Islam "the religion of peace"? Politically correct madness!

ISIS (or ISIL, as Obama and his government call it) has beheaded two Americans and one Brit, and published videos of the barbaric acts as a warning to the USA and its allies. At the end of the latest video there is said to be a warning that another British captive will be next. Today's Independent names him as Alan Henning, a "kind and funny" aid worker from Salford, taken captive in Syria. Such, we are meant to believe, will be the fate of all "infidels" who dare oppose the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

"Infidels". That's what ISIS calls us "Christians", which Walt puts in quotes because they mean people who come from so-called "Christian" countries, although the majority of "Christians" aren't really believers in the True Faith. Whatever they believe, they're not believers in Islam, therefore "infidels". ISIS wants to kill all the infidels -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists -- and even those Muslims who don't belong to their own (Sunni) branch of "the religion of peace".

And yet the leaders of the free world [? Ed.] or the Christian world [??? Ed.] keep telling us that the Islamic fundamentalists don't really mean it. They want to co-exist peacefully with us because their religion is really a "religion of peace". Killing infidels really isn't part of it. They just do that because... because... well... errr...

Anyway, not all Muslims are like that. That's what President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron are saying, even as they watch the horrifying videos. Mr. Cameron was quoted as saying, "They [ISIS] are not Muslims! They're monsters!" The Prez said ISIS "is not Islamic". [But if he's not a Muslim himself, how would he know? Ed.]

To Walt's way of thinking, to deny that ISIS is not an organization of Muslim fanatics, waging a jihad -- "holy war" -- on the rest of the world, is pure, unmitigated, politically correct bullshit! See "Quit making apologies for ISIS terrorists! They're Muslim fanatics!", posted here a few days ago.

Someone who agrees is a self-proclaimed atheist named Sam Harris, who writes "As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away — either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God.... Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas — jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy — reliably lead to oppression and murder?"

"Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam — and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it — is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn't as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim 'extremists,' because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran."

Those quotes are taken from a post on Mr. Harris's blog titled "Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon". Oh yeah... Armageddon! Didn't Walt mention that not so long ago? Indeed I did! See "3 portents of the coming Armageddon", posted here August 26th. If even an atheist can see it coming, I'd suggest our religious and political leaders ought to govern themselves (and us) accordingly.

Iraq: Is calling in air strikes enough?

The Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities of Iraq clearly needed help to resist the invasion by the Sunni Muslim terrorists who call themselves "the Islamic state" (ISIS). The word "genocide" springs to mind when 1000s of people are herded like sheep -- lambs to the slaughter -- to the top of a mountain and told that they must either convert to Islam or die.

Divine intervention is called for, prayed for. But God and the Pope have no divisions, as Joseph Stalin famously said, so help must come from those that do. Walt therefore applauds the decision of President Obama to authorise the bombing, by drones and manned aircraft, of ISIS artillery and other positions.

But a question nags at my mind [or what passes for such. Ed.] Can the air strikes be anything but a prelude to an invasion by ground forces? Air power first, tanks and troops next. That's what happened in Iraq the first time. And in Afghanistan. And in Vietnam. That's because air power, awesome though it may be -- remember those scenes in Apocalypse Now? -- is never, by itself, sufficient to enable a foreign power to defeat an army or guerrilla force of locals. Take Gaza as today's example. Hamas isn't beaten yet, and the Israelis know it.

If the Gaza argument isn't persuasive enough, consider the thoughts of Matthew Bunker Ridgway. General Ridgway held several major commands in the United States Army and was most famous for resurrecting the United Nations war effort during the Korean War. Several historians have given him the credit for turning the war around in favour of the UN side.

To quote from The Fifties, by David Halberstam (Villard Books, New York, 1993): In World War II and Korea, and in Korea particularly, [Gen. Ridgway] had seen what the Air Force had promised to do with strategic bombing and how limited, in fact, strategic bombing was as an instrument of policy. If we bombed, he argued, we would end up inevitably using ground troops. Ridgway saw air power as as a sort of high-tech aspirin; it gave some immediate relief, but it did not cure the underlying problem.

In Walt's view, we can no longer refer to the ISIS forces as just terrorists. They are a large, well-trained, well-equipped, battle-hardened army. They are in control of large chunks of Syria and Iraq. How they can be defeated without yet another Western invasion of those countries is our dilemma for today. If anyone has a solution, please don't write to me. Send it to the Prez, because neither he nor his advisors seem at all sure of what to do next.

Mission accomplished... NOT! Iraq explodes again

Looks like the cradle of civilization is becoming even less civilized -- or more uncivilized -- this week, as the world lurches ever close to the Armageddon.

Walt refers to the looming disaster in Iraq, and suggests you have a look at the map of the "cradle" in "The Coffin of Civilization", posted here back in September of 2012. See the part of the "Fertile Crescent" labelled "Assyria"? That's modern-day Syria. "Akkad" roughly corresponds to Iraq. Here's a modern map, showing today's porous borders. Consult your programme while Walt explains who's killing whom.

The yellow stain of violent Islamic extremism starts in north-eastern Syria where jihadist rebels are fighting the forces of "Basher" Assad's government, then spreads east into northern Iraq, where the majority Kurds -- also Muslims -- have been agitating for ages to establish an independent state. In fact they already have a government of sorts in the three Iraqi states shown in olive grey.

The insurgents coming in from Syria represent a new "organization", even worse than al-Qaeda, which they call "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". The abbreviation would seem to be "ISIL", but they have taken to using "ISIS", maybe because... well, who knows... Islam is not the monolithic religion many westerners think it is. Muslims like fighting with each other even better than waging war on infidels. [Maybe it's because we infidels are better fighters? Ed.] The ISIS jihadists are Sunni Muslims, and regard the Shia Muslims (the majority in Iraq) as, errr, also infidels.

The Kurds, as you can imagine, are encouraging the Sunni thugs to make their whey [Geddit? Kurds and whey? Ed.] quickly south to Tikrit and Baghdad, where the Shites [Ed., please check spelling] are, and leave "Kurdistan" to the Kurds. As of today, ISIS are in control of Mosul and Tikrit and are moving closer to Baghdad. Iraqi government troops are stripping off their uniforms and laying down their arms as fast as Egyptians fleeing from advancing Israelis.

Cue the inevitable "Something must be done!" from Western leaders, the Disunited Nations, etc etc. But what?! How about sending US troops in to restore order. Considering what a great job the American-led "coalition" did last time, maybe not! Even President Hussein Obama has learned (Walt thinks) that going in is one thing, getting out quite another. Won't be doing that again!

But cheer up. Iran is ready to step into the breach! President Hassan Rouhani has denied reports that three units of Iran's crack Presidential Guards have already been sent to Baghdad to bolster Iraqi government forces' defences. But, he said, Iran stands ready to intervene if things get worse. And they are sending a dozen tanks fitted with special transmissions -- four speeds in reverse and one forward... in case the Sunnis attack from the rear.

Iran has close ties with the Shia-dominated Iraqi leadership which came to power after the Americans toppled of President Saddam Hussein, whose power base was the country's Sunni minority. That little exercise cost over $1,000,000,000,000 -- that's a trillion -- and over 4000 American lives. But it was worth it, right? Errr, maybe not.

Note from Ed.: I'm reminded of the old Iraqi lovesong: I Want a Gal Just Like the Old Bag Dad Had.