Mark Ellse: Liberals cannot see the evil that lies in every heart

On Monday we learned that two British men in Syria were deliberately killed by our own forces, not because they presented an immediate threat to anyone on UK soil but because, as the Prime Minister told us, they had been involved in actively recruiting IS "sympathisers" and plotting to attack "high-profile public commemorations" taking place in the UK this summer.

Where was due process? Where was natural justice? Where were human rights? Should we take to the streets in protest? The acts that Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were planning were barbaric. But wasn't the drone attack equally barbaric? Are we not just as bad as those we killed?

I quip, of course. I suspect that few would object to the pre-emptive strike. Khan and Amin were planning a direct attack against UK citizens. Of course we should protect ourselves against such. Even The Guardian said that the action was morally justified, our first duty being "to keep the British people safe."

The mores of our times sometimes confuse us because they are naïve and fail to embrace both ever-present extremes of human nature. Whether we regard the Bible as God's word, or as the distilled wisdom of generations, nowhere contains a better summing up of the different components of our nature.

Right at the beginning of the Bible, in the first book of Genesis, one reads "God created man in his own image...and God saw that it was good." Who can deny what man embodies, so marvellous, unbelievably creative like God, with such great and wonderful abilities? And yet, as Jeremiah 17 says, "The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."

Too prevalent is a liberal view which believes that mankind is intrinsically good. If we brought our children up in just the right way all the ills of society would fade away. If only we sat together in a circle, held hands and talked to each other, all conflict could be resolved. But that wicked heart of man is not so easily mastered. And that evil that lies within all of us sometimes needs unbelievable firmness to rein it in.

The liberal view regards wickedness as being exceptional rather than universal. As Tony Blair said about Saddam Hussein, "But the man's evil, isn't he?", the corollary being that if we got rid of Saddam, everything would be better. The liberal view is overoptimistic about human structures. In 2011 David Cameron said "Our task now is to do all we can to support the will of the Libyan people for an effective transition for a free, democratic and inclusive Libya", failing to see that impure hearts can destroy any system of government.

Worst of all, the liberal mind fails to see that evil can be so prevalent that the ordering of a society sometimes needs a horrific firmness, bordering on the tyranny of a Hussein, Gadaffi or Tito.

Unlike the woeful action in Libya "to support the will of the Libyan people", the developing action against IS in Syria is a proper action to defend our own interests. The penny is gradually dropping: the threat that militant Islam presents is far more serious than those in power have erstwhile admitted. Cameron's Birmingham speech about Islam was far closer to being honest about the causes of terrorism than anything he has said before.

Those in authority over us have a responsibility to act. Like all mortals, they are flawed. Earthly authority, earthly justice, both will be imperfect. Mistakes will be made. Some acts are indeed horrid and will make us shudder. But act our leaders must. Their responsibility is literally awful, a reason why St Paul's urges us to pray for them.

Mark Ellse

  • Matt

    I humbly suggest we keep religion out of it altogether! Particularly any views contributed by Justin ‘Oil’ Welby.

  • Dave

    When are we going to admit that Islam has been the scourge of this world for hundreds of years and we are going to have to rid the world of it eventually? When are we going to admit that rescuing a billion people from this evil belief system will at some point become necessary? When are we going to admit that we are going to have to convert them to fundamentalist Christianity because they just aren’t ready for humanism?

    We have been brought into conflict with Islam many times over the centuries but we have never had the will to finish the job and as a result we regularly pay the price – but so do they. I’m guessing it won’t be long before Islam forces our hand. It’s estimated that up to 4000 ISIL members will use the refugee crisis to enter Europe – how do you think that Europeans will react when these terrorists kill 400,000 people in their effort to bring about an “end of days” in our time? But maybe that’s the whole point. Perhaps the PTB have already realised that they can’t allow Islam to continue to fester and grow like gangrene in Europe. Maybe the whole point of the refugee crisis is a CIA led attempt to provoke a European backlash against Islam that will drive the religion out.

