Features

When Isis destroy ancient monuments, it’s not always true that ‘people are more important’

Civilised people balance the short-term interest of one generation against the values enshrined in the past, and the right of future generations to share that past

14 March 2015

9:00 AM

14 March 2015

9:00 AM

Perhaps we need censorship. The Isis vandals now destroying the greatest sites in ancient Mesopotamia have no care for history, so why do they bother? The answer is to get publicity. As with beheadings, they want to taunt us with their outrages. So why give them what they want, which is our obvious dismay? Why encourage more destruction?

To read of the loss of ancient monuments is heartbreaking. When they date from the dawn of western civilisation in the Mesopotamian valley, the pain is the greater. Nimrud, Hatra and Nineveh are 6,000-year-old bedrocks of our culture. Like the smashed statues in Mosul museum, their destruction tears at the roots of Eurasia’s shared identity. That identity may stay recorded in books, pictures, museums. But the continuity of place is lost. The narrative is snapped.

Many will say, so what? In peace and war, we are constantly told that people should take precedence over things. I have spent my life trying to save beautiful buildings, streets, towns, woods and fields from those who, usually with a profit in mind, claim that ‘people are more important’. They are, and they are not.

I am sure we could save lives by not conserving the past and spending money elsewhere. The bomb, the crudest weapon of war, always justifies its devastation as ‘saving lives’. So does torture. But a sign of civilised people is that they balance the short-term interest of one generation against the values enshrined in the past, and against the right of future generations to share that past. Since the dawn of time, confident communities have treasured their history. That is why Isis leaves us horrified.

Of course blame lies with the perpetrators of horror. But this madness was unleashed a decade ago by those harbingers of anarchy, George Bush and Tony Blair. They destroyed order in Iraq. To dismantle the framework of control in any state, however cruel, is to let the angels of hell run riot. I witnessed what coalition forces allowed to happen after the invasion of Baghdad in 2003, the looting, the digging up of sites, the black market in antiquities. I saw the denial of guards for Baghdad museum. It was like throwing open the doors of the National Gallery in London for people to take what they wanted.


At least in the second world war — the most destructive in history — western armies carried with them lists of reserved sites and no-go areas, and tried (as in George Clooney’s The Monuments Men) to rescue looted treasures. They tried to avoid bombing ancient cities or shelling Arezzo. In Iraq bombs fell on historic buildings. Tanks crashed through ancient sites. Babylon and Ur became military bases. Yes, Isis is awful. But we started this one.

When I protested the dropping of high-explosive bombs near ancient Serbian churches during the Kosovo war of 1999, I was told it was unreasonable to expect the RAF to be pinpoint accurate in its targeting. The heirs of Bomber Harris are not squeamish about the far end of a bomb site, be it a human being or a historic building. There will always be ‘collateral damage’. On this 70th anniversary of the Dresden firestorm at least we say sorry. We did not do so at the time. We saw eliminating an enemy’s heritage and culture as justifiable revenge — as Harris’s apologists still do. That is roughly the Isis approach.

There is no point in the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, declaring the destruction of Nimrud ‘a war crime’, or Unesco declaring it ‘a direct attack against the history of Islamic Arab cities’. There is in place a clear 1954 Hague convention protecting ‘cultural property in the event of armed conflict’. It remains unratified by two states, America and Britain, ‘for reasons of national security’. That is two states, plus the Taleban and Isis. As Robert Bevan has written in The Destruction of Memory (2006), the razing of history has long been the most hypocritical weapon of war.

Nor are we getting any better. In 2001 the Afghan Taleban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. Since then Unesco has spent 12 years feuding over whether and how to restore them. Nothing has been done, such that some want to leave the ruins as a ghastly but ‘authentic’ memorial to the Taleban. That is precisely what the Taleban wanted. World cultural bureaucracy is at the service of fanaticism.

What the West can and should do is prepare for the aftermath of this devastation. A huge task will one day face those who care for these places. Syria and Iraq host the records of the dawn of the known world. The ancient city of Aleppo has been flattened. The Assyrian and Parthian capitals are bulldozed. The oldest Christian churches on earth are being wiped off the map as you read this.

These sites must be restored, with replicas if necessary. There should be no ideological Unesco nonsense about ‘inauthenticity’. As many of Europe’s medieval churches are Victorian, so many Mesopotamian sites had been heavily restored. Like Arthur Evans at Knossos, early archaeologists were keen to ‘stabilise’ these sites, including Agatha Christie’s husband, Max Mallowan, who worked at Nimrud. The Bamiyan Buddhas were themselves partly restored. The ruins of Palmyra were reconstructed by the French. As for what remains of Babylon, it is mostly the creation of a certain Saddam Hussein.

The Germans reacted to the RAF’s destruction of Hanseatic Lubeck by rebuilding it facsimile (and retaliating with ‘Baedeker’ raids on Britain). Lubeck is now a world heritage site. We did not rebuild Coventry or Bristol after the blitz, largely because modernist architects said it would be unsocialist. That is why tourists prefer Bath and York.

In Iraq and Syria we have the records, the scholarship, the skills and the money to reinstate these sites and re-fire our imagination. We played a part in their destruction. Our duty is to do what we can to rectify it. Of course replacements are never the same as originals. But are defiance in the face of fanaticism. They are far, far better than nothing.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Mister Rible

    It’s exactly what Hamas would do to Jerusalem, if they got hold of it.
    They love it so much, they launch rockets at it, and the traitorous british media wrings their hands and blames the Israelis, for keeping Jerusalem as their ancient cherished capital. These people don’t respect anything.

    Until the west is honest and demonstrates strength, this will only get worse and spread into Europe. Britain is already filler to the brim with Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hiztub Tahrir, AL Aqsa Brigades and of course Al Qaeda. We have people who openly support ISIS, Boko Haram and the Taliban.

    What’s stopping them from planning terrorist attacks on historical sites or monuments all over Europe?

    • Ali

      Don’t put ideas in their sick heads.

    • Damaris Tighe

      I really thought that Jerusalem would be safe from rocket attacks. I was naive. During Cast Lead one of the rockets aimed at J’lem landed on a nearby Arab village.

    • jack

      Qana is where Jesus was rumored to have conducted his first “miracle”.

      In 1996 Israel shelled Qana into the dust.

      I do not in anyway support the actions of Hamas. You should just know that Israel is far from a saintly figure.

      • Damaris Tighe

        The Qana that Israel shelled during its war against Hezbollah was in Lebanon – not the same Qana where Jesus is supposed to have performed his first miracle, that’s in Israel & its inhabitants are Israeli citizens.

        • Mister Rible

          Anti semites are so stupid, they don’t’ even research their own accusations. They just hope everybody will swallow antisemitic propaganda, the way they do.

          • jack

            What have I said or implied that was “anti-semitic”? God, you’re just as moronic as the idiots who scream “Islamophobe” at anything that could make Islam out to be negative.

          • Mister Rible

            Hm, so had Hezbollah not STARTED shelling Israeli towns, I guess Qana would still be intact.

            same as before then.

          • jack

            Erm… Israel launched rockets at some South Lebanese workers in 1996 before Operation Grapes of Wrath was launched (and before Hezbollah fired missiles)… and seeing as Israel had its soldiers actually stationed in Southern Lebanon from 1982 onwards (until they withdrew in 2000), do you just expect the South Lebanese people to sit there and let a foreign army control their land and await annexation?

            Doesn’t matter if you don’t respond, I’ve pretty much just destroyed your entire argument. Fool.

          • Infidelissima

            everybody here knows how to use google, you liar

          • Ed  

            In some cases, they’re right. Exhibit a: the BBC.

        • jack

          No.

          It’s in Southern Lebanon. Even though Biblical Jesus never existed, Qana still stands as an important place of interest with significant religious attachment.

          Just to ask, if Israel shells sites revered by Christians in the Middle East, is that ok in your books? Can the infallible state of Israel do no wrong?

          • Damaris Tighe

            I don’t believe Israel is infallible & I’m very critical of it’s government’s policies over the last few years. I would be critical of Israel shelling any revered Christian site if there was an alternative. Btw, IS’s destruction of historic sites is gratuitous, there’s no defensive justification.

            There’s more than one Qana. The biblical one is still spelt Cana & is a village in lower Galilee.

          • jack

            Cana is the same as Qana. Israel at first denied spying on the UN Compound it shelled (which killed over 100 Lebanese civilians). Video evidence later showed that Israel had prior knowledge, and they admitted to this. Although death count alone isn’t the best way to determine who is right or wrong, incidents like this are useful in determining the ultimate motives of a group.

            When asked who do I support; Israel or Palestine? I say none. If I were a British soldier in the King David Hotel after it was blown up by a Zionist militia group, I would have a pretty negative view of the future state of Israel, seeing as Britain helped establish the territory for Jews.

            No doubt is Israel a better place to live than many of the countries near it, but its population? Granted, I haven’t been to Israel but from information I have read and watched, the Israeli population seems incredibly insular. Israel would be the best place to live in the Middle East for security and financial reasons, but go to Lebanon or Jordan and you’ll find populations who are less insular.

            Yes, the destruction of items of archaeological significance such as those mentioned in this article, is indefensible. If you click my avatar, you will find my opinions on a range of issues like this, of which I am sure you will agree.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Jack, I know Cana is the same as Qana. What I’m saying is that the one spelt with a C is the Christian site & is in Israel. The Qana that you’re talking about is in Lebanon. It’s not the Christian site you’re talking about.

          • jack

            Qana is regarded as Cana. “Cana” the village of Jesus’ first “miracle” no longer exists as a political entity. Qana, in Southern Lebanon, is generally believed to be where the village was – it makes sense because people generally build near or on old settlements.

          • Damaris Tighe

            It was ‘Cana of Galilee’ & that’s where it still is.

          • Ed  

            There’s more historical evidence for Biblical Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. There’s no historical evidence at all for mohmmad.

          • jack

            Care to show me the actual evidence of Jesus Christ? Or is that just a line that Christians tot out. And actually, Muhammad probably did exist seeing as he has a line to descendants through his uncle. Plus an organised empire (Caliphate) was formed as a result of his campaigns in the Arabian Peninsula.

            As for Jesus Christ, If you look at the Egyptian God Horous there are some very interesting similarities. Both were born around 21-25th December, both were born from “virgins”, both had a threat of death during infancy, both were baptized at 30 and both baptizers were beheaded. Seeing as ALL the accounts of Jesus, both Christian and non-Christian were written after Jesus existed, his existence is called into question.

            The Romans faced a brutal rebellion from the Jews in 66AD, by forging the idea of a pacifist Jewish messiah for the Jews who called on everyone to “turn the other cheek” and “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”… it seems quite likely, especially with the similarities to Horus, that biblical Jesus NEVER existed.

            Like the person below, you have no need to reply because you’re assertion of Jesus’ existence has just been destroyed.

          • Ed  

            Well, the four books of the New Testament count as historical documents, for a start. The koran doesn’t. Don’t start about decendants; there are people who claim to decend from Jesus too, although He had no children. If there’s anyone today setting himself up as a caliph, the sheer use of that word should earn him a droning.

          • jack

            None of the gospels are first hand accounts, all of them were written years after the crucifixion of “Jesus”.

            The first non-Christian mention of Jesus in history was around 93AD, the historian was called Josephus. He wrote this years after the Jewish rebellion was crushed by Rome and the myth of Jesus promulgated.

            Again, there is NO first hand evidence and NO physical evidence of Jesus’ existence.

            I do ask though, please name me a “descendant” of Jesus.

          • Ed  

            We’re all already members of the family of God……

          • jack

            I added more to my previous response, do read it and answer it if you can.

            Much appreciated.

            Care to prove that we are “members of the family of God”?

          • Ed  

            Prove that we are all members of the family of God? Well, for a start, you’re here.

          • DVult

            Isn’t there also a birth myth story involving a lost baby floating down the river in a reed basket which was attached to some Egyptian deity prior to Moses? It looks like many of the stories in the Old Testament may have been collected and modified from more ancient sources. That actually makes them even more interesting because they may be very, very old stories passed down orally originally. This would mean that they would have been hammered into shape by the telling and retelling and therefore conform in some manner to the human psyche. They may also in some cases refer to some ancient historical event.

          • Bruce Lewis

            For the Biblical Jesus, the emphasis is on the word “Biblical.” “Yeshua al-Nazroti” (or something like that) definitely DID exist, because his name is mentioned in the works of objective contemporaries, like Josephus. However, the “Biblical Jesus,” invented by Saul (Paul) of Tarsus and the synoptics, is questionable. There is more evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar than there is of the “Biblical Jesus” or the Koranic Muhammed, because the historical figure wrote his “Commentaries” and many, many Roman laws.

          • jack

            No, no contemporary EVER wrote of the existence of Jesus. As I stated, there are no first hand accounts of Jesus or any variation of his name. Josephus wasn’t a contemporary, he was born four years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus.

            And actually there is far more evidence for the existence of Muhammad than Jesus, after all a legal system and the Constitution of Medina are both attributed to him and he is said to have created the first Islamic state, of which many followed. Many of the battles he led, like his eventual occupation of Mecca are noted down. Although of course there are doubts to his existence as there is with any near-ancient historical figure, the Qur’an for example was not compiled together until after his death.

            But does Muhammad’s existence prove Islam to be right? No of course not. Joseph Smith was a real man, a convicted liar actually. But his existence doesn’t prove Mormonism to be true. If Jesus never existed then that disproves both Christianity and Islam, as in both he is a central figure.

      • Dogsnob

        What artefacts were purposely destroyed at Qana? Oh and the rocket lobbing always, always starts in the one direction.

        • jack

          Rocket lobbying starts in one direction? So the South Lebanese should have just accepted the occupation of their land by a foreign army?

          I can’t tell you if any artifacts were purposely destroyed, how would I know? No reports seem to have been published on this. But the UN Compound containing eight hundred civilians was purposely targeted by the IDF, even though they at first lied about spying on it (video evidence proved they were spying on it and that the attack was deliberate).

          These are well known facts. You can accept them if you want.

          • Dogsnob

            South Lebanon was a platform for Hez attacks (rocket lobbing again). You don’t want your land to be a buffer zone then don’t make it a war zone.
            My question about the artefacts was rhetorical, ‘how would I know’ indeed: what matters is, the artefact destruction by ISIS is part of the same ages-old strategy of snuffing out any history of any other civilisation other than that of the ‘Religion of Peace’ (irony inescapable)
            This attack on ‘civilians’: is it seconds? or minutes that it takes for a ‘fighter’ to become a civilian after he decides to drop his gun?

          • jack

            Hezbollah was created in 1985.

            Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to target Palestinian fighters. They did not leave South Lebanon until 2000 when Hezbollah pushed them out long after the Palestinian threat had gone.

            The UN Investigation found they were civilians. If you have any evidence proving otherwise, you should send them a report.

            Either concede defeat or refute my points. I’ll take a no response as you conceding defeat.

