dark, for the most part the secularists never even picked up the glass let alone looked through it.

  • steroflex

    “Jesus and Mohammed were prophets of peace:”. In every argument people quote stuff which is, they hope, generally accepted as the Truth. All religions are the same, Everyone is an Anglican underneath. Everyone is reasonable and sensible if left alone. Democracy is the answer.
    As soon as you open the Koran, on Page One, you get the picture of God as the Terrible Judge. This theme is repeated throughout the book. The idea is that you submit to Him. He is all powerful, arbitrary, violent. Yes you can scratch around for His Mercy. It is there. But the overall message is :submit!
    The Prophet Mohammed himself fought a lot of battles, took booty and slave girls for himself, under a special dispensation, and praised people who fought on his side with courage.
    The four rightly guided Caliphs….
    It is all there is you would only look.