    In Turkey the Syrians are kept in huge camps like this one:-

    http://d3819ii77zvwic.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/zataari-2.jpg

    They are not allowed out. So how come so many men were allowed out by Turkey, and only men between the ages of 18 and 35? Fit men, not weedy nor fat. A small army has been released to live amongst Europeans. Merkel invited them in but is now pushing to spread them across Europe. How come all the TV news and newspapers all over Europe, left and right wing, seem to be in favour of this happening when the people are strongly against it? How come it is happening when we know that some of these people have fought with ISIL and Al Quaeda?

    Some are saying that only NATO and the Americans could possibly pull strings hard enough to get enough media support for this invasion of young Islamic warriors. We are being manipulated to take in terrorists.

    I believe it may be the case that we are being manipulated in order to create the moral justification for a huge backlash against Islam in Europe that will eventually cause the peoples of Europe to drive Islam out whilst the governments stand idly by keeping their hands apparently clean. It cannot have escaped the attention of the CIA the dangers of fecund Muslims establishing in ever greater numbers in Europe – people have been talking about this for years. If we don’t act now then France will be lost to Islam within a generation. There is no “liberal” way out of the problem. Robust action against Islam is the only way.

    • Kingbingo

      Dave mate, Your off your rockers if you think the CIA are orchestrating the refugee crises. Absolutely bat-sh** crazy idea. Put that one back in the box and throw the box out.

      It’s far simpler, life is better in Europe than North Africa and the middle-east. And after Italy decided it was going to use its navy to rescue any boat attempting the crossing, and turn none of them back the word spread and the numbers trying has skyrocketed.

      I hear most captains are not even bothering to crew the boats anymore. Just pocket the high fees load them up on the boats and let them pilot themselves across as best they can. When these overloaded boats and inexperienced pilots enviably capsize the Italian navy will scoop them up and ferry them to the nearest reception centre.

      So no, this is not a CIA plot. Its misplaced liberals trying to help and making things much worse. Like they always do.

      • Dave

        The numbers of Muslims in Britain and France are growing exponentially. In Britain, the number of Muslim children doubled over the last 10 years, and if that rate were to continue they would be in the majority in just 40 years. In France it would occur even earlier, and in France their problems with Islam are actually far worse than what we have here.

        Both Britain and France are nuclear powers. There is no way on earth that either the USA or Russia wants Britain or France to become Muslim nuclear powers. If the growth of Islam continues as it has, then at some point within one generation either Russia or the USA will be FORCED to take action.

        These issues are regularly discussed on American websites. Admittedly they are discussed by people with extreme views, but nevertheless the question has been raised and surely be in the minds of the CIA – they cannot be blind to the danger of Islam in Europe.

        The CIA have a track record of meddling in the affairs of other countries especially where Islam is concerned. They are quite happy to start wars in other nations when it suits, and to arm their favourite side. The Americans aren’t about to invade Britain and France to kick the Muslims out directly – all hell would break out – so they will want to be subtle and let the British and French themselves do most of the work. So that’s where the CIA come in.

        It’s a question of trajectories. The Islamic population is growing out of control. It will double in the next few years even if we stop all immigration, because 1 in 10 children are Islamic.The ability of the rest of us to challenge Islamic thinking is declining simply due to the numbers, the isolation of the Islamic community and the tightening grip of Imams and Islamic parents over their own children.

        Yes, I appreciate that that my position seems “extreme” but I prefer to be on the right side of the argument. In the fullness of time I expect the situation itself to be extreme and my views won’t seem extreme at all. My compatriots are in the position of not wanting to believe that war is going to turn their lives upside down, just as during the 1930s. I can understand that.

    • Lock up your daughters?

      Dave, Have you been radicalised by the ConWoman site?

      Please clarify; are you really preaching genocide in the name of Christian fundamentalism?

      “When are we going to admit that ISLAM has been the scourge of this world for hundreds of years…?” You can substitute CHRISTIANITY into that sentence.

      Above there is a co-nutter (Chalcedon) calling for a “Crusade” OMG

      But you will send other people’s sons, not go yourself?

      • Dave

        Any good examples of modern Christianity going around starting deliberate wars? Christians vs Buddhists? Christians vs Hindus?