          • Dogsnob

            They may have decided to call themselves Hez’ in 85 but the same people were involved in attacks long before. You yourself refer to them as ‘Palestinian fighters’. As such, they are Israel’s enemy and so what do you expect an enemy to do?
            As for the Palestinian threat subsiding, you know that it didn’t, because it still hasn’t.
            The UN investigation is made up of people as naive as you if they believe someone is a civilian just because they declare themselves as such. Or perhaps you don’t believe it at all, but expect others to just accept your word.

            Still no recognition from you about the planned destruction of historical artefacts as part of the process of elimination?

          • jack

            After the PLO was expelled from Jordan in 1971 after Black September, they fled to Lebanon to establish a base. Due to the growing Palestinian refugee problem within Lebanon, the arrival of the PLO escalated tensions between the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

            Using Lebanon as a base of attack, the PLO and Palestinian fighters kept attacking Israel but they also moved against the Lebanese government. Hezbollah and no group defending Shii’te Muslims had yet formed. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO, it failed. It continued the occupation, killed Lebanese Shii’te Muslims who had nothing to do with the PLO, Israel allied itself with the South Lebanese Army militia (Maronite) which targeted Shii’te Muslims and stayed in Lebanon until 2000.

            Why is it that you allow Israel to attack its enemies, but groups in Lebanon aren’t allowed to do that back? Again, please answer this question, if you were in South Lebanon would you have backed the Israeli occupation of your land?

          • Dogsnob

            Why do you keep supplying information which I already know?
            In fact, can we stop messing around and get to the real business here, by my asking a simple question? I fully support the permanent establishment of the Israeli State. Would I be right in surmising that you want to see it done away with?

          • jack

            You didn’t answer my question.

            I will answer yours if you answer mine. If you were in South Lebanon would you have backed the seemingly never-ending Israeli occupation of your land?

          • Dogsnob

            If I were in South Lebanon, I would understand that the only reason for any occupation was the need for Israel to protect itself and that once any such aggression was ended and assurances given, the end of any occupation would follow.

          • jack

            What utter nonsense.

            You would PERMIT, willfully permit, the military occupation of your country, the bombing of your lands, the disproportionate killing of your people by a state which hadn’t existed for thousands of years, but came back out of the blue thirty years earlier, to which you [probably] would have opposed its creation?

            As for a matter of fact, I do not oppose Israel. I never have. I treat it like EVERY OTHER state, unlike the lunatics who call for its destruction and the morons who give it undue infallibility. I sense you are one of them, especially with your answer.

          • Dogsnob

            Maybe not the sense you like to hear?
            You who ‘do not oppose Israel’? Yeah right, just as long as it doesn’t have any right to defend itself. Such an Israel would be lucky to last 36 hours.
            Nice try jack, but survival is tough when they’re vowed to annihilate you, so you can either bow out or fight.

          • jack

            “rights this, rights that”. That’s just liberal gibberish.

            I have no reason to oppose Israel, does it have a “right” to defend itself? Yes. Why not? I have no truck in this fight, Israel is a religious state, as are many of the other countries in the Middle East. I think it’s hypocritical though that an atheist, David Ben Gourin, wanted to establish a Jewish state though (along the Biblical lines). Can you not see this hypocrisy?

            So who is vowed to destroy Israel? Saudi Arabia? No. Jordan? No. Egypt? No. Syria? No. Lebanon? No. Egypt and Lebanon both recognize Israel, as does Turkey. In fact, Israel wanted to annihilate the PLO and actively tried to do so. Just now “Bibi” has declared that the “Two state solution” is over and that there won’t be a separate Palestinian state. The two state solution was an impossible idea to achieve anyway, but a public pronouncement shows that he doesn’t want peace, but settlement expansion.

            I was once like you, I once dogmatically gave Israel a position of infallibility. But please learn about the King David Hotel bombing, not very grateful to the UK colonial authorities. And for a foreign leader to come into the US Congress and attack the President openly, even though the President didn’t want him there due to standard protocol shows you just how much respect that country has for its “friends”.

            So Israel has to keep expanding? What do you think of its settlement expansion? Imagine if a bunch of Celts came to Britain, citing that they should have this land because it was theirs 1,500 years ago. Now imagine if a foreign power far away gave them weapons and money to achieve this. Would you just accept that?

          • Dogsnob

            You’re rambling now and stumbling on your own dishonesty.
            ‘I was once like you’? Were you indeed?

          • jack

            Example please?

            You failed to answer the questions in the final paragraph.

            Seems like you should concede defeat.

          • Dogsnob

            Your whole premise, here and in previous remarks, is one of deeply entrenched antagonism toward the very existence of Israel. Upon being asked the simple question regarding your stance on this, you come up with weasel words describing your fair mindedness toward the state.
            Seems like you should apply a little restraint until your ideas on the matter are fully formed. In fact, until you have grown up a bit.

          • jack

            I asked you what you thought of Israel’s settlement expansion and if, lets say Celts came to Britain and demanded that they have a Celtic state because 1,500 years ago they did, and a foreign power far away supplied them with arms and cash to achieve this, would you just say as a non-Celt… “ok then fair is fair”?

            You’re evasion of this important question is for everyone to see. You have now not answered it twice. Third time lucky?

            You demand I grow up and show “restraint”? How pathetic, you cannot even argue your points so you’re reduced to ad homenim attacks. I produced no “weasel words” about my stance on Israel, my position on it is pretty clear. Either you should concede defeat or just admit that you support Israel in whatever it does, no matter what happens to anyone else, at least then that’s a more honest opinion.

          • Dogsnob

            jack, firstly, I am a Celt. We are here where I live and have been all along and so, I hope you can see why your question is a dud from the start.

            You see this world is not as simple as you think it is, but as I say, you have time to find this.

            Not for the first time you claim that my stance on Israel is that I consider it beyond reproach, infallible. In truth, I am of the belief that no state should be granted such status because they all fall short, some moreso than others.

            The big picture is one of a minuscule Israel, surrounded by a burgeoning and highly aggressive coalition of states who subscribe to the tenet that Israel should not exist and who, if it were not for constant vigilance and the deployment in strength of military force, would overrun it to exact extreme violence on its people.

            The ‘expansion’ you refer to amounts to a few housing projects to serve its population’s needs and within its own borders. You want to see real expansion and displacement, then visit the major cities of Europe, see what’s taking place there.

          • jack

            No the question isn’t a “dud” from the start. After the Roman, Saxon and Norman conquests of England, “pure blood” lines of Celts have largely vanished in Britain.

            Please tell me something then that Israel has done wrong. You seem to be able to criticse the Arab states, but I have seen no criticism of Israel from you.

            A “minuscule” Israel? Hmmm lets see for a moment. It’s allied with the Egyptian government and Lebanon, it has full diplomatic relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, it has a series of treaties with Jordan with its King seeing it as a key regional ally, both Israel and Saudi Arabia work together on issues concerning Iran and the sale of weaponry to Saudi Arabia from Germany was approved by Israel. Throw in Israel’s alliance with the United States, it’s nuclear weapons and its state-of-the start military and defence, it seems like your claim that Israel is “minuscule” seems to fall on its head, along with your claim that the states around it think that “Israel should not exist”.

            A “few” housing projects. how about at least over 700,000 settlers? These are the estimates of the Israeli government and it’s over 17% of the Palestinian population. The expansion has been condemned by the United States and the European Union.

            Again, you give Israel a free hand. At least admit it, coward.

          • Dogsnob

            Celts here and strong, don’t worry.
            Not for me to give Israel a free hand, I just call it as I see it and Israel is a minuscule place, the ‘alliances’ you refer to are specious and amount to nothing in terms of security. The states around it have attacked in the past in attempts to wipe it out, and they will return.
            The settlers are all legitimate.

    • Cobbett

      E Jerusalem is Arabic. That’s Palestinian.

      • Infidelissima

        ah, I guess the rockets are fine then…

        • Cobbett

          You talking about the world’s largest concentration camp otherwise known as Gaza – resistance to occupation is no crime.

  • Vinnie

    After you Simon!

    Bloody guardian journalists safe from behind their towers in EC1

    • MikeF

      They are not as safe as they think – just see how they react when they come to realise that.

  • Ahibar

    Very wise article and very à propos to place the destruction of monuments and art in its context. Nimrod was respected by Muslims for centuries. This ISIS claims to be Muslim but there are pure murderers, vandals.They do no even have any purpose destroying that.

    • Callipygian

      To the contrary: it is a profoundly stupid article.

      • Ed  

        He explains; you don’t. Ahibar 1, Callipygian 0.

  • Eric

    For the record, explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

  • whs1954

    “Yes, Isis is awful. But we started this one.”

    No, no we didn’t. Fascist, nihilistic, Islamism has its roots 1400 years in the past. Blair and Bush didn’t conjure it up, like a genie out of a bottle.

    Ironically enough, it is left wingers like Simon Jenkins who commit the worst kind of racism in reducing 1 billion Muslims into no more than 1 billion little children with absolutely no moral agency, who only commit atrocities because the big bad West made them.

  • Vinnie

    Only when the statues are destroyed do the lefty Graun readers and columnists sit up and take notice, they really are a f*cking horrible bunch of people.

  • Coffee Fiend

    To be honest, Obama seems a bit detached from the serious nature of the ISIS threat.

  • grutchyngfysch

    “We saw eliminating an enemy’s heritage and culture as justifiable revenge [at Dresden] — as Harris’s apologists still do”

    I’m certainly not a Harris apologist, but in many ways this quote underlines the fundamental perception problem at the root of this article. Harris didn’t set out to destroy architecture, he set out to kill, en masse, a civilian population as a means of instilling terror in wider Nazi Germany and (so he thought) impact on its war production.

    People, Mr Jenkins, people. That’s who the targets were in the bombing campaigns, that’s who ISIS’ targets are now. If they are moving onto a programme of destroying statues – however feted – it is because they have run out of people to butcher whilst merrily singing to their demonic deity.

    The destruction of historic sites *is* outrageous, but I would give every item in the British Museum up for destruction if it were possible to do so and save the lives of the innocents now living in the shadow of ISIS.

    I get the sense from this article, that there would be an acceptable number of people to you who could be “lost” in order to preserve the rubble. Which really, when you think about it, doesn’t make you enormously different from “Bomber” Harris.

    • carl jacobs

      Grutch

      Dresden was a legitimate target destroyed for legitimate reasons. It was a major transportation center standing in the way of the Russian advance. And it was the principle remaining hub through which German forces would have escaped into the Southern mountains for a protracted last stand. The raid was not just a terror raid designed to break the German will. The target of the raid was most certainly not people.

      • Ed  

        Dresden was destroyed because the war against the Nazis was tooth and nail, life and death. In the greater good of putting a stop to the Nazis, pretty much anything was fair game. After all, immumerable atrocities were fair game to them. The end of stopping them justified pretty much any means. That’s not a general principle, but they were so exceptionally evil that in their case pretty much anything was justified.

    • Ed  

      I find it a bit hard to criticize Harris, not having spent five years with the Nazis at my throat. We don’t know what it was like. I believe Dresden was not a war crime. Putting the leaders of a free democracy in such a position that they even consider things like 1,000 bomber raids, city-sized firestorms, and the use of nuclear weapons? Now that’s a war crime.

  • mikewaller

    What a mind-blowingly stupid piece of writing! In WW2 up until the appearance of the Norton bomb-sight, the bomb-aiming was so poor that strategic/carpet bombing was the only option if pressure was to be taken off the Soviet armies before a terrestrial second front became a practical possibility. The destruction of irreplaceable works of art was a very, very unfortunate consequence of this, not an explicit objective. With Isil, the position is the polar reverse.

    As to why Britain and America have not signed the convention, the answer is obvious. Subject again to the same existential threat, works of art held by an enemy would, again, inevitably be at risk. For example, if he had the power to do so, would Jenkins “spare” a Russian nuclear missile silo in the vicinity of the Hermitage? Were that the case, that is exactly where Mr Putin would put one. And that leads into another reason why we have not signed were other nations have. The Anglo-Saxon tradition is to stand by treaties. Some other countries (e.g. Russian in respect of The Crimea) have no compunction whatsoever in ignoring them.

    One final point, although the post-victory planning in Iraqi was shameful, previous experience in removing dictators had been very good, as in Japan and Germany. My guess is that, prior to events, some general proposition that the Arabs simply were not up to the challenge would have been howled down as racist by the very liberals who now insist that removing that appallingly cruel man was an unforgivable sin. Is it any wonder that liberals tend to piss ordinary people off!

    • carl jacobs

      To develop the point, the post-victory planning in Iraq was shameful because no one in the US gov’t had the responsibility for the mission. More to the point, no one wanted the responsibility for the mission. It was handed to the military by default because the mission required security and the military had the required big stick. But it couldn’t go to the book shelf and pull down its well-developed doctrine of “Re-creating a non-western culture into a western nation.” The rational way to handle Iraq would have been to keep its military largely intact and hand rule over to an Iraqi General as soon as possible. But how would that have been received at the time?

      There is a great deal of willful blindness being employed in regard to Iraq and the Middle East. People forget what would have been and focus on what is happening now. They didn’t have answers then but they don’t like how things have turned out. So they say “You should have done something different then so that things would be better now.” They simply wish there had been a solution that made all outcomes safe for western Liberal consumption. But there wasn’t.

      • mikewaller

        There was a precedent for using the Iraqi military as you suggest. My recollection is the Mountbatten used Japanese troops thus after the Japanese surrender, at several locations. However, I think he got a lot of flak for that from the US!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • carl jacobs

          It’s interesting that some people are suddenly saying Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. They forget what he was like. They forget why he was removed. And if he was still in power they would be complaining about his actions, and asking “Why doesn’t someone (*cough* America *cough*) do something about Hussein?” Perhaps the West could sprinkle pixie dust on the Middle East and make everything all better. That seems to be the only type of foreign policy that many would find acceptable.

          • Paul S HK

            Nonsense. Fewp eople were saying remove him until PNAC got its claws into GWB, who had always felt pretty negative about Saddam on account of the plot to kill his dad. Fair enough to get annoyed about that; but the effect of listening to the likes of Wolfowitz and not to the sounder minds around has been disastrous for the region and for America’s credibility. It also seriously distracted the US from completing the mission in Afghanistan successfully.

        • Ed  

          The moment Germany surrendered, Monty began stockpiling German weapons, in case the Germans had to be re-armed against Red Army action across the Oder. The only reason he didn’t have to do that was Truman gently warned Stalin any action would be met with nukes.

      • Paul S HK

        Difficult if a poster ignores the facts in almost every line.
        To take two of CJ’s points.
        1. Colin Powell affirms, and historians agree, that the State Department had a fully developed plan for post war Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld took over the postwar execution and insisted on dumping all State’s ideas. It was not by default.
        2. Only a deluded person such as Tony Blair could believe Iraq would not now be a better place if the invasion had not taken place. Iraq was secular. Iran’s biggest enemy and a functional state with sewerage electricity education,&mc, which did not harbour terrorists. The war was not needed, was based on a set of lies, and utterly counterproductive, as all who are not blind can clearly see today.

        • carl jacobs

          You mean the plan of which Colin Powell said:

          “According to plans being confidently put forward, Iraq was expected to somehow transform itself into a stable country with democratic leaders 90 days after we took Baghdad. I believed such hopes were unrealistic.”