        Hmm, sounds like Christianity has lost the war to me. They’re pussycats now. Most modern wars were fought for reasons other than religion.

        I’m not a Christian. I only see taking over Muslim nations one by one and forcing them to adopt fundamentalist Christianity as a necessary first-step alternative to the all-out nuclear holocaust that Islamic fundamentalists will inevitably inflict on all non-Muslims when they have the opportunity. It is a question of the trajectory that Islam is on – how exactly are we going to stop it? If we simply leave them to their own devices do you think it will all melt away? Maybe, I agree it would be worth a try (but I suspect things have gone too far already). Or do you think that that Islamists want to take over all of Europe – just as they tried to do with the Ottoman empire right up to 1832. European Turkey is just the remnants of that last Muslim invasion. The population of Islamic nations are amongst the fastest growing in the world – doubling in size with every generation. They will be banging on the doors of non-Muslim nations soon enough looking for their “lebensraum”.

        I would fight that war, just as two generations of my family fought two wars in the previous century, when the policy of appeasement found itself spent. Genocide is exactly what I want to avoid. Genocide is happening all the time in Arabia. Millions are dying at regular intervals. It is humane to take out the leaders of these barbaric nations and convert them to a more peaceful way of thinking and living, and get their population growth under control.

        It is all about trajectories. I know it is a very bitter pill to swallow, but eventually you will be forced by events to face up to the awful reality. This is the end game between Islam and the West. The Muslims already know it.

        • Lock up your daughters?

          Most conflicts occur due to complex reasons. This may also be the case for many historic conflicts.
          I can certainly name several recent conflicts which had a religious element.
          The war and genocide in the Balkans (former Yugoslavia in 1990s)
          The ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland
          The 2nd Iraq war ….Where (Catholic) Blair foolishly admitted that he ‘prayed to god’ as part of the decision making process!

          That last conflict and it’s poorly managed aftermath apparently leaving many hundreds of thousands dead and probably being one of the causal factors in the rise of “IS” and radical Islam at home and abroad.

          The future is full of risks (and always was). Does talking us into a third world war decrease or increase these risks?

          • Dave

            War and genocide in the Balkans – Islamists causing trouble again and reaping what they sowed. Don’t forget that the Ottoman empire still hasn’t retreated entirely from Europe – they are standing on Greek territory north of the Bosphurus. Not all religions are equal….

            The Troubles in Northern Ireland – oh yeah, Sinn Fein look deeply religious to me – are you sure it’s not just a war of territory taking advantage of a sectarian divide that not all citizens of NI buy into anyway? One could certainly say it is statistically insignificant when compared either to the numbers of Christians or the numbers of people that were killed in WWI and WWII.

            Blair may have prayed to God as part of the decision making process. Are you suggesting he heard messages from God telling him to go do it? The point is, surely, that a religious war results in the losing side taking on the religion of the winning side – has that happened in Iraq?

            Oh yeah, we caused radical Islam. Give it a rest. Islam has continuously attacked Europe ever since it was created. Turkey is still on the Greek mainland and invaded Cyprus on the flimsiest of pretexts. ISIL is demanding Spain back. The population of Arabia is doubling every 30 years. I don’t need to talk anybody into a war – they will be bringing it to you soon enough.

  • SimonToo

    Had these two slipped back into England, would it have been legal to have targeted and killed them by drone strike in Woking? Would it have been lawful for a policeman to have shot them on sight?

    It seems that Her Majesty’s Government has created a new form of outlawry, without Parliament passing a statute.

    One does wonder, though, whether in his loose-lipped way Mr. Cameron has spun a military action with mortal collateral damage into something more virile that is closer to a gangland contract murder. That would be regrettable for this country and for the RAF operator of that drone, who Mr. Cameron seems to be saying was his hit-man in what on the face of it would be an illegal homicide. That he was only following orders would be no defence.

    • Dave

      I doubt that is the way that the argument will go. It will be suggested that by going and fighting in Syria for ISIL they had effectively declared themselves stateless and outside the protection of the Geneva convention. There are no doubt recorded conversations of these two discussing terrorist plans in the UK over satellite phone to counterparts already here – probably it was triangulation of the satellite phone signal that pinpointed their position. There was probably no collateral damage as these guys were likely living behind ISIL lines with the local citizens having run away, and brimstone missiles are pinpoint accurate.

      It is permitted under the UN rules of engagement for a state to take action against another state that threatens it, so you could argue that enough was done for Cameron to take action on the whole of ISIL let alone these two individuals. Cameron doesn’t even need to go to Parliament to take military action.

      The Tories are simply using this action (which took place two weeks ago) to put Labour on the rack, Labour have made complete fools of themselves and have put themselves on the wrong side of 90% of the public. If they are foolish enough to keep pressing for the full details of the action they will likely be presented with it – showing them to be on the wrong side of the argument. Of course it puts the Tories in the position of reminding everybody of the dangers of our existing Islamic terrorism which then calls into question the wisdom of inviting more in without checks – which is why Cameron will only take them from the camps (if in reality he takes in any at all) because that allows proper background checks t be made.

      • SimonToo

        Terrorism is not a capital offence under UK law. ISIL is not a state : whether or not these two were effectively stateless, it is hard to see why the Geneva Convention would not apply, were it relevant.

        If there are good reasons for the strike, let us hear them from HMG. Is prosecuting the RAF chap the only way of finding them out?

        • Colonel Mustard

          Cake and eat it.

          The were outside UK jurisdiction – not protected by the UK rule of law. They cannot claim to be in ISIS and at the same time demand the same protections under the law as British citizens.

          Geneva Convention does not apply:-

          “The Conventions and the Protocol are applicable in case of declared war or of any other armed conflict arising between two or more of the Parties to the Conventions and Protocol I from the beginning of such a situation, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”

          ISIS are not a party to the Conventions.

          • SimonToo

            But the drone operator would have been in the UK.

            I am not suggesting that these scrotes have not reaped what they have sown, or that they themselves could have any complaint if they chose to play big boys’ games. What does concern me is that HMG has forgotten to make sure that the law was in place to establish the legality of targeting and killing specific individuals. That these individuals are ostensibly British subjects is a concern, but even the killing of specific foreigners is outside what HMG has been willing to admit to in the past.

            It would have been both sensible and highly desirable for the necessary legislation to have gone through Parliament before these killings occurred, so that their legality was clear. There has been plenty of time, and there would hardly be massed popular objection. That is why I am particularly concerned by the sloppy high-handedness of the PM in this case – although his sloppy high-handedness is habitual.

          • Colonel Mustard

            “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. And in order for an actus reus there has to be an act. There was an act but it was not in a place under jurisdiction of the English rule of law and there was no mens rea on the part of the drone operator.

            At a very simple level the old Common law of outlaw, abolished in 1938, was being applied. Whereby a person who broke the law and fled its justice was declared to be outlaw and not entitled to its protections and for some offences, like treason, could be killed with impunity. Maybe the law of outlaw shouldn’t have been abolished but instead dusted off and modernised to apply to those British citizens who go abroad to embrace terrorism. That once they declare themselves they become fair game.

            If this had been debated in Parliament it would have foundered. The very left of which Dan Hodges complains would have been vociferous in protest and used their suborned lawyers to challenge. There is always going to be the paradox of the protections (and freedoms) of our rule of law being exploited by those who wish to destroy it. That does require some debate and resolution.

          • SimonToo

            The point is that the law of outlawry was abolished (and in any event it made someone an outlaw for only a year and a day).

            If HMG did not think it could make such things legal, it would have been a good idea to have avoided doing them, if only to protect HM’s servicemen.

          • Dave

            Joshua Rosenburg, left wing lawyer commentator chap agreeing that the government is in the clear on this one:-

            http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/07/lawful-uk-forces-british-isis-fighters-syria

            Please give it a rest now Simon.

          • SimonToo

            Thank you for that link. I look forward to seeing that summary of the legal advice received by HMG.