          Of course they had a post-war plan. And a great plan they had there, wasn’t it. A 90-day time-table bespeaks long careful planning and deep knowledge of the task. It’s not like they said “So since we are going to fight this war, I suppose we should come up with a plan for afterwords.” The truth is that no one in the American Gov’t knows anything about this kind of task. Our experience is WWII where we dealt with two thoroughly defeated and exhausted enemies. That was never the case in Iraq.

          But I wasn’t talking about writing a bunch of position papers in Washington DC. I was talking about responsibility for the mission. Who was responsible for planning this task 20 years ago? Who was responsible to execute that well-developed plan today? The State Dept doesn’t have a police force. The UN couldn’t manage responsibility for a drinking fountain. The FCO wasn’t much interested. Who did that leave? Nation-building is not task the military desires. It is not constructed for such a task, and is both functionally and psychologically unfit to perform it. But there was no one else with the power to do it.

          And when I say “Give Iraq to a General” I mean “Run it like a dictator.” I don’t mean “Make a constitutional democracy.”

          The war was fought to mitigate the risk of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. The lesson Hussein derived from the First Gulf War was that he should have waited until he had nuclear weapons, because then he would have been invulnerable. His goal was to become a nuclear hegemon in the Middle East, and it would have been a geo-strategic disaster for the US if that had happened. It would have threatened Israeli military supremacy. It would have given Hussein great leverage over the world economy through control of oil. It probably would have required permanent American troop deployments to the Gulf. It could have led to a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iraq. To mitigate a nuclear risk, you must act before the risk is realized.

          Now, is Iraq better off today? It doesn’t matter. The war wasn’t fought to make Iraq a better place. It was fought to remove a strategic threat to the US, and the surrounding region. The badly-handled post-war period does not retro-actively invalidate the necessity of the war. The war is validated by the absence of consequences that would otherwise have been realized. And those consequences would have been much more severe than anything we face today.

          • Ed  

            When the US invaded Iraq I said they should form a focus group of 90-year-old Brits and ask them how to run a colony. Anathema to Americans, that. They didn’t follow that advice, and they damn near blew it, until the surge. Now, of course, Obama’s blown it by pulling the troops out too soon. How would West Germany have gone if we’d pulled out the troops in 1947? Facepalm.

          • Paul S HK

            No, I mean the work originally done by the State department, that was canned/ignored when Rumsfeld successfully took over the planning for post-war Iraq. That was the disaster. See for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/world/struggle-for-iraq-planning-state-dept-study-foresaw-trouble-now-plaguing-iraq.html

            The guys who so wanted war that they beleiveed their own nonsens on post war affairs. Madmen like Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Fieth. The brainy but unutterably dumb neocons.It was quite clear the responsibility was Rumsfeld’s and the Department of Defence. He wanted it. He didn’t want State to have it, and he persuaded bush to give it to him. He was the man in charge, under Bush43 …

            And no, the aim was not to protect anyone from the threat of a nuclear Iraq, which the security services all said was not a threat (apart from the DoD’s nutters under Feith who dissimulated on the Niger yellowcake), as did Hans Blix. The aim was regime change, as set out in many docs, including the NSA archive. See for example here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/print.htm .

            Carl, I’m afraid you must deal in facts, not fantasies or unsubstantiated fears to assess national policy errors. Iraq was a gigantic one, in conception and in execution..

          • carl jacobs

            So let’s start here.

            Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy.

            When an organization is tasked with a mission, certain things come along with the tasking: people, resources, money. The organization learns how to do the task, writes plans, creates its infrastructure, trains its people, practices, and gets evaluated. That way they will know what to do if they every have to do it for real. Now, what organization in the US has the ‘X’ on its forehead to perform the task of ‘nation-building?’ What organization has the ready plans, infrastructure, and trained personnel to perform the mission when directed? The answer is “There isn’t one.” And that’s why the above quote from your article is important. Specifically that phrase “Beginning in April 2002…”

            So that State Dept had a plan. If only the State Dept had the US Nation-Building Corps in its direct chain of authority. Then things might have gone its way. But the State Dept doesn’t actually have any boots. It had a plan. Well, an ad hoc plan. And who do you think it was tasking in this ad hoc plan? The US military. To whom does the US military report? To the SECDEF. It doesn’t take any imagination to understand how this would play out.

            The military doesn’t want this mission. It wants to conquer and go home. If there was such a thing as a USNBC, the military would gladly had over control and return back home. But if this mission of nation-building is forced upon the military, then it will demand operational control. It will not submit itself to (perceived) chuckle-heads in State who don’t know a trench from a latrine. State’s plan is going to say “Do this. Don’t do that. Take these risks.” And the operational commanders are going to say “No, I don’t like that plan.” They have the power of command. They will do what they want according to their own operation assessments. SECDEF will support them. The President could have enforced it by firing Rumsfeld. But that would have been a difficult thing to do since, the military is on the ground carrying out the mission. “We are here. They are not.” is a powerful argument.

            What Rumsfeld did simply tells me that DoD never agreed to State’s plan and decided to simply change once had control in Iraq. Command is a powerful lever. And people who hold operational responsibility will want operational control. This shocks me not at all. In fact it should have been expected. There is no way State was going to direct the military how to run post-war Iraq.

            It comes back to who has the tasking. There was no assigned responsibility and so DoD felt no need to defer to State when it was military personnel carrying out the mission and carrying forward the risk. A commander who holds the lives of his people in his hands will want freedom to act in order to protect those people.

          • Paul S HK

            I don’t disagree with you.
            My point was that Rumsfeld insisted it had to be with DoD and didn’t want Powell near the post-war effort.
            State was preparing.
            DoD got control.
            State’s planning was thrown out.
            The Army didn’t want the job of running a country; not what they do, i agree (hence the idea State might have been batter at it than DoD).
            Bremer was put in.
            Along with a bunch of almost adolescent Republican interns.
            The PNAC crowd believed it would all go swimmingly, paid for by Iraq oil (forget it that their fantasies were disbelieved by anyone with knowledge of (a) the Middle East (b) the complexities of nation-building).
            Bush 43 was persuaded by Cheney/Rumsfeld all would be well.
            The result was a total F-up.
            Bush at the top.
            Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice underneath; Powell pushed to one side.
            How not to do it.
            But it strikes me that responsibility for all this is clearly assignable.
            Down the line: Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Bremer and then a bunch of nutters who had beliefs that were out of line with reality (Wolfowitz, Feith, &c).
            It’s not as if experts didn’t warn people. They were just ignored.
            Same in the UK (my country), where at least the experts got closer to power and could deliver the message, even if Blair didn’t want to listen.

          • carl jacobs

            You seem to think that if only State had gotten its way, things would have gone swimmingly. In fact, we would be talking about all the problems that State didn’t anticipate, and how the Pentagon foresaw all of these problems. The post-war operation was doomed from the start because the US didn’t know what it was doing. It was forced to use an instrument – the military – that had absolutely no idea what to do, but demanded operational control because of the risks involved. A combat unit is the worst possible choice for this mission. All the things that make a combat unit effective will make that same unit terribly ineffective when executing a Stability Op mission.

            So, yes, it was a complete F-up. That’s what happens when you put organizations into situations like this. The US is not an Imperial power. We have no history of colonization. We have naive cultural expectations about the end of a war that are driven by our experiences at the end of WWII. So now we have learned something in Iraq. The Army even has a manual about Stability Operations. But we’ll see if the Army ever truly embraces that role. It actually requires a new command structure dedicated to that role, and serious work on figuring out how to employ it. We’ll see.

          • Paul S HK

            Well… I agree 100%.
            We seem to be on the same side, in terms of perspective on this.
            But as a Brit, all of what you say is so obvious, I really thought you were an apologist for the mess.
            Sorry.

          • carl jacobs

            I separate the war from the post-war. The war was necessary. The post-war was inevitable. It’s the problem of democracy and war. By the time the military started making effective changes, the public was losing the will to sustain the effort. Then the market crashed, and Obama was elected … and everything fell apart.

          • Paul S HK

            So we are on opposing sides.
            The war was not only unnecessary, it was ignorant, stupid and counterproductive.
            The preparation was unnecessarily incompetent.
            And the follow-up was consequently a total f-up.
            So what was sensible about the whole affair? Saddam hanged but a disaster in his place.
            And democracy traduced by the lies used to get the consent of Congress…

          • carl jacobs

            In the absence of a potential nuclear threat, I would agree the war was unnecessary. But I do not accept the absence of a potential nuclear threat. You do comprehend just how dangerous that situation would have been, don’t you?

          • Paul S HK

            I do.
            But it was an hypothesis, not a situation.
            An illusion. A deception. A lie.
            There was not a shred of evidence there was such a threat.
            Lots of evidence there was no such threat.
            The waste of money, the loss of focus on real threats, and the serious damage to the credibility of those who protect us from real threats was profound.

          • carl jacobs

            The consequence of realizing the risk determines the urgency in mitigating the risk. Some risks can be safely ignored. Others cannot. Decisions of war and peace are never made with perfect information. You make judgments based upon available information and you proceed. The question becomes “How far along are the Iraqis? When will they achieve their goal?” You can say “It was all illusion” but that was not the opinion of the US Gov’t in 2002. The risk was considered real, and the opportunity for addressing it was available. If the risk is considered real, the probability of occurrence is considered high, and the consequences considered disastrous, then you act to mitigate the risk. All of those conditions were true. The decision was correct regardless of the outcome.

            Now I suppose you could decide the entire thing was a fabrication by the US Gov’t. But then you have to explain to me the purpose of the war. Arm-waving about Neo-Con ideology is not going to cut it. That isn’t how decisions of war and peace are made. Wars are fought in response to a perceived threat. What was the perceived threat?

          • Paul S HK

            The risk was not considered real. All the experts said there was no risk. The level of sanctions was very high, and there was no evidence – I nearly said there was no material evidence – but really there was no evidence of risk, apart from the concocted Niger yellowcake story, which was known to be false before the war, and various bald but unsupported assertions by Dick Cheney.

          • carl jacobs

            The links were interesting but they didn’t seem to touch on what I wrote. I’m not sure why you think regime change is somehow exclusive to nuclear risk mitigation. I understand the purpose of the war was regime change. The question is “Why Iraq of all the nations in the world?” The answer is the combination of Iraq’s potential power with nukes, its central location in the Middle East oil fields, and Saddam’s volatility as a national leader. A nuclear-armed Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have been a disaster. He had already started two regional wars, and he hadn’t been in power 15 years. The prospect of an unpredictable Saddam armed with nuclear weapons was incredibly dangerous. There was a reason the Israelis popped Osirak.

            The North Koreans have nuclear weapons and no one cares because they can’t do anything with them. They exist only to secure the regime from outside interference. That wasn’t the case with Iraq. My source for saying that Iraq was a war of nuclear risk-mitigation is Vice President Cheney. He is the one who used the expression. You can say he is lying or self-deceived, but somehow I don’t think so.

          • Paul S HK

            I agree they’re not mutually exclusive. But to spend a trillion dollars and destroy stability in a country core to a secular counterbalance to religion in the middle east – Iran’s main opponent at that – when there was not a shred of evidence apart from cooked up nonsense like the yellowcake story that Iraq had any capability seems a bit of an overreaction, and in fact highly counterproductive.
            You’re tilting at windmills if you think Iraq was a nuclear danger and the the money/destruction/instability was justified by a non-existent threat.
            And the inspectors (assuming you believed them, which I guess you didn’t) had made clear there was no nuclear program…
            And Cheney’s deceptions are well proven… I don’t think his ideas prove anything except the man was capable of any exaggeration and deceit to get the outcome he wanted -which was a war.

          • carl jacobs

            the balance of power in the Middle East. You’re tilting at windmills if you think Iraq was a nuclear danger

            The tense is wrong. The question was “When will Iraq under Saddam become a nuclear danger?” Because if he ever got control of such weapons, he would have radically recast the balance of power in the Middle East. And who would have been expected to deal with it? It is a given that he was seeking them. So if the US perceived the danger of a nuclear-armed Iraq was inevitable – and it did – then the question becomes “What do we do about it now before the fact?” It’s too late to do anything after he has them. So what must be done now to prevent the outcome? The answer did not involve the inspection regimes of that International Debating Club and Curling League called the UN.

            That question – “What do we do about it now before the fact?” – was the question that framed the entire war. The US didn’t send its military half-way around the world to implement some neocon vision of a new American Empire. There were real tangible interests at stake. The origin of the war occurred when Hussein invaded Kuwait and implicitly threatened to become the Middle East hegemon. The US didn’t liberate Kuwait because it cared about Kuwait. It liberated Kuwait because Iraq threatened the US by conquering Kuwait. If Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, that threat would have been magnified seventy times seven. It would have threatened US political & economic interests. Threatened an important ally in Israel. Raised the prospect of a nuclear war in the Middle East because Hussein was just crazy enough to use them. That’s why GWB went to war.

            And he was right to do so.

          • Bruce Lewis

            But why didn’t America just arrest Saddam Hussein and leave with him in tow, for trial in the Hague? You actually KNOW the answer, but won’t say it: the reason is that he was America’s proxy in the Iran-Iraq War and knew too much about what the Americans did to promote that war that cost a million their lives on both sides. He also knew that the AMERICANS had helped get him started in his acquisition of “weapons of mass destruction.” The Iraq War, as fought, will have turned out to be as great a disaster for the West as the scenario you are describing.

          • carl jacobs

            Are you one of those people who believe that 911 was a CIA/Mossad plot as well?

    • Paul S HK

      Previous experience of removing dictators was very good…
      Hmm. Pretty dumb observation.
      They attacked us so we needed to get rid of them.
      But I wouldn’t say tens of millions dead, Germany totally devastated and Japan the first country to be struck by nuclear bombs counts as a ‘very good experience’.
      In any event those wars were not wars of choice to remove a dictator, as I recall my history.

      • Ed  

        I think some of us are mixing up “good” and “necessary”. “Good” would have been to listen to Churchill in the first half of the 1930s. Because we didn’t, we ended up with a sickbagfull of “necessary”.

        ……. and here we are again. Bleagh.

        • Paul S HK

          It was indeed necessary, and we should have listened to Churchill… but Mike Waller said the experience was good, which I took to mean effective not that it was necessary. I was just noting the collateral damage.
          And really, Ed, ISIS is not Hitler. Hitler had taken control of Europe’s scientific and industrial powerhouse and largest nation … not quite a few strips of land in the desert and opposition to all things modern that marks out ISIS …

          • Ed  

            No, ISIS isn’t Hitler. Hitler wasn’t the Kaiser. The Kaiser wasn’t Bismarck. Bismarck wasn’t Napoleon, and Napoleon wasn’t Louis XIV. Each generation’s threat is different from the one before. That doesn’t mean they’re not real threats, and shouldn’t be addressed. Don’t try to say Chamberlain was wrong last time, but we should behave like him this time, because “this time’s different”. That doesn’t cut it.

          • Cobbett

            Oh yeah – what are you doing then?

          • Ed  

            Well, for a start, they seem to be trying to use humiliation as a tool, so I’m calling them jihidiots and using shi’ite as a swear word, for a start. I’m supporting politicians who are getting it right, like Abbott and Harper. That sort of thing. How about you?