        • 5th column traitors

          They threatened us we killed them in order to prevent the threat being carried out. Self defence if you ask me.

    • Caractacus

      Er, ISIS have declared war on us. We don’t need a piece of paper saying it’s ok to kill them now.

      • SimonToo

        Have they actually declared war on the UK? How, and in any case, who are ISIS to declare war on us?

        • Dave

          Members of ISIL were making plans to kill our head of state.

          Sounds like a declaration of war to me…..

        • Caractacus

          The systematic hostage taking and beheading of British Citizens equals a declaration of war.

          Maybe you also missed their promise to invade Europe.

    • TJB

      Collateral damage is categorised as unintended but acceptable external effects of the action as it relates to the execution of the mission. This was intended. Enemies of the state who had declared themselves as such were killed. Oh well, never mind.

      They weren’t in Woking so that is irrelevant.

      • SimonToo

        Do we now accept the propriety of the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, then?

        • Dave

          Was he planning to kill the Russian president?

          If he was then it would seem reasonable. So far the Russians have made no such claim.

        • grutchyngfysch

          We don’t but the Russian state probably does. I’ll bet that ISIS don’t agree with these particular killings either. The question comes down to whether a country is willing to restrain its behaviour and under what conditions. On sovereign territory in times of peace, you hope that a state will exercise the highest restraint. In a warzone with a genuinely genocidal enemy, I think the onus ought to be on those advocating restraint to demonstrate that it is possible to neutralise the threat without deadly force. Otherwise you’d be better off taking a position of absolute pacifism (which you’re obviously entitled to, but may as well make it explicit).

        • TJB

          As far as I know he had not declared himself an enemy combatant with a stated aim of killing Russian citizens in pursuit of a global caliphate.

          So irrelevant.

          • Jules Wright

            I would add that these three individuals – when the drone struck – had found themselves to be British citizens in technical terms only, and treasonous ones at that – one of whom reportedly tore up his passport and posted the video on social media. A member of the indigenous population or an integrated immigrant is a citizen – not someone who identifies, prioritises and prosecutes an alien and/or hostile culture to the violent detriment of the host. These three X-box psycho-clowns, as with Emmwazi, effectively rendered themselves stateless enemy combatants by their own hand, with wholly predictable consequences.

            They’re the Islamic equivalent of SS Einsatzgruppen and can expect no quarter. I trust the Kill List is long.

    • Lock up your daughters?

      Interesting comment, but perhaps there is a flaw in your comparison -because if the gentlemen were in “Woking” there would be alternatives to a drone strike.
      Far cheaper alternatives btw (at least in the short term)

  • Chalcedon

    We will have to confront Islam with a serious crusade. Regardless of what hand wringing liberals say, They all use the same ‘holy’ book. The messages in there are very grim if you aren’t of their faith.

    • Dave

      More importantly, if you listen to Islamic talk of it being the “Religion of Peace” – this is only the message when they are in nations where they are outnumbered by non-Muslims. In countries where they are in the majority, their rhetoric is extremely hostile.

      Take Iran, it used to be a very pro-Western, modern and secular. They deposed their own secular leadership in order to install an Islamic theocracy that immediately started using hostile rhetoric towards the West. Subsequently the people of Iran have regularly elected officials that are rabidly anti-Western. Iran used to be one of the more moderate states in Arabia…..

  • Andy

    As far as I’m concerned if you leave this country to join ISIS you are a Traitor, and your life is forfeit. Whether you meet your end by a drone or at the end of the hangman’s rope is neither here nor there.

  • Bonce

    The insanity of the leftie liberals calling for us to take the refugees we see invading Europe and those from Syria is beyond my full understanding. I assume it is because they are stuck in a parallel universe of hyper morality, and where the most important thing is to be seen by others as a “good/caring person”, even to the clear detriment of themselves and their local areas.

    Clearly, they have also managed to completely ignore the fact that most of these refugees/economic migrants are in fact muslim males. They then also fail to recognise the role of the muslim male demographic in every single war zone around the likes of Somalia, Nigeria and the Middle East. They also fail to acknowledge the role of muslim males in the rape/abuse/murders of women in the UK & throughout the EU, at a highly disproportionate number to the number of muslim males. The fact that most of these leftie liberals are women is even further evidence of being blind to what is right in front of your face and a possible threat to you.

    Pure and utter insanity by the liberal left as per usual combined with a great ability to ignore the Truth.

  • VacantPossession

    But act our leaders must‘… Yes, your time with Yoda has spent well been.

    The trick is keeping to national security; Governments like to win and hold on to special powers and then stretch their interpretation, sliding towards curtailment of freedom of speech and a police state.

    Which is why in my opinion Churchill’s post war acts of renouncing and releasing special powers (18B) defines the soul of the man; Only to be re-introduced by Labour (twice), defining moments for the Labour soul.

    Historically violence may halt the progress of a movement, it carries the burden of prejudice and foment to future generations, popping up like wildfires in time.

    • Mark Ellse

      Cf my reply to Kanaris above. In times of conflict, we have fewer freedoms. Sad.

      • VacantPossession

        Governments use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to manipulate public opinion into mute acceptance of new/special measures/powers. It is how free societies sleepwalk into serfdom.

        One only has to wait twenty years and new conditions are ‘normal’. One look at the European ‘project’ and a chat with a thirty five year old will demonstrate that they have known nothing but state funded Europhilia and anything other provokes a shrill blind panic attack. Even suffocation becomes desirable, no need to think, ask questions or engage.

  • Lock up your daughters?

    In the above article I love the god botherers’ selection of quotes from the “holy book”

    Right at the beginning of the Bible, in the first book of Genesis, one reads “God created man in his own image…and God saw that it was good.” Who can deny what man embodies, so marvellous, unbelievably creative like God, with such great and wonderful abilities? And yet, as Jeremiah 17 says, “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”

    …………………So “God created man in his own image……..deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”

    I guess that explains why he let’s the world get so ‘Fcuk’ed up. Religion finally makes sense LOL

    All religion is dangerous if it interferes with logic and judgement.

    • emale

      You’re either being deliberately obtuse, or have never read your Bible.
      “God created man in his own image…and God saw that it was good.” relates to man’s prelapsarian (before the fall) condition. Man was made in God’s image including possession of free will. Following Eve’s temptation by the snake, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and became: “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”. This is what’s known as the “fall”. The Bible describes with remarkable percipience the condition of all mankind from the beginning (or almost the beginning) of human experience.

      • Lock up your daughters?

        LOL, would you “adam and eve” it.

        The “Abrahamic texts” were written by clever men with camel dung under their fingernails.

        Living with dung came with the times and the culture so there is nothing wrong with that.
        However, it is likely that the texts are only literally believed by modern people if they have camel dung between their ears.

        According to your bible… That men are “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” ……is all the fault of women.

        Yeah, that’s logical.

        “All religion is dangerous if it interferes with logic and judgement.” QED.
        Thanks btw.

        • Dave

          Is he your enemy?

          Does he really deserve to be insulted that way?

          I mean seriously, most Christians are good people, trying to make a positive difference in the world. Some are actually pretty intelligent.

          Save that kind of talk for your real enemies, and if you don’t like websites that raise the issue of Christianity perhaps TCW isn’t the place for you anyway?

          • Lock up your daughters?

            I mean seriously, most MUSLIMS are good people, trying to make a positive difference in the world. Some are actually pretty intelligent

            And you (dave) are apparently advocating genocide and forced Christianisation of Muslims?

            My point (or at least one of them) is that religion [Christan, Muslim,whatever] generally causes a cultural intellectual disconnect in the unwary. It makes clever people do (and say) stupid things.

          • Dave

            I never advocated genocide. You put that word into my mouth. A lot of people discussing politics on the internet seem to see things in very black and white terms.

            I believe that if you took the Islamic religious extremists and their guns out of the situation then you would likely find the rest of the population was actually pretty pliant. Just as we see the rapid rise of Christianity (largely sponsored by American evangelicals) in Iran now they’ve discovered that Islam doesn’t deliver. I just don’t believe you can go from Islam to a pluralist secular state in one go – you need to do it in easy steps. We needed Christianity to get to this point in our history.