          • Callipygian

            Well, your new friend Paul plus consonants is not on your side or mine. He thinks that Saddam’s torture chambers should have been left just as they were, and his moral compass is quite awry. He is the barbarian within the gate: make no mistake.

          • Cobbett

            Not bothered about it.

          • Ed  

            Since you asked…..

            That being said, it’s not about bothering you. It’s about bothering them.

          • Cobbett

            F*ck them.

          • Ed  

            ….. and play with their minds.

          • Paul S HK

            They are all different.
            But ISIS is by no means comparable to any of the others.
            A pathetic fragmented insecure territory.
            A total lack of national depth or substance.
            Not a France. Not a Germany.
            None of the scale or capabilities of either of them in either relevant century.
            Not remotely.
            A ragtag bunch of very limited capacity to threaten us.
            In substance NO threat.

          • Ed  

            You and I aren’t reading the same news reports on them, are we?

          • Paul S HK

            Probably we are.
            You panic and get scared.
            I see a bunch of ragheads.
            Faraway.
            With fewer capabilities in the UK than the IRA.
            Neither the moral authority of the Pope.
            Nor the divisions of Hitler’s Wehrmacht.

          • Ed  

            Rotherham, 7/7, 9/11, the Madrid bombing and the Toronto 19 are all far away, are they? Again, I’m not sure you’re using the correct information.

            I live in Ottawa. Nice, quiet, grey little Ottawa. On October 22, I heard the gunshots that killed the War Memorial guard.

            Far away? My stinking foot.

          • Paul S HK

            Tetchy, aren’t we?
            Neither 9/11, 7/7, were not not ISIS.
            Rotherham and Toronto were not threats to society.
            As I said, get a grip.
            Not exactly the stuff of Empire, are you, Ed?
            I was literally 100 yards from the Harrods bombong and heard the Baltic Exchange bomb from where I worked in the City.
            Don’t wimp out, man.
            And on my information, I’m always open to correction.

          • Ed  

            It’s not about panicking, much as you seem riveted by that concept. It’s about making the other bastard die for his country. And we should get on with it. This is the original point, since you seem to have missed it…..

          • Paul S HK

            That depends on whether its cost-effective.
            Iraq wasn’t.
            ISIS is more of a threat than Iraq was, Insofar that Saddam Husein had never threatened us. But ISIS is certainly not a substantial threat to us, despite the noise.
            Why do we need to spend substantial time and money on it?
            We’re doing about right just now.
            Glad to see you’ve given up on comparing an unknown leader of a few fanatics in the middle of the desert to Napoleon.

          • Ed  

            a) I’ve not given up one word. Napoleon was the bad guy, and ISIS are bad guys. There are a number of comparisons.

            b) “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

            You see how it works? The same principle still apply.

            c) Good to see you’ve given up on saying the problem is “far away”.

          • Paul S HK

            That’s not a comparison, that’s a false parallel.
            France existed and as powerful well before Napoleon.
            They’re not coming for you, nor for me anymore than the IRA were for me. They neither know who you are nor would care if they did. You’re probabaly very nice, apart form wanting to attack Muslims generally (do you?).
            They’ll probably implode, but if they don’t, they take a while to gain a state with defined territory and more power than the minimal capacity to project power than they have now.. As they grow, they’ll become more and more vulnerable.
            The problem is far away. I thought we’d established that.
            one person killed every year or two does not make it a present and material problem.
            I’d suggest, as far as the US is concerned (I know Ottawa is not in the US) that domestic gun control would more than ISIS control to reduce the risk of being killed by gunfire in the US: that’s a REAL problem, with real effects there.
            But I suppose it’s a matter of priorities.

          • Ed  

            Facepalm. You yourself have said you’ve seen the violence, but are still blind to the danger.

            Am I after all muslims generally? No. Just the ones that want to kill those of us who don’t submit.

            Go ahead. Continue to feel that way. Those of us who know better will continue to protect you.

          • Paul S HK

            Thanks, but your demonisation of a whole people on account of the actions of a few is precisely what radicalises and led to 7/7…
            Leave me out of your folly.
            But by all means, attack and destroy the 0.001% of Muslims who attack us.
            As we targeted the IRA bombers.

          • Ed  

            Aha. You’re beginning to bark up the right tree. The major remaining issue to debate now is the 0.001% figure. The penetration of extremism into mainstream islam is a matter of significant debate. Let’s look at the Iranian government for a start.

            So apart from this figure, you agree with me.

            As for leaving you out of the “folly”, I don’t think the military only defends those who agree with the policies that send it into action. You’re included in your own defence, even if you disagree. In a free country, that’s the point.

          • Callipygian

            He’s a creep, Ed. Isn’t interested in either facts or humanity.

          • Ivan Ewan

            They’re also HERE.

            And now they’ve got BOKO HARAM. Remember when they said they would have the Levant and North Africa in five years? Oh how we laughed…

          • Paul S HK

            But they have neither the Levant nor North Africa.
            They’re a terrorist group.
            They destroy, they don’t build.
            I was never one to laugh, but certainly never one to fear.
            Where are they, HERE? In CAPS???

          • Ivan Ewan

            London mostly. I’m not sure what your point is about building. Why should they build anything when Qatar and the rest of them keep throwing money their way?

          • Paul S HK

            Poor pathetic Ivan.
            They’re killing thousands where we destroyed Iraqui society, and you’re fretting they may be in London, where they’re not.
            Gutless, scared, and no strategic understanding, if you’ll excuse me for saying so.

          • Ivan Ewan

            No excuses for a liar as yourself. Nothing you have said is true, except about IS killing people.

            If there’s no IS here, why was it so easy to hoist their flag in tower hamlets? Where do these sympathisers come from? How did Anjem Chowderhead declare his alliegance to IS if there’s no IS here? Why are you too chicken-sh!t scared to admit this isn’t just some JV team wearing Lakers colours? You can take your worthless ‘strategic understanding’ and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

          • Paul S HK

            There is no ISIS in London for two reasons.
            First, ISIS is a state, or attempts to be, and is no more here because someone waves a flag or declares allegiance than my supporting Moscow Dynamo brings the team to town.
            Secondly because, if you regard it not as a state but as a terrorist organisation, it’s illegal and the police would have picked up its adherents.
            But in either case, one or two mutters supporting it does not bring ‘it’ here.
            It’s not me who’s scared, it’s you.
            Very scared for some reason.
            But don’t worry. You’re more likely to be in a car crash than a terrorist attack. Especially now the IRA have made peace.

          • Ivan Ewan

            “…it’s illegal and the police would have…”

            Yeah, I think I can see where the problem is.

          • Callipygian

            He’s on the wrong side of things, Ivan. I shouldn’t bother arguing: you won’t get through.

          • carl jacobs

            In this, Paul S HK, we completely agree. ISIS is going to balkanize the area it controls.

          • Paul S HK

            We balkanised it by taking out Saddam Hussein.
            The morons in the PNAC crowd, I mean, by ‘we’.

      • mikewaller

        Always remember the golden rule: “engage brain before hitting keyboard”. War aims are not set in stone at the time of initial engagement. Once it became clear that the Allies would eventually win, regime change became one of their key objectives. That is why they insisted on “unconditional surrender” and put the defeated regimes on trial for their lives. Initially that would have included the Japanese Emperor until MacArthur decided it would be expedient to keep him in play.

        Regarding “a very good experience”, more perceptive readers were clear as to what I meant i.e the countries in question effected a comparatively smooth transition from dictatorships to democracies, something the Arab nations have conspicuously failed to do.

        In future read more closely!

        • Paul S HK

          That’s OK. I know next time you’ll engage brain before writing something so susceptible to misinterpretation by non-perceptive readers.
          But excuse me if I point out that we totally destroyed Germany. That before Hitler Getmany had been a highly advanced civilisation in Europe, and Japan had one of the older and more respected global cultures, that had absorbed elements of westernism from the time of the Meiji emperor, pre 1900. Further, Germans and Japanese regarded themselves as one people/race.
          So the ‘very good experience’ of transforming Germany and Japan could not be extrapolated into Iraq, which had not for centuries been a centre of civilisation, was split into two on religious grounds – three if you consider the Kurds- and, as we had been warned by all actual experts, was ripe for disaster. I say we were warned, I mean mad George and poodle blair.
          So even if your meaning had been clearly expressed, you would still have expressed a fundamentally mistaken analysis of the situation.
          You weren’t alone. George and Tony agreed with you.
          But as events have proved, you were wrong and should have listened to your betters.

          • mikewaller

            Putting you initial nonsense to one side, i don’t disagree with your analysis. But I still find it ironic that folks who want us to interfere across the globe in respect of a range of appalling human rights abuses such as FGM, homophobia, honour killings etc. etc, suddenly became apologists for the psychotic brute, Saddam Hussein. The liberal minded Labour MP, Anne Clywd, who unlike most of the bleeding hearts of the left, had actively involved herself in the the fate of the Marsh Arabs who were suffering terribly under SH, spoke up in favour of invasion. One example she gave was of a pregnant female academic, imprisoned , tortured and starved for some perceived offense, whose child was unsurprisingly stillborn. Devastated by what had happened, the mother spent 3 days wailing with the dead child in her arms. She was then causally shot by one of SH’s guards just to shut her up. Of course, mega-brains like you can see beyond such trivial episodes to take in the bigger picture.

          • Paul S HK

            Third attempt… Replies freeze.
            Briefly. I’m right not left. Agree Saddam v v bad.
            In principle, kill him.
            But destruction of secular Iraqi state opened the door to a disaster.

          • mikewaller

            When Singapore so rapidly succumbed to a landward attack Churchill excused himself on the grounds that “..the possibility of Singapore having no landward defenses no more entered my mind than that a battleship would be launched without a bottom”. Whether or not that was a valid excuse for Churchill, those of us who supported the invasion of Iraqi (in my case, not least because of the enormous military debt owed to the US as an ally) can, I think, mount a similar defence in respect of the unbelievably crass failure to plan for the aftermath. To some degree I include Tony Blair in this category. I think he genuinely thought that real objective was to make the world a better place and failed to appreciate, until far too late, the complete moral bankruptcy of the George W Bush administration.

          • Paul S HK

            Nice to have a civilised debate in an environment where some seem a little over-aggressive.
            I wouldn’t fault Tony Balir for having high ideals.
            I think the problem is, having decided his morals entitled him as PM to lead us to the decison he had made, knowing, that if he told us the full story, we would not agree, he compounded that lack of moral humility by spinning stories that were simply not true, without regard for their truth or falsity.
            In that respect, he denied his peers – Cabinet Ministers, leading citizens, the fourth estate, and even further down the chain of information-deprivation, his fellow citizens – the true facts upon which they could form free-men’s opinions.
            This is the deep breach of trust he perpetrated, and why he is very widely despised. Anyone can be wrong, as he was. But at the top, you need not just to be ‘The Decider’, you need to respect your peers. Churchill was exemplary in that respect. Even Chamberlain, whose policies he thought a disaster, was given respect. Because the facts were the foundation of policy. Mistakes were made, but honestly. Not so in the Iraq War. So called facts, that the cynical, or the factually inclined found it easy to show were falsehoods, were mysteriously enshrined as the foundation of policy.
            So I’d suggest that Blair is in a quite district category from Churchill… the Churchill say of the Dardenelles. A judgement call, a disaster, a resignation…
            With Blair .. Not a matter of judgement, but deception. A disaster. He promised his friend, GWB, I’m with you.
            But is that enough to entitle him to tell lies to Parliament and support a socio-political and security disaster without penalty.
            But anyway, we have spoken. He has been judged. He is a pariah.
            He will not be rehabilitated because he will neither confess nor atone.
            His arrogance fails to understand his betrayal.
            Only the English understand that. So he earns millions in the USA but is hated at home.
            This is an unusual but notable historical phenomenon… The visitation of exile by the people not the Tsar.

          • mikewaller

            I think you far too cruel to Blair and far too kind to Churchill. It was after after all latter who said something like, “In war truth is so important that it must be surrounded by a strong thicket of lies”. Indeed, FDR told all sorts of porkies to the US electorate to mask his intention to get into WW2 as soon as he could – and thank God he did, as the US electorate was largely for keeping out at all costs. Even with the WMDs the big villain was SH who along with his cronies was making such massive sums out of the sanctions that he was fully complicit in keeping the illusion going.

            My thoughts about the “Don’t Attack Iraqi” brigade is that history has proved them right but for the wrong reason i.e. it all went wrong because of Arab barbarism and American incompetence – and they most certainly were not the reasons initially given. So rather than heaping rather childish hatred on Blair, some personal introspection is called for.

          • Paul S HK

            I’d run a love,y reply, but it disappeared as my iPad froze…
            But the long and the short is that if Blair didn’t want to be despised, he shd have done as Churchill did and been honest.
            But no.
            Spin.
            Utter dishonesty.
            Of course he’s despised.

    • Damaris Tighe

      I especially agree with your last paragraph. I’ve never understood why the failure in Iraq – where a blo*dy dictator had been removed – was blamed on the west rather than on the Iraqis themselves.

      • Cobbett

        Because the removal was the work of the ‘West’. Who gives a toss that he was a dictator?

      • AJH1968

        Sadam had to go in Iraq, but the real disaster was Paul Bremer. He almost instantly fueled the insurgency, the west should have stuck to a simple decapitation strike.

        • Bruce Lewis

          This is correct. If the West had removed Saddam Hussein, and hustled him off to be tried in the Hague–not in Bagdadh–where he would have testified to enormous American involvement in his depravities (most especially the Iran-Iraq War), and if the Americans had said to the Iraqis, “You’re an ancient civilization; you should know, better than us, how to reconstitute yourselves as a peaceful polity,” and then left–thereby not condescending, in an essentially racist “we broke it, so we’re responsible for fixing you” mentality, then the whole region would be more peaceful and more successful politically. All the Americans had to do, to mollify and dignify the Iraqis, would have been to say, “Don’t choose another like him, who might destabilize the region, or we’ll be back.” Even “going back” a second time would have been cheaper and more productive than the Americans’ and the Brits’ trillion-dollar occupation. But the “occupation” came out of the Americans’ and the Brits’ typically racist “white man’s burden”-mentality.

    • Cobbett

      ”One final point, although the post-victory planning in Iraqi was shameful, previous experience in removing dictators had been very good, as in Japan and Germany”

      50 million dead, National bankruptcy and loss of the Empire ”very good”?

      What bizarre reasoning.

  • Gerschwin

    Monuments are all you have when a people have vanished and I’m all for preserving what’s left of these once the savages have been despatched by the Kurdish and Shiite vengeance heading their way. But this ain’t ‘Western Civilization’ here, if you want that go to Rome or Athens, to Aachen or Avebury. And the people that built the monuments of the Near East have as much in common with the Arabs as I do with a garden vole – in other words none since the Arabs are imposters.

    So by all means preserve it, absolutely it must be preserved but spare me the phoney left wing guff, for that’s what this is really about, championing Islam’s contribution to civilisation, the arts and humanity. Islam’s contribution to humanity is nothing, absolutely nothing. Not one damned thing from the Arabs or from Islam and no amount of Grauniad double speak from Simon Jenkins or any of the rest of them will ever change that.