            Remember, even if we didn’t involve ourselves in the ME, they are killing each other right left and center. Iran-Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait, no end of sectarian terrorism, Then of course they are sponsoring Islamic wars in Africa and Thailand and elsewhere. This will go on for decades, probably centuries, millions and millions killed, a constant running sore. All the time the population growing at the fastest rates in the world, putting more pressure on water resources, thus more reason for war.

            “generally causes a cultural intellectual disconnect in the unwary” – what does that even mean? After Marx and Nietsche, Germany produced Adolph, Russia produced Stalin and China produced Chairman Mao. I think I’d rather have the Spanish Inquisition – at least if you said you were god-fearing you were home and dry – Mao killed 20million people that were on his side!

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Sorry dave, I thought you were a nutter.

            Turns out that everything you said is totally reasonable:

            “When are we going to admit that we are going to have to convert them to fundamentalist Christianity”

            “I only see taking over Muslim nations one by one and forcing them to adopt fundamentalist Christianity as a necessary first-step”

            “I would fight that war”

            So how are you going to convert them by force dave?
            Hold a gun to each head and pull the trigger if they say no?

            Please explain.

          • Dave

            Well if you look at the Spanish Inquisition they only executed 5000 people and rid the whole of Spain of Islam. I wouldn’t describe that as genocide because most Jews and Muslims simply saw the “wisdom” of converting to Catholicism and therefore most chose to do so and avoided death. 5000 dead to change a belief system is pretty small potatoes compared to WWII which aimed to do the same thing. In Iran Christianity is growing exponentially even though the Christians are persecuted. I think if you took control of a Muslim nation and got rid of the leadership and quietly introduced Christianity as an option many would happily convert simply because the religion sounds a lot more plausible than one that believes outright in jihad by the sword. It’s pretty easy to sell the benefits of Christianity when it’s so popular in all the richest countries of the world when Islam only seems to lead to poverty and early death. In fact, maybe the Americans have already clicked onto this and the spread of Christianity in Iran via American evangelicals is just a trial run.

            I mean, atheists are pretty weak on this kind of thinking anyway. Give them Fascism to think about and suddenly they are quite happy to have show trials and executions and imprisonment to “cure” people of their wayward thinking, but not so keen on applying the same approach to Muslims even though Sunni and Shia Islam is just as wayward and has led to no end of atrocities and wars over a millennia. Given that atheists don’t recognise any metaphysical nature to any religion then Islam is just a political belief system and no different to any other political belief system that spits out death and destruction at regular intervals. Given its track record it becomes more humane to deal with the belief system by eradicating it, much as Fascism and Communism has been eradicated. Perhaps if you remember it’s OK to be an atheist in a nominally Christian culture but being atheist in an Islamic culture leads to sudden death it will help you focus your mind. Atheists are being killed right now in Islamic countries all over the world.

            It wouldn’t surprise me if it is America’s intention to invade Saudi Arabia at some point in the near future. After all, it is Saudis that are responsible for Wahhabinism, bin Laden, Al Quaeda, ISIL and 9/11. Strange that they’ve escaped punishment for this for so long. Of course Saudi Arabia sits on all that oil – but what with fracking and Kyoto and electric cars and wind turbines and shale oil and bio-ethanol it turns out America isn’t actually dependent on Saudi oil right now. Oh dear. If they invade Saudi, however, they will need to deal directly with Wahhabinism because it is every bit as bad as N-z-ism

          • Lock up your daughters?

            So you plan ‘only’ to execute 5000 people (per country?) before they see the wisdom of converting to fundamentalist Christianity?

            That’s still a lot and the last Iraq war is reported to have killed over 200,000 and the country shows little sign of having been quelled so I doubt your 5000 executions is realistic.

            It’s odd that you mention Fascism and claim that “Fascism and Communism has been eradicated”. Personally I view your comments as confirmation that Fascism is very much resurgent on the far right.