    • TNT

      Thank you. Excellent post.

      • Paul S HK

        Gerschwin is a fool.
        Read my post. A very elementary destruction of Gerschwin’s false understanding.

        • greggf

          Read my post Paul……!

          • Paul S HK

            I did.
            It’s wrong, again.

          • Infidelissima

            ‘the prophet’

            also known as: the psychotic pedophile warlord

            no wonder Allah hates Muslims: you worship a child rapist!

          • Paul S HK

            hmmm… a little off the point, fanatical and abusive.
            But then you’re at least living up to your nick!

        • Gerschwin

          I’ve slam dunked you – see above – sadly it is you who is the moron. Everything you quote is Babylonian. You are an ignorant fool content to let the BBC do your thinking for you and as a result destined to humiliate yourself. That sadly is your lot. Let it be.

          • Paul S HK

            Your ‘slam dunk’ is about as accurate as when George Tenet told GWB it was a slam dunk Iraq had WMD…
            By your ‘logic’, Leibnitz or Newton added nothing, as the Babylonians got there first.
            As any fule kno, the Arabs (who were Muslim) deepened algebra in a number of important ways.
            We could enter into a list competition, but the point I’m making is that it is simply false to assert Arab/Muslim culture added nothing to civilisation.
            ISIS has taken us back to medieval times, no doubt; but they are not typical of the many civilised Muslims i have the pleasure of knowing.

        • Guest

          then why is it so hard for you to give us examples of what muslims contribute to humanity?

          gosh, you truly are all delusional liars.

          unless you give me some examples:

          • Paul S HK

            What do you contribute to humanity?
            Why are you hanging around?
            Any respectable publications? Teaching? Sports achievements to look up to? Running public organisations or charities?
            Just asking.
            Did you ever enjoy the writings of Edward Said? Very interesting intellectual. Ohran Pamuk? Great Writer. Mohammed Yunus (Grameen Bank and microfinance). Shirin Ebadi, according to a human rights lawyer friend, is an iranian Human Rights lawyer who won the 2003 Nobel Peace prize.
            And you??

          • Guest

            scraping the bottom of the barrel I see

            1.5 billion mzzies, and you give me 4 names, nobody ever heard of?

            inbred troglodyte

          • Paul S HK

            You’ve never heard of Said? Or Yunnus? Or Pamuk? I’ll grant you Ebadi, as he’s a lawyer.
            But i can assure you, all the Spectators staff will know each of them well.
            And in the banking world, everyone knows Yunnus. In academia, everyone knows Said, and in literature everyone knows Pamuk.
            As for my breeding, I’m more mongrel than inbred…. Jewish, Catholic, English, continental, North african, French, Cambridge, Hong kong. Scientist, lawyer, art critic…
            Not much inbreeding, I can assure you.

    • Ed  

      I’m not certain I agree that ancient Mesopotamian ruins aren’t “Western Civ”. I think a lot of the earliest Western Civ came from that area; Babylon, Ancient Israel, etc. We should preserve these things just as much as we should preserve the Parthenon and the Colosseum.

      I suppose, though, if we have to destroy the monuments to preserve what they stand for, then we’d better get the Hell on with it. After all, Dresden neede firebombing to save Germany, and Nagasaki needed nuking to save Japan.

      Damn, it’s sad how primitive they are.

      • BunnyOlesen

        I hope that’s sarcasm when you say ‘dresden needed firebombing to save Germany’ etc. At least when the blew nagasaki they did it to end the war – the war was already over for Germany when they bombed Dresden, and about the only people in the city were the elderly and infirm, women & children and injured soldiers. Kind of like how the ‘war’ was already over in Serbia when NATO was still blowing the SHT out of Serbia and allowing the Albanian Turks (who have officially appropriated and stolen a third of Serbia) to pillage and harm the serbians. Must always protect sunni muslims everywhere – that is why Obama and ‘the west’ called these POS ‘rebels’ when they were in Syria and gave them weapons, lied and said Assad used chemical weapons – when it was the fake rebels. NOW that the world sees the atrocities they are committing they are functionally doing NOTHING. Give me a break, they have invaded countries on lies, false flags and a helluva lot less than what is going on in Iraq and Syria right now – FFS They are beheading CHILDREN they are ripping unborn babies from their mother’s womb and hanging them on trees by their umbilical cords – if that isn’t enough to warrant a full scale attack – then their previous reasons for war amount to jack squat.

        BUT OF COURSE the Saudis, their lord and masters are Sunni Wahabbi muslims and if you would take a look back you would understand several of our worthless invasions. IRAQ A majority shiite country, don’t know Saddams religion, but Christians were free to worship as they please, plus sunnis were in the minority – they don’t like that. SYRIA – Minority Shiite but RUN by Shiites, can’t have that – plus a couple of million Christians living in PEACE in their indigenous homeland? HELLNO! LIBYA !! Sunnis not in charge there, no sharia law, shiites free to be shiites and worship their ‘saints’ and the few Christians have free churches NO WAY!

        And there you have it. Next up IRAN.

        • Ed  

          Nope. The war crime in Dresen lies at the feet of the man who put free democracies in the position of even considering such actions in the first place.

          Dresden was Hitler’s fault.

    • Infidelissima

      very true, Islam contributes nothing.
      There are nearly 60 muslim countries in the world, and even the oil rich ones, contribute nothing, besides what’s under their backsides.
      Islam does not invent, innovate, develop. Islam only destroys, maims and slaughters.

      They import everything from us, use all of our inventions, especially the evil zionist ones, just like parasites.
      Once the oil is gone, nobody will want anything from them again, and they will go back to shagging their goats and camels inside their caves.

      • Albert Zbingswiki

        “Islam is Peace”
        There. Fixed it for you. You risked forcible re-education, the vilification of the BBC and TwitterStorms otherwise.
        Joking aside, plus 1 for the “once the oil is gone”. Can’t wait. “the occupants of the middle east found out that religious tolerance extended only as far as the petrol forecourt” as one SciFi writer put it in a book recently. Which is, perhaps, why they’re ramping up their efforts to take over now.

        • Paul S HK

          This blog is in the Spectator…
          The surroundings are not liberal.
          However, we have brains, and are well educated, so guest is unlikely to impress here.

          • Guest

            still waiting for the twist of muslim modern contributions, oh impressive Abdul…..

          • Guest

            LIST

          • Paul S HK

            It’s been posted a while now…
            Not sure why you can’t see it.

          • Infidelissima

            you’re so stupid, you don’t even realise that he is agreeing with guest
            hehehe, inbred cretin

          • Paul S HK

            Not sure who,the he is.
            The order of the posts seems disturbed.
            Guest dealt with.
            Inbred dealt with.

        • BunnyOlesen

          Islam is ‘piece’ because everything they touch, including humans, end up in pieces.

      • Richard Mason

        Wahh! Then we must guess that from beneath your stone the glorious adornment of a Persian Mosque be obliterated by the muck and mire that clouds your eyes ears and mind……

    • Paul S HK

      You have to be seriously, seriously ignorant, Gerschwin, to say that.
      Algebra and much of early maths, not to mention calligraphics, design and philosophy are major Muslim contributions to all of humanity.
      You’ve presumably heard of Arabic numerals…
      So give up counting in the numbers you’re familiar with, and you can avoid contact with anything Muslims may have contributed to humanity.
      Moron!

      • Solage 1386

        I detest Islam, but you are right. Omar Khayyam, Rumi, Hafiz, The Tales of the Thousand and One Nights, The Perfumed Garden, Avarroes, Avicenna, beautiful music, wonderful architecture; many Arabic words incorporated into the English language (algebra, alcohol, alchemy, amber, checkmate, divan, and many others…..), Islam has contributed much to civilisation, though–since it has destroyed more than it has contributed, and will probably destroy even more–it would be much better for the world if this religion had never existed.

        • Paul S HK

          At least that’s a point of view.
          I disagree on the judgement, but nice to agree on facts, for once.

        • ebonystone

          That all sounds pretty wonderful until one remembers that we’re talking about 1400 years in a civilization that stretches from the Atlantic to the sub-continent. Its intellectual and artistic accomplishments are substantial, but no more so than a number of individual European countries. Germany alone (or France alone, or Britain, or Italy) has added more to the world’s cultural riches than all of Islam.
          And then Islam’s achievements came to a screeching halt 500 or 600 years ago, with virtually nothing of note produced since. Imagine a Europe which had added nothing to its culture since 1300 or so. Even then Europe had arts, literature, engineering, science, and architecture to match (or exceed) anything in the Islamic world.

      • greggf

        Check your facts Paul.
        The Arabs did indeed invent much of what you say but it was mostly BEFORE the plague of Muh**med and Islam.

        • licjjs

          It is embarrassingly common even among educated people to equate ‘Arab’ with ‘muslim’. I even had to write to the BBC some years ago when a comedy on Radio 4 featuring a Priest, a Rabbi and an imam, had the priest say at one point, ‘……..well as Christians we are the new kid on the block…’ A similar thing happened on a Channel 5 programme. I taught a young Iranian who insisted on referring to himself as Persian and looked to the pre-islamic Persia as his country.

          • Paul S HK

            Arab and Islam are different, of course, despite significant overlap. And Persia certainly far predates Islam.

        • Paul S HK

          Greggf, I know my facts. The Prophet was born in 570, and the golden age of Arab mathematics was the 10th-12th centrury.

          • Infidelissima

            ‘The prophet’

            you mean the warlord pedophile?

            hey, what do Muslims contribute to humanity today, besides wars, refugee crisis’, ethnic cleansing, mass rape and terrorism?

            I’m still waiting for that list……..

          • Paul S HK

            Actually, you misspelled it – it’s Prophet.
            And (if you’re classically educated) paedophile.

          • rightrightright

            Actually, if you are classically educated, its ‘pederast’.

          • Infidelissima

            ‘child rapist’ has a certain ring to it too

          • Paul S HK

            Actually, they are two different words with two different meanings in modern English.

          • Liberal

            Actually, you misspelt it; it’s “Termagant’s Pet Pigfucker”.

          • Paul S HK

            Slightly below the intellectual class level of the Speccie, I’m afraid… Actually, even the intellectual level, and far below the class level.

          • Liberal

            And yet you’ve no response of any wit or class.

        • Paul S HK

          As I’ve said elsewhere, the Prophet was born in 570, and the ‘Golden Age’ of Arab maths was 10-12 Century so I don’t think you’re right on that one…

      • FedUpIndian

        “You’ve presumably heard of Arabic numerals…So give up counting in
        the numbers you’re familiar with, and you can avoid contact with
        anything Muslims may have contributed to humanity.
        Moron!”

        I guess you haven’t heard that the number system we use was invented by Hindus in India and is called “Arabic number system” only because backward Europeans learned it from the Arabs. Al-Khwarizmi’s book on the number system was called “On the Hindu art of reckoning.”

        http://members.peak.org/~jeremy/calculators/alKwarizmi.html

        • Paul S HK

          Yes, exactly, fedupindian. Your great compatriot (if indeed you’re Indian), Srinivase Ramanujan studied at my old college, Trinity Cambridge, and we understood the importance of Indian mathematics to the development of world mathematics, including that transmitted through the Muslim lands.

          • FedUpIndian

            If know all this, then you know the Muslims did not discover zero or the decimal number system – they learned it from Hindus. Why then did you credit them with it in an earlier post?
            Did you think no one would call you on it?

          • Paul S HK

            I’m not trying to get at hindus, fedupI, I’m just pointing out the channels through which modern maths flowed to get to us included through Muslim mathematicians …
            Newton himself was willing to acknowledge the long term nature of scientific enquiry … we all build on our predecessors’ work.

          • Infidelissima

            Newton was jewish

            still waiting for that list of muslim achievement today……

          • Paul S HK

            First I’ve heard of Newton being jewish. And i’m Jewish and went to Newton’s old college.
            Are you sure you haven’t been fed something odd, or read something odder?
            Isaac … hmmm? Nose… hmmm? what else… Lincolnshire… not near many ports or trade centres…

          • Guest

            A jew going on about ‘The Prophet’? sure Abdul…you are all liars. even your holy book tells you to lie. and then it tells you to wipe your backsides with your bare hands, because that’s how primitive you are.
            now, where’s that list of modern muslim contributions? still waiting for it …

          • Paul S HK

            Being me, I take no offence.
            I think I’d offered up Said, Pamuk and Yunnus
            But your highly ignorant co-abuser of one the world’s old religions, infidelssima, claimed never to have heard of them, conclusively demonstrating his barbarian ignorance.
            I hope… Do I? … You won’t do the same.
            At least deny they have stature…

          • FedUpIndian

            Newton was not Jewish. He was Anglican.

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

      • FedUpIndian

        “…calligraphics, design
        and philosophy are major Muslim contributions to all of humanity.”

        So Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were Muslims? It looks like Western civilization is once again making one of its periodic disappearances from Europe.

      • grimm

        Yes, there were Muslim contributions in the past but let us not exaggerate their significance or we may start taking that ludicrous propaganda piece “1001 Muslim inventions” a bit too seriously. Muslims cling fondly to the past unable to face the fact that the world has moved on leaving them dependent for their development on a Western world which is rapidly outgrowing superstitious religious beliefs.

        • carl jacobs

          Western world which is rapidly outgrowing superstitious religious beliefs.

          “Growing.” That’s a word for it. Have you checked your fertility rates lately? What you are doing while you are “outgrowing superstitious religious beliefs” is becoming a nihilistic hedonistic culture that is dependent upon wealth for its continued stability. And you are sabotaging your very ability to sustain that wealth by 1) not producing enough children and 2) not effectively raising the children you have. And now you are scared s***less of the very Muslims you imported to cover the manpower shortage created by your refusal to have children. They have threatened you by the unforgivable crime of … having children. Evidently they don’t understand their demographic place in post-Modern Europe.

          People who believe in nothing are wide open to influence when the crisis hits. You should be afraid of where people who have outgrown “superstitious religious belief” will turn when the money runs out, and all they had for purpose in life was money.

          • WTF

            “People who believe in nothing are wide open to influence when the crisis hits.”

            You have totally missed the point as non believers have substituted belief in a deity for a belief in science. Sitting around with our thumbs up our bums chanting “It is the will of allah” hardly cuts it today or any other fantasy god as science has taken over from mythical fairy tales peddled by clerics of all faiths.

          • carl jacobs

            I haven’t missed the point at all. When your standard of living follows the same path as Greece, your belief in science is going to turn to dust in your mouth. Science won’t have any answers for the questions you will want answered. Then what will you do?

            Angry entitled people with no hope in the future will listen to someone who promises restoration. You had better fear that prospect.

          • Paul S HK

            Why would your belief in science turn to dust in your mouth just because of an economic crisis?
            Isn’t that just the time to refocus on what is proven and what works.
            Would you have us all pray, Carl? Will that solve problems. I grant the religious will feel better, but they’d still die without medicines and the instruments, thinking and knowledge of modern science.
            Better to wash your hands than to abstain from eating pork (if one must make the choice)

          • carl jacobs

            Why would your belief in science turn to dust in your mouth just because of an economic crisis?

            Because science can’t be used to find meaning. All it amounts to is the construction of math models for physical phenomena. It can’t answer the question “Why am I alive?” That happens to be the question men most want answered. The Western nations became powerful and rich – rich enough to finesse the problem of meaning by trading it for the acquisition of moral freedom. They used money to buy pleasurable experiences and physical comfort. They settled into a fashionable nihilism made tolerable by full stomachs and warm beds and the eternal quest for the more perfect org@sm. But the entire brittle sterile self-centered system depends upon the continuing existence of prosperity. In the absence of money, the problem of meaning is going to re-emerge. Do you think people are going to live with empty stomachs and fearful days and cold nights and turn to math models to make things better? They are going to get angry over what they have lost. And some malignant soul is going to give them a focus for their anger. You should fear that.

            There is no foundation under this secular enterprise. There is just a bottomless void of darkness. People fear the fall into that darkness with an existential dread. And the only thing that holds them up is money. That makes them exploitable to economic crisis. Since they currently believe in nothing that can give them answers, they will be wide open to adopt any belief system so long as it satisfies their desire to be restored. Secular Europe is going to give way one day – just like a piece of metal with a stress fracture eventually gives way under stress. Sudden. Violent. Ugly. And no amount of belief in science is going to stop it.

            Watch Greece. We will see what happens when Syriza fails.

          • Paul S HK

            That’s a different point.
            Personally, i do not agree that faith in your sense is needed.
            I don’t disagree that in general, people need faith in something. but that can be family or justice or love. It needn’t be theistic.

          • carl jacobs

            Meaning exists only if God exists. Morality exists only if God exists. If God is dead, then Nietzsche was right, and there remains nothing but power. You, finite limited creature that you are, cannot bootstrap either morality or meaning out of the dust that constitutes your existence. You can only produce arbitrary preferences. You can only produce the illusion of meaning until pitiless circumstances rip it from your grasp. Then you will discover the true extent of your nakedness in this cold dead universe that you imagine you inhabit.

          • Paul S HK

            Very dramatic statement, but completely unscientific, and ethically wrong, as it conflates morality and goodness with religion.
            Are you suggesting buddhism, which is not theistic, but still prescribes proper behaviour, is somehow not moral?
            And why can’t I, an atheist, have and believe in moral values?
            Even if i were to borrow or appropriate them from religions, why might i not believe in them irrespective of my doubt in god, and my refusal to believe that all the religions are simultaneously right, when they themselves deny that is true?

          • carl jacobs

            You can adopt any moral value that you desire. You can never give it gravity or standing. You can never give it authority. Actions and events do not have objective moral content unless God exists to give them objective moral content. Actions and events simply are. The observer assigns whatever moral content he thinks best. But his assignment is arbitrary. His moral observations do not exist outside of his mind. Since this is true for every observer, the assignments of all observers are all equally valid. You can give a child a cup of water or skewer him with a bayonet. There is no moral capacity intrinsic to man that would allow him to objectively separate those two actions.

            Other than power.

          • Paul S HK

            Nonsense.
            I can agree my view of moral standards with as many people as claim to share them.
            We don’t need a god to tell us theft or murder are wrong.
            You surely have no moral capacity to deny me my morals, and neither does your god. And if he purported to do so, he would be a wicked god.

          • WTF

            It is modern science that created the western world and although not perfect beats the h*** out of a 6th century religion that controls the middle east. Unlike previous generations, my generation has not been involved in any world world and that for better or worse is down to science.

            A nuclear holocaust was prevented by MAD as both the USSR and the West knew it wouldn’t benefit anyone but when you have Islamic nut jobs wanting to get to heaven that has changed but science can still help us there unlike religion. Laser technology for a defense shield has come on strides in the past decade and eventually we’ll be able to take out Islamic nutters at will.

            All I’m saying is that science has become a substitute for religion for those who don’t need some fairy tale about some god

          • Paul S HK

            Hmmm… carl has many things wrong, but he didn’t say science was a religion.
            As Popper pointed out, if it can’t be falsified, it isn’t to be described as scientific.
            I could name many scientific theories that you couldn’t falsify, which is why they can be relied upon as science.
            You can’t say the same for religion; and anyway, that’s not the point of religion. Faith is part of religion, but not of science. Everything is testable, and subject to disproof.

          • carl jacobs

            Faith is part of religion, but not of science.

            Not in science per se. But there is no man who does not live by faith. Every man has presuppositions. The Materialist who believes in his test tube has faith (because he presupposes) that everything in the material universe has an immanent cause. And nothing will shake him from his irrational commitment.

          • Paul S HK

            Why does that involve faith?
            It simply involves looking at the test tube and seeing what happens inside it.
            If you want to insist, I suppose it does also involve assuming that all this is not the dream of Zuangzi wondering if he is or is not a butterfly… but ‘Je pense donc je suis…”. Does Cartesianism also require faith?

          • carl jacobs

            Look into your test tube and tell me how a chemical reaction became self-aware. Then tell me the Materialist doesn’t exercise faith. He beings with this assumption: “All things have an immanent cause.” Is that or is that not a scientific statement?

          • Paul S HK

            No, it’s not scientific, It’s a philosophical statement.
            A scientific statement would be: “Water at atmospheric pressure boils at 100C, acetone at 56C” or “gold does not dissolve in nitric acid.”

          • carl jacobs

            Exactly so. “Philosophical” being a polite way of saying “faith statement.”

          • Paul S HK

            But so what? Why define a materialist as someone who needs faith, only he doesn’t know it?
            Why can’t a materialist (or a scientist) simply look at the test tube? He sees what he sees. He doesn’t strictly speaking need to know why.
            Of course scientists do want to know why (engineers less so), and are looking further and further up the chain.
            But it’s possible simply to accept that at present w=one doesn’t know the ultimate why, even as one can better answer questions about the material world than religions are able to or choose to.
            Render unto Caesar, &c.

          • WTF

            I equated science to a religion and I suspect atheist like me feel the same way.

            The original point of religion was for those in power to have a way of controlling the masses and explaining away the unexplainable. All religions have done this and Islam far more so than any other as for Muslims, no matter what happens its Allahs Will rather than some metal fatigue causing a plane to crash or an earthquake causing mass destruction. There was one additional benefit when people were uneducated in that it held a society together, it could enforce morals that would benefit that society and was an early form of criminal law.

            Quite what religion is useful for today other than helping those with low esteem, confidence or education I fail to see. The basic needs of humans today are shelter, food and medical help. In the west and certainly in socialized countries like Europe, the state provides that whereas previously religion provided those functions to a greater or lesser extent.

            Other than praying to your god to placate yourself or waging war on everyone else, religion is redundant.

        • Paul S HK

          I’m no more saying that Muslims today live up to their past any more than i’m saying the Greeks or the Hittites do.
          The point i’m making is that demonisation of an entire religion and attempting to whitewash out of history their real contribution is intellectually and politically dishonest.

        • Paul S HK

          True, broadly. Many cling to the past, but not all.
          i’ve not yet met a muslim as nutty as the fundamentalist christians who believe in the literal truth of the bible.
          I know there are nuttier muslims, but from personal experience, the nuttiest guys I’ve met so far are those who solemnly assure me every word in the bible is literally true, and tell me how god created the fossils and fiddled the half lives of carbon so that we’d get the impression the world was older than 6,000 years… but why he bothered … nary a word.
          Bizarre beliefs indeed, those chrisitians. And in the USA, they’re disturbingly large in number.

      • Infidelissima

        algebra and advanced maths, such as the Greeks and Romans used, to build arches?

        Muslims have re-appropriated at best, and maths existed before arabic numerals. It was still called MATHS, the numerals were just roman.
        as for philosophy: even the darn word is greek!!!

        tell me: what do 1.5 BILLION muslims contribute today to humanity?

        • WTF

          Actually, out of a world population of around 7 billion, its estimated that 2 billion or 35% are Muslim. Jews make up around 0.2% of the world population and whereas they have collected 23% of Nobel prizes the grand total for Muslims is less than 1%.

        • Paul S HK

          The romans didn’t do the form of algebra developed by the arabs.
          As for philosophy, it’s an idea not a language, so one can be a philosopher in any language. Just because we adapted greek based words doesn’t mean that (for example) the Chinese couldn’t have a philosophy, because they didn’t know the word …
          As for your last comment, it’s too despicable to be worth responding to, and the stuff of Fascist thinking.

          • Infidelissima

            as for my last comment: why aren’t you answering it, and what is despicable about it?

            if Muslims contribute so much today, give a list of examples, I’m waiting……….

          • Paul S HK

            What’s despicable about it is the implication that Muslims are in some sense outside of humanity. Not in the club. Don’t contribute.
            As if to be part of humanity you needed to be a ‘contributor’.
            You probably don’t understand, but maybe you do, and would say the same of Mr & Mrs Average in the West. After all, they too contribute ‘nothing’. Or the disabled. They contribute ‘nothing’.
            As I say, you are very fascist in your way of thinking on this aspect of the debate.

          • Gerschwin

            Stephen Hawking qualifies as disabled. Not very good at this are you?

          • Paul S HK

            Haha! Straight into the trap! Precisely.
            And Muslims have won the Nobel Prize, so your argument they can do and offer nothing to humanity is shown to be wrong.
            And you haven’t dealt with the problem that yosu appear to deny Muslims humanity, despite that.
            Well, what’s your position?
            Part of humanity or not?
            Fascist (you) or human?

          • Gerschwin

            Always call people a fascist if you’ve lost the argument. Get a brain, then engage. You fell into your own trap. Jesus you’re a muppet.

          • Paul S HK

            True… A badly baited trap.
            But what’s your answer?
            Part of humanity or not?

          • TNT

            If he were a Fascist, he’d be a Muslim, like you. Always pleading for rights – the same rights you will never grant to others whenever and wherever your wretched political system gains ascendancy.

          • Paul S HK

            I didn’t say he was fascist, I asked. And also whether he thought Muslims were part of humanity. My (unstated) argument being that, if you think a large chunk of humanity is outside it, then you’re thinking is like the fascists.
            As for me, the only party i’ve ever stood as a candidate for and been elected to represent electors for is the Conservative party.

        • Thorsted

          There contribution is enormous like Africa. Is the eyes of ideological humanitarianism people who can not do anything are “enriching” and makes “do-gooders” fell good. It that sense Islam is a superpower for do-gooders. However people who can do something and is responsible are some kind a un-human because do-gooders do see a mission there for them. Perhaps these people most be the cause of the misery in the world.

      • Gerschwin

        There’s nothing ‘Muslim’ about any of them. Algebra is Babylonian, nothing to do with Islam or the Arabs (other than the root of the word), and for the others you perform the usual trick of attributing various contributions to them but giving no examples (because there are none) and finally they are called ‘Arabic numerals’ because they were adopted by the Arabs from….you guessed it…the Babylonians.
        And so we discover it is you who seriously, seriously ignorant. But that’s what comes from believing what you see on the BBC.
        I think that’s what’s known as slam dunk.Not bad for a Sunday night.
        Better luck next time.

        • Paul S HK

          Your ‘slam dunk’ is about as accurate as when George Tenet told GWB it was a slam dunk Iraq had WMD…
          By your ‘logic’, Leibnitz or Newton added nothing, as the Babylonians got there first.
          As any fule kno, the Arabs (who were Muslim) deepened algebra in a number of important ways.
          We could enter into a list competition, but the point I’m making is that it is simply false to assert Arab/Muslim culture added nothing to civilisation.
          And the Baylonians used cuneiform writing, not arabic numerals. They also used a number system built around 6; while the Arabs developed the decimal system greatly. A not insignificant advance, I’d suggest.
          ISIS has taken us back to medieval times, no doubt; but they are not typical of the many civilised Muslims i have the pleasure of knowing.

      • Jean valejan

        You confuse Arab with Muslim. Syriac Christians (who spoke Greek and Aramaic) kept the knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome alive when it was almost forgotten in Western Europe.

        • licjjs

          Not forgetting also the Celtic monks.

          • Paul S HK

            Indeed.

        • Paul S HK

          You’re welcome to the view that Syriac Christianity was the sole repository of knowledge while Europe forgot Greece and Rome, but that isn’t true or relevant.

      • BunnyOlesen

        WOW YOU have to be SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY IGNORANT BECAUSE NOTHING YOU SAID IS TRUE! XD XD

        Musa al-khwarizmi did NOT invent Algebra in year 825, as muslims constantly harp about how THEY invented algebra. In addition he was Persian, not Arab and there is some evidence he may have been ZOROASTRIAN anyway – NOT muslim. Diophantus of Alexandria, Greek mathematician,often referred to as THE FATHER OF ALGEBRA (flourished c. ad 250), famous for his work in algebra. THATS 600 YRS BEFORE islam ‘stole’ the idea of Algebra and took credit for it – just like they ALWAYS have done. Their philosophy is SH*T and just rehashed from Greek & Indian Philosophers

        ….from the name of the treatise Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians written by the 9th-century Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, who TRANSLATED, formalized and commented on ancient Indian and Greek works.

        • Paul S HK

          Dear Bunny: Don’t get hysterical. I didn’t assert a single one of the things that you tell me are not true. What I wrote was: “Algebra and much of early maths, not to mention calligraphics, design and philosophy are major Muslim contributions to all of humanity.”
          I also separately explained that all science is built on the foundation of what has gone before. Thus the Babylonians and the Indians have been held up in these pages as the ‘true’ originators of mathematics.
          Even Newton, who developed ideas dramatically well, admitted he had got where he did ‘by standing on the shoulders of giants.’
          You’re welcome to deny the contributions of Muslim scholars over many centuries in many fields of human thinking, but you won’t find much serious academic thinking on your side. Just a few insignificant ranters in online pools.

      • Infidelissima

        ‘seriously seriously ignorant’
        you muzzies have the highest rates of illiteracy on the planet
        I’d be quiet if I were you

        • Paul S HK

          Actually, dear boy (girl, infidelissima?), we jews have a higher than numerically proportionate share of higher educational achievement.
          And we tend to self promote, so I’ll keep posting.
          And BTW, have you really not heard of Yunnus, Pamuk and Said? The first two often considered in the FT, and Said in the NYT and both noted regularly in excellent US and UK publications.
          Surely you must have seen their names, if you read the better quality publications?

      • Diane Demp

        Agree with you –most of these commenters think history began with Charlemagne or maybe George Washington — they have no sense of the ancient world before Rome –or the cradle of civilization in IRAQ the Mesopotamia region. The REVISIONIST have taken control of the history classes and they are PC or just plain ignorant and lazy. Some even think BC is a headache powder !!!! I was sick when I saw the destruction of Iraq’s national antiquities — Iraq Invasion was big money for contractors and disaster for history. The Arab world gave much to civilization besides math and medicine –it gave agriculture which flourished in Sicily under their rule etc.

    • Liberal

      In what sense is Ancient Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, etc.) not able to be considered the arch-progenitor of Western civilisation?

      Nothing to do with Mohammedanism or leftism in wanting to protect and preserve the cradle of civilisation – especially since the forces against civilisation are set upon destroying our heritage.

  • Callipygian

    those harbingers of anarchy, George Bush and Tony Blair. They destroyed order in Iraq.
    This is mad, senseless, irrational. The very evil you claim you’re against. Shame on you.

    To dismantle the framework of control in any state, however cruel, is to let the angels of hell run riot.
    Do you realize how absurd your position is? Let me put this into English: ‘to dismantle the torture chambers of a psychotic state is to let the angels of hell run riot’.
    That is what you are saying. Again, if you are a journalist you should know the horrors, day after day, that the Hussein tyranny inflicted on the people of Iraq. If you don’t know, you are a moron and not worthy of a public platform. If you DO know, you are a wicked man.

    • Paul S HK

      I don’t think he’s denying Saddam Hussein was a monster.
      I think he’s simply saying the consequences of how he was disposed of have been calamitous for huge numbers of innocent people.

      • Callipygian

        If so, it is only because they were a calamitous people to begin with.

        • Paul S HK

          They were part of our civilised heritage for millennia before the USA existed as such.
          It is we who destroyed their institutions, social stability, security (relative) and allowed sectarianism to flourish and weapons to spread and feed conflict.
          True, the underlying doctrinal conflict was capable of being brought out in the open as nationalist and religious animosities have sprung up in Europe in the past.
          But do not pretend the trigger was not us.

          • Callipygian

            So you want to be an apologist for tyrants? I don’t.

            We are blameless.

          • Paul S HK

            The tyrant is dead.
            The consequences of invasion are ours to deal with. We invaded.
            They are quite different things.

          • Callipygian

            You are a bad man. Don’t address me again.

          • WTF

            Sometimes you need tyrants to control warring factions in a country torn by civil wars and the west through its history is not innocent here either but the left seem to have forgotten that ! Give it another 50 years I can even see the UK ending up with a war of cultures that requires a ‘tyrant’ to maintain order and crack down hard on anyone who gets out of line.

            Most peoples needs centre around shelter, food and medical health care. If a civil war is raging we have none of that as in Iraq and every innocent person suffers. If someone like Saddam Hussein stops the civil war through brutal suppression on the guilty parties and my only loss is democracy, I’d settle for that over genocide, bombings, no food, shelter or health care.

            This is not an apology for tyrants but a reality check for the civilian population. In the west its called Martial law.

          • albert pike

            “Give it another 50 years I can even see the UK ending up with a war of
            cultures that requires a ‘tyrant’ to maintain order and crack down hard
            on anyone who gets out of line.”

            All dissent will be neutralized. As in 1984.

          • Paul S HK

            I am not apologising for GW Bush. I’m just pointing out what he did.

          • Callipygian

            He doesn’t need your apology. F off.

        • albert pike

          Iraq had the highest standard of living in the ME at one time.
          No taxes, universal free education and health care.
          A 30 hour working week…….

  • trace9

    So, I’ve taken a Gander at Gandhi
    Who seems to have been really Quite Randy
    Though he wore a loincloth –
    It would tremble & toss
    When he spied a Hot Chick in a Sari..

    There’s one monument I’d rather do without. Yo Winston, withya!

  • Hard Little Machine

    Most of the western liberals crying over this are the same people demanding that the entire Jewish archive be returned to Baghdad so that the Iraqis can burn it.

  • This pillage is simply typical Islam at work.

    Muslims refer to the time before Islam as the period of jahiliyyah. And cultural artifacts from the period of jahiliyya should be destroyed.

    The destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan was done for the same reason. There are even calls by devout Muslims in Egypt to destroy the pyramids and Sphinx.

    Islam is a social pathology to all of humanity.

    • Paul S HK

      Don’t be silly.
      All religions attract a range of personalities. Most Muslims do not believe in destruction of images. That’s why images have lasted for centuries in Muslim lands.
      These madmen are no more typical of Muslims than believers in the Bible who deny evolution are typical of Christians.
      Both religions have their share of the irrational.
      True, Christianity has not burned people for a couple of hundred years, but it did once.
      That does not make all Christians guilty.
      That ISIS mob are sell-evidently not typical.
      Get a grip, Bob.

      • TNT

        He actually does have a grip. You, I fear, with your perpetual, ridiculous, witless apologism for the world’s most backward ideology, have either abandoned your medications altogether, or have adjusted the dose too radically. Or you are a Muslim. The three scenarios are never mutually exclusive.

        • Paul S HK

          You merely assert.
          TNT is your name.
          It shows your love of destruction.
          But neither your fears nor your solution are based on reality.
          A paranoiac is a very dangerous person.
          Luckily, here we only bandy words.

          • TNT

            More gibberish – no surprise when the only ‘argument’ you ever produce is whataboutery.

          • Infidelissima

            typical inbred Abdul

          • Infidelissima

            nobody destroys like you muslims: can’t live in peace with sikhs, jews, buddhists, hindus, christians, and even your own

            can’t live in peace anywhere in the world, including your own countries

            you destroy everything, including your own countries, and your host countries

            disgusting ideology, no wonder Allah despises you and makes you kill each other

          • albert pike

            “nobody destroys like you muslims:”

            that’s why they invented nuclear weapons

          • TNT

            You’ve never invented anything. You parasitically hang on to the discoveries and hard work of others.

            But you are certainly welcome to act as test material for such weapons.

          • albert pike

            George Sarton wrote in The History of Science

            “One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an eminent
            figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna
            (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original renown as
            one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in history. His most
            important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a treatise on Cardiac
            drugs. The ‘Qanun’ is an immense encyclopedia of medicine. It contains
            some of the most illuminating thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy; contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and perversions; of nervous ailments.”

            Though I expect you know better than Mr. Sarton

          • TNT

            Right. First of all, what’s with the ‘Albert Pike’? How would you like it if I changed my user name to Reza Mohammed and used it to (continue to) bash Islam while pretending to be a Muslim insider?

            If you’re a Muslim, just use a Muslim moniker – don’t be ashamed. (1400 years of your co-religionists’ hatred and murder speaks for itself.)

            Secondly, “illuminating thoughts pertaining to…” is Muslim-speak for “complete nonsense”. See also: scientific miracles in the Quran.

          • albert pike

            “How would you like it if I changed my user name to Reza Mohammed”

            You can call yourself The Biggest Turd on Earth for all I care.

            Shall we get back to the subject now, which was Islamic achievement in the field of medicine?

          • TNT

            If I were the biggest turd on earth, you’d have come to visit me as part of your haj by now. Walked round me in endless circles, before picking up stones to throw.

            So to get back to the subject.

            There was no Islamic achievement in medicine. This is why Palestinian vermin have to be treated at Jewish hospitals every time they injure themselves seriously.

          • albert pike

            “There was no Islamic achievement in medicine”

            I told you’d know better than George Sarton.

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

            Savour your stench

          • TNT

            Savour yours. Yours is the real thing.

            There’s a reason why Sarton’s books are out of print or regarded only as curios.

            And many more why Islam has never progressed beyond initial enquiry – in medicine, and everything else (except for destruction and mayhem).

            It’s heartening that the Palestinians have produced one human being of minor note, but ironic that he should tell his tragic story to those experts at killing children and eliminating minorities, the Pakistanis.

          • Paul S HK

            You see, I said YNT thought like a fascist, and he does.
            The dehumanizations of the perceived or targeted enemy is a key element of the Fascist mindset…. “Palestinian vermin” says TNT.
            It couldn’t be clearer what kind of person he is.

          • TNT

            Ah, but mere frippery compared to the recommendations in your unholy Quran for anyone who rejects your lunatic ‘ideas’.

            Your attempts at distraction are fruitless. Come back when you’ve grown a brain.

          • Paul S HK

            Which lunatic ideas, o TNT of the massive intellect?

          • TNT

            Just another dumb, paedophile-worshipping Muslim trying to be clever. Sigh.

          • Damaris Tighe

            ‘Albert Pike’ certainly clings to the standard Muslim myths: that the Jews falsified their bible; that the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars (disproved) while the Sephardi Jews are descended from Abraham (this comes from the Arab myth that there are three lines directly descended from Abraham – Isaac, Ishmael & Koresh) – this is rich given that he believes the OT is myth!

          • TNT

            Islam is such a mess – any collection of stolen items tends to become so – that what any Muslim believes is only interesting for its topsy-turvy entertainment. Would that the ‘fun’ would stop just there.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Complete inversion, complete delusion.

          • TNT

            Beautifully succinct.

      • FedUpIndian

        “Most Muslims do not believe in destruction of images. That’s why images have lasted for centuries in Muslim lands.”

        In North India, where Muslims have rampaged for 1000 years, there is not a single Hindu or Buddhist temple left that is older than a couple of hundred years. The great Siva temple at Somnath was destroyed by Muslims no fewer than 6 times, the first time during the earliest invasions by Muslims and the last time by Aurangzeb, who was effectively the last Muslim ruler of India. Usually, mosques were built on top of these ruined temples, using the very stones from the destroyed temples. The great library at Nalanda was burned by Bakhtiar Khilji, a fanatical Turk, and thousands of monks beheaded.

        Islamo-excuses from people like you will not cut it any more.

        • I agree 100%

        • WTF

          “Usually, mosques were built on top of these ruined temples, using the very stones from the destroyed temples.”

          Too friggin lazy to build their own from scratch by the sound of it !

          • FedUpIndian

            It was also a way of subjugating the kaffirs. This is why Al-Aqsa is built on top of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of the Jews, and the Hagia Sophia was converted to a mosque.

          • WTF

            Out of curiosity I looked up where the expression “thieving Arab” came from in English parlance.

            The saying originated from the British Colonial era when officers stationed in the Middle East were confronted with Arab locals. The locals gained a reputation for stealing from the British and pickpocketing in the towns !

        • Bruce Lewis

          Darah Shikoh, the Sufi mystic Sufi-prince who SHOULD have been the successor to Shah Jahan, instead of Arungzebh, is responsible for translating the Upanishads into Persian and thereby saving them for much of posterity. I have lived for a large part of my life in India, a country I revere, and I have seen Hindus tying threads at the viewing windows of Muslim saints’ dargahs (tombs) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Those who pit Muslims against Hindus do not really love India, the most brilliantly and lovingly syncretist religious environment on earth.

          • FedUpIndian

            “Darah Shikoh, the Sufi mystic Sufi-prince who SHOULD have been the successor to Shah Jahan, instead of Arungzebh, is responsible for translating the Upanishads into Persian and thereby saving them for much of posterity.”

            The oldest Upanishads are almost 3000 years old (Chandogya is estimated to be from the 7th or 8th century BC) and they were doing fine before the Muslims invaded India. Any danger to the Upanishads and Hinduism came from Muslims, so it is truly perverse to credit a Muslim for “saving” the Upanishads when the only danger to the Upanishads came from the predations of his coreligionists!

            “I have seen Hindus tying threads at the viewing windows of Muslim saints’ dargahs (tombs) in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.”

            This says something about the tolerance of Hindus. Let me know when you see Muslims respecting Hindu temples. Heck, I’ll settle for Christian prayers being offered in mosques in return for the multi-culti outreach that has become so popular even in the West. The national cathedral in DC recently hosted Muslim prayers, as have churches in the UK. When can we expect to see your beloved Muslims reciprocate?

            “Those who pit Muslims against Hindus do not really love India, the most brilliantly and lovingly syncretist religious environment on earth.”

            India is syncretic because Hindus and Hinduism are syncretic. You only have to look at Krapistan or even Bangladesh to see what bare naked Islam is like when Muslims become a majority.

            As for loving India, where were you when the Pakistanis murdered somewhere between 300,000 and 3 million people, mostly Hindus, in East Pakistan in 1971? Where are you when more than 1000 Hindu and Christian girls are kidnapped each year in Pakistan, forcibly converted and “married” to Muslims? The constitution of Pakistan bans Hindus from becoming President or Prime Minister. Have you protested this Islamic apartheid?

            “Love” like yours consists mainly of lecturing Hindus about human rights while turning a blind eye to the vast evil unleashed by your beloved Islam on our lands and our people.

          • Bruce Lewis

            It’s useless talking to you–someone who’d obviously like to forget that the RSS supported HITLER in World War II. In fact, Sufi Muslims do, indeed, honor Hindu gods in India, as well as Hindu holy men. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was TAUGHT by, among others, a Muslim sheikh in Kolkota. I am as much dismayed by the attitudes of Pakistanis–and Saudi Arabians–as you are, but I am, perhaps, MORE dismayed by such things a BJP moves to abolish Christmas observances in India, because THAT seems to me to represent, for Hindus, a regression toward the intolerance of Fundamentalist Islam.

          • FedUpIndian

            “I am as much dismayed by the attitudes of Pakistanis–and Saudi
            Arabians–as you are, but I am, perhaps, MORE dismayed by such things a
            BJP move to abolish Christmas observances in India..”

            Hindus and Hinduism are being exterminated in Pakistan. Since 1947, the proportion of Hindus has collapsed from roughly 20% to less than 1% today. Yet you are more concerned about Christmas not being celebrated in India?

            As I said in my previous post, Hindus need to stop worrying about the love of people like you, and focus attention on our own survival or what is happening in Pakistan and Bangladesh will happen to us soon.

        • Right on accurate.

      • Yes, “All religions attract a range of personalities.” But Islam is the only religion to have active, unchangeable passages, that incite its followers to commit violence in the name of Islam.

        “Most Muslims do not believe in destruction of images.” I agree. But Islam encourages devout Muslims to be self-initiating in the implementation of Islamic theology. And the most devout take it upon themselves to enforce Islamic theology. And the jihadis of ISIS are the most devout of the most devout. And they do the dirt. Most Muslims don’t believe in stoning women for being raped. But the jihidis of ISIS will do this too. Unfortunately Islam produces lots of these super devout. And they enforce the Islamic laws cultural artifacts from the period of jahiliyya should be destroyed.

        “That’s why images have lasted for centuries in Muslim lands.” Not true. These images have lasted only because the original invading forces of Islam were more concerned with killing off or converting the original population.

        “These madmen are no more typical of Muslims than believers in the Bible who deny evolution are typical of Christians.” (1) Christianity had a reformation. Islam has not. (2) Today I see Muslims on six continents actively killing in the name of Islam – including in Western China. (Bali, Madrid, Paris, Sydney, Nigeria, Beslan, Moscow, Boston, London, Nairobi, Argentina) Prove your statement – Point out the similar Christian terrorist acts.

        Yes, “Both religions have their share of the irrational.” But Islam has the only ACTIVE theological basis for violence. Islam’s core teachings simply incite devout Muslims to commit violence. Here is a link to active Islamic passages that incite followers to commit violence. (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm). Show me active equivalent Christian passages.

        “True, Christianity has not burned people for a couple of hundred years, but it did once.” Yes, this is true. But like I said above, Christianity had a reformation (500 years ago.) Islam has not. And ISIS just burned some poor other Muslim in a cage and recorded the murder and put it on YouTube. Find me the equivalent Christian phenomena happening today.

        “That does not make all Christians guilty.” I do not believe all Muslims are “guilty”. But Islamic theology creates an system that puts society in the hands of the most devout. Islamic theology is the problem. But PC myopic thinking tries to ignore Islamic theological reality.

        “That ISIS mob are sell-evidently not typical.” Oh yea? What do you call Boko Harem, Lashkar e Taiba, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Moro Liberation Front, El Shabab and others?

        I have a grip. Read it. http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

        Read more. Open you eyes. Let go of PC BS.

        Islam is a pathological social disease. It will not stop until people get their heads out of the sand, quit the PC BS, and open their minds to Islamic reality.

        Read my article. Send me a rebuttal.

        All the best.

        • Paul S HK

          I’ll read it, Bob.
          But you seem something of an Islamophobe…
          Though you admit they’re not all the same.
          Any more than Christians now demand ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
          But then why admit that UK Muslims are 99% decent when you can say that Nigerian Muslims are 5% rotten?
          Why be fair, honest, decent and truthful, Bob?

          • AverageGuyInTheStreet

            The word islamophobe is meaningless, much like excretiaphobe or vomitphobe

          • Paul S HK

            It’s not meaningless.

            It means “an irrational fear of islam”.

            It’s what poor “this social disease called Islam” Bob is displaying.

            You too, mr average.

          • TNT

            Islam is a disease. That you are defending it says more about your mind or your religious category than any attempt at deep thought.

          • Paul.

            Muslims are the first victim of the Islamic ideology. You need to look at the bigger picture. Imagine being born a Muslim. You can never quit, criticize or leave it without worrying about being killed by one of the most devout followers. (And these devout followers are the controlling minority.)

            Islam is controlled by the religious fruitcakes like ISIS – not the peaceful Muslims. These Islamic religious fruitcakes create this social disease called Islam.

            Look at what another reader (FedUpIndian just below) from India had to say. India has been the biggest victim of Islamic jihad. Some historians estimate 250 million Hindus and Buddhists have been killed by Muslims. And Muslim theologians consider India “unfinished business”.

            Read my article (http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/). This article has been republished by numerous web sites and it has been translated into a number of different languages. I have had hundreds of thousands of readers. The article describes how Islam survives. How it creates fear. An how only a small percentage of the Muslim population control the entirety of Islam.

            If you want to continue the discussion, use my email address listed at my article.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Which is why we should be very careful not to make blanket condemnations of Muslims (as opposed to Islam). They are a captive people just as the citizens of the USSR were captive – we could have no idea what their true beliefs & inclinations were.

          • I do not make blanket condemnations of Muslims. Islamic theology is clearly the problem.

            But the Islamic theology is so effective in controlling the minds of Muslims that even “reasonable” Muslims have narrow mind sets that are far different than the mindsets found in non-Muslims.

            You simply cannot have a theology with active calls to violence without significant problems. Islam is the proof.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Wasn’t suggesting you do, Bob.

        • WTF

          I agree, the comparison of genocide, warmongering and barbarities when looking at Islam, Christianity or Judaism has been conflated as in 2015, only Islam refuses to contextualise its scriptures to the modern world. All apologists for the excess’s of Islam try to get that religion off the hook just because other religions at sometime in their distant past committed similar atrocities. That would be like me saying that a father who killed his kids in modern day Britain should be compared to the Greek hero Heracles who killed his children in ancient Greece. Its BS, irrelevant and a cop out and the sort of cr** we hear from CAGE !

          Religious history is a valuable lesson to learn which by and large Judaism and Christianity has been forced to evolve to become a what it is today. Islam hasn’t learned anything in one and a half millennia and is still the barbaric war mongering religion it was at its inception. Instead of appeasers and deniers comparing Christianity’s dark period with Islam today they should use the enlightenment period of Christianity to try and educate Muslims as to what is wrong about Islam and fix it.

          • Bruce Lewis

            Actually, Islam HAD a “Reformation,” in about the 11th and 12th centuries in, among other places, Spain and Cairo. However, the pressures of colonialism seem to have killed that “Reformation.” Islam then turned back to Fundamentalism. This happens; a mild form of it happened to Catholicism after the Second Vatican Council, and now, in America, it’s occurring in Protestant Fundamentalist circles. It has happened, in fact, in the ranks that least dogmatic of all religions, Buddhism, in Sri Lanka. Every organized religion carries the seeds of human destruction, as well as the seeds of human spiritual evolution. This is a grave tragedy of human existence on this earth. However, I thoroughly agree that, when it occurs, it must be fought. The persons best equipped to fight it, in all cases, are the orthodox and observant, from among those elements of the religious traditions themselves who preserve their most liberating spiritual traditions. This happened with Francis of Assisi and John Wesley in Christianity and it is happening again with Pope Francis. What Islam needs now is a great spiritual teacher who is also a reformer. He will have a better chance of reducing the fires of murderous fanaticism than all the drones we can throw at the Muslim world.

          • FedUpIndian

            “Actually, Islam HAD a “Reformation,” in about the 11th and 12th
            centuries in, among other places, Spain and Cairo. However, the
            pressures of colonialism seem to have killed that “Reformation.””

            European colonization of Muslim countries did not start till about 1800 when the French started colonizing North Africa. Most of the Middle East – Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. – was part of the Muslim Ottoman Empire until the 20th century. Are you seriously claiming that Muslims had a flourishing reformation until the 19th or 20th century?

          • Bruce Lewis

            So you have never heard of the Reconquista in Spain, and its aftermath, in massive deportation and bloodshed, for Jews and Moriscos? So you have never heard of how the First Crusaders waded in Muslim blood toward the Sepulcher of Christ?–after the Muslim Caliph Omer refused, when he took Jerusalem, to dishonor a single Christian sanctuary? Colonization did not take place merely in the 18th and 19th centuries. If you actually are an Indian, the history of Goa should tell you that. Tunis was taken by the Emperor Charles V in the 16th century, and most of its Muslim population were put to the sword.

          • FedUpIndian

            From the Wiki article on “ijtihad” (independent reasoning), which is the closest Islam ever came to a reformation:

            Joseph Schacht, a well-known Western scholar argued, “closure of the door of ijtihad” had occurred by the beginning of the 10th century CE: “hence a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all.” Other scholars believe that debates about the “closing of the gate of
            ijtihad” “were not apparent in legal literature until the end of the eleventh century, and even then only as a theoretical issue.”

            The Reconquista was the reconquest of Christian Europeans of Christian European land in Spain and Portugal. Why the loss of a distant province in 1492 would end a “Muslim reformation” in the 10th or 11th century AD is unclear.

            The first Crusade happened 450 years after Muslims invaded, conquered and destroyed Christian countries in the Middle East and North Africa. As for the sainted Caliph Umer, here is what the pact of Umer inflicts on “dhimmis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar

            “The ruler would provide security for the Christian believers who would follow the rules of the pact.

            Prohibition to build new churches, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell…Prohibition to rebuild destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighborhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims. Prohibition to hang a cross on the Churches.
            Prohibition of Christians and Jews, to raise their voices at prayers time. Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, prohibition to be shown with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims….”

            If you are impressed that Umar did not violate a Christian sanctuary in Jerusalem, you should also be horrified at what Muslims were doing in India and all over Central Asia at that very time.

            Finally, my comment about European colonization being a 19th/20th century activity was in reference to North Africa and the Middle East, which is the heart of Islam. That comment stands, regardless of what the Portuguese did in India.

          • TNT

            Clearly, not enough of them.

          • Paul S HK

            Heehee, I like your contributions.
            Fact based. Intelligent.
            Slightly cynical, and straight.

          • WTF

            If my history serves me correctly, it was more than 6 centuries later before Britain started to become a colonial power around the world. Whatever happened to kill off the reformation during those 600 years as it couldn’t have been European colonization !

          • Paul S HK

            At last. An educated, sensible and human message.
            Thank you bruce.

          • albert pike

            “What Islam needs now is a great spiritual teacher who is also a reformer.”

            Until Israel has got what it wants, all moderates will be regarded as fanatics.

          • Paul S HK

            Of course, it was that well-know Muslim GW Bush who launched an invasion of the secular state iraq (oh … sorry – I’m now told Bush was a God-fearing regularly-praying christian… and Tony Blair prayed with him… and went to see the pope later on hoping for a blessing).
            I know many people and states in which Islam is truly seen as a religion of peace by its practitioners: Malaysia and Indonesia to name two.
            The practitioners don’t agree with war, and don’t need to be educated.
            See also the Amman message http://www.ammanmessage.com/

          • WTF

            Perhaps western colonization paid off in Malaysia and Indonesia !

          • Paul S HK

            Perhaps. It gave them a legal system and the the idea of rule of law rather than an imam…

          • WTF

            Who understands Islam as even the Muslims don’t judging by the actions of some and the backing of a lot more for what is happening right now.!

          • Paul S HK

            True enough.
            Not quite the thirty years war, but similar problems.
            Been there done that!

          • Ed  

            I would love for ISIS, Al Shabbab, Boko Haram and other such muslims of this world to become more peaceful, as the message you link to suggests. I’m not entirely comfortable that they’re as open to this message as we are. What methods of persuasion do you have in mind? I’m open to suggestions.

          • Paul S HK

            I don’t think they are open to persuasion, and they need to be destroyed militarily if possible.

            The main problem is to avoid generalising an attack on a criminal minority and turning it into an attack on a whole religion, as you seem intent on doing.

            Why try your damnedest to alienate a billion plus people, rather than get them to join with you in controlling the criminals? After all, we have a common interest here.

            As Martin Luther King put it: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: Only love can do that.”

            Despite which, military action (e.g. re Boko Harem) needs to be met with the same. But I thought King’s view very christian… in the best and general moral sense.

          • Ed  

            Your first paragraph is bang on. Which is a great shame. But what can you do? I’d love a better idea, but I’m not comfortable they’re terribly open to alternatives.

            Your second paragraph rather misses the point. It doesn’t appear you’ve been reading correctly. All I’m asking for, and I think it’s quite reasonable, is to be left the hell alone to live a life that isn’t muslim, and for the oppressed locals to be allowed more such freedom, too. Freedom can’t just be for whitey; that would be racist. Now, whatever the percentages of radical and moderate muslims within the overall muslim population, muslim extremism has become a serious threat. You’ve admitted yourself, contrary to the remainder of your arguments, that muslim terrorism has touched your life closely, as it has mine.

            Of course light drives out dark. That’s why boko haram chose the name it did; they hate our light. This is also why they attack aid workers. What seems absolutely bizarre to us, is actually a planned strategy on their part. Of course, in attempting strength they’re actually telegraphing weakness. It’s up to Western Civ to exploit that weakness.

            Your reluctant agreement happily accepted. Now, do we have the backbone to carry all of this out? There are many who don’t want us to……

          • Paul S HK

            Your wish to be left alone is not the same as demonising, let alone attacking a whole community.
            Still, in the same spirit you indicate, I agree with you that we should use all the power we can, including the military if need be, to support not just ourselves, but also all those Muslims who wish to resist their extremists.
            But we must remain open. We can’t accuse them all of terrorism, or we’re saying – ‘you, the victim are the enemy’.
            And I don’t think you’re saying that…

        • WTF

          Your article Islamfatalflaw should be required reading for all western politicians and especially the appeasers like Cameron as it makes total sense, its backed up by facts both recent & historical and spells it out exactly as it is. An excellent piece !

        • Paul S HK

          “Islam is a pathological social disease. ”
          I don’t think I need to read your article to know you are a person for whom the word “islamophobe” was coined to describe.

        • albert pike

          “True, Christianity has not burned people for a couple of hundred years,”

          So what does napalm do? Tickle people to death?
          During the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo people just aged rapidly and died natural deaths?

    • albert pike

      “This pillage is simply typical Islam at work.”

      Quite right genius, people of the Islamic faith destroyed all these works of art 1300 years ago as soon as they converted to Islam. ISIS was only pretending to destroy something.

      • TNT

        The works of art were merely tolerated, just as Muslims are in the West.

        If one day you get hounded out of Europe, will you believe that there was no pre-established hatred for you?

        • Paul S HK

          The fantasist paranoiac TNT thinks that we’re going to give up Europe and become Islamic. The man is really a cry baby.

          • TNT

            The Muslim tool and semi-literate troll Paul S has once again missed the whole point of a post. Too much Quran on that tiny mind.

    • albert pike

      “The destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan was done for the same reason.”

      Wrong. Are you being deliberately ignorant, or are you just ignorant?

      It was done because the UN was providing money for their upkeep while the people were starving. The Taliban destroyed them so the UN could spend their ‘limited’ budget on food for those in need of aid.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world/19TALI.html

      • Damaris Tighe

        The money the UN provides for the preservation of monuments & the money it provides for food relief come from completely different agencies. But I get it that you believe the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues for humanitarian reasons.

        • albert pike

          They did it as a protest

          • Damaris Tighe

            A protest against 1) anything revered & respected by the west, 2) against the infidel & 3) against supposed paganism.

          • Paul S HK

            Seems a fair summary…
            At least of the Taliban’s thinking.
            But such nihilism is not the norm in Muslim society nor among Muslims I know.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Yes, I’d accept that.

          • albert pike

            ” anything revered & respected by the west,”

            no a protest against putting money into preserving works of art while real people were dying of hunger

            idiot

      • Using the NYT for your source of information about anything to do with Islam is quite foolish. The NYT regularly runs PC BS, pro Islam, anti-West propaganda.

        I stand by my statement. “The destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan was done” to conform with Islamic principles of Jahiliyya.

        I have read your link. Now why don’t you, go to Google and search “Islamic Jahiliyyah”. Read some of what comes up.

        Tell me what your take is then.

        • albert pike

          “I stand by my statement. “The destruction of the Buddhist statues in
          Afghanistan was done” to conform with Islamic principles of Jahiliyya.”

          So why did the Taliban wait 12 years before destroying them?

          Why did other Islamic states such as Pakistan plead with them not to destroy the statues, telling them their actions were unIslamic?

          Are you saying that the UN wasn’t providing aid for the upkeep of the statues, but refusing to provide aid to help the starving?
          Are you saying that the Taliban didn’t try to address the problem with the UN?

          Just what, beside the fact it appeared in the NYT, is wrong with the article I linked to?

          • In typical NYT fashion, the article starts out with “When your children are dying in front of you, then you don’t care about a piece of art,”.

            It almost makes the Taliban sound like saints.

            Keep in mind the Taliban are the same group that shoot medical workers trying to eradicate polio, and bomb girls schools – to make a more perfect Islam.

            The NYT has never seen an atrocity it can’t blame on some sort of Western influence. And has never seen an atrocity committed by the forces of Islam.

            Believe what you want. I do not find them a reliable source of unbiased news.

            Here is a comment by “FedUpIndian”. Keep in mind “North India” use to mean, Afghanistan and Pakistan before Islam arrived. At the end he/she sums up the problem of Islamic reality.

            “In North India, where Muslims have rampaged for 1000 years, there is not a single Hindu or Buddhist temple left that is older than a couple of hundred years. The great Siva temple at Somnath was destroyed by Muslims no fewer than 6 times, the first time during the earliest invasions by Muslims and the last time by Aurangzeb, who was effectively the last Muslim ruler of India. Usually, mosques were built on top of these ruined temples, using the very stones from the destroyed temples. The great library at Nalanda was