            And these Muslim nations you plan to take over one by one; they might not cooperate. The Iraqis, and Afghans have shown themselves to be rather effective at making uninvited guests unwelcome in quite a ‘terminal’ manner.

            I don’ think you have thought this through mate.
            Another small problem is that before you mount these invasions and executions of non-converters you need to sort out all those pesky ‘liberals’ in your own country. I can’t see many of them agreeing, so will you be executing them too?

          • Dave

            200,000 people killed using daisy cutters ultimately for no good reason.

            I dont remember liberals making too much of an obstruction over Iraq, or Libya or even Syria.

            Like I say – they are bringing the war to us. Their populations will double in 30years. The situation will get remorselessly worse. They are afraid of information from satellite, internet, and even the rise of evangelical Christianity. We don’t need to do anything, or justify anything. They will do it all for us.

  • rolandfleming

    You’d think a former headmaster would know that it’s ‘rein in’, not ‘reign in’.

    Oh well.

    • therealguyfaux

      “Blame that terrible autocorrect! It did it again!”

  • Kanaris

    This is a lovely apologia for totalitarianism isn’t it?

    • Mark Ellse

      You make an excellent point. It is disturbing but one does see, and sees the reason for, increasing state control. Democracy works really rather well in a society with shared values. The fact that our government is seeking to take increasing control over what we can say, even think, is not generally agreed among the population.

      • Groan

        This is indeed a key feature . As the population’s self regulation is perceived to weaken due to moral relativity so it appears the state steps in frequently with the agents of the Crown. So things that might be left to good manners , morality or public comment become police matters . It never ceases to amaze me how quickly conservatives fall into traps and do the cultural marxists work for them; deconstructing democratic society to usher in their nirvana.
        Dubious about the drone killings I hope indeed our Gov. Does weigh carefully the moral duty they carry.

        • Dave

          I would say it is part of a general attitude towards the state engendered by socialism. Putting our elderly into old people’s home, using the state to care for unwanted children, leaving sex education of our children to the state, getting the state to approve relationships and calling it marriage.

          The Tories are really defined as being against some socialist ideas, but in reality they lie along the line of socialist thinking by default because they don’t have new ideas of their own, they are merely reactionary.

          • Groan

            And here is the challenge to CW to articulate something alternative. Call me Dave is indeed heir to Blair and Fabian socialism.

  • Lovesounds

    An article of such muddled guff about Liberlism, that it’s impossible to critique it without wasting too many precious moments of life that could be better spent. if you want an example of a real-world Liberal who can distinguish good from evil look no further than Alex Carlile QC. As for the best summation – I’ll leave it to JFK:

    “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

    • Dave

      It works fine if you assume by “liberal” he means those people that tend to identify themselves as “liberal progressives” that are really student Marxists that have just woken up to the fact that Marxism is derided by the vast majority.

  • Equality

    You appear to be confusing liberalism with the jackbooted authoritarian British left. They love fascistic islam because it represents the other thing they love – pervasive state control of every aspect of life. Actual liberalism rejects both.

    Your magic book about the “Jesus” character is simply not relevant to that political reality.

    • Mark Ellse

      Hmm, ‘the jackbooted authoritarian British left’…

      I agree with your point entirely. The problem is that I see these jackboots in Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties, not really being able to tell the difference between them.

      • Lock up your daughters?

        Really? Is everyone wearing jackboots except for the hard religious right?

        • SimonToo

          I would not have thought so, but they are popular among elements of all the major parties.

          • Lock up your daughters?

            Do you mean that it’s ‘jackboots’ that are popular or the religious hard right 🙂

            I feel that the jackboots analogy is rather overused by people who are doing poorly in rational discussion and wish to stifle debate -which could be a bit ‘jackbooty’ itself.

  • bugalugs2

    My, it seems only a couple of years ago that Cameron was all gung-ho for intervening on the side from which ISIS is drawn against Assad. Now apparently he wants to either intervene against Assad’s enemies or create a similar chaotic void as was created in Libya by his ham-fisted intervention.

    The guy really is desperate to have a war which is all his own on his personal political cv, isn’t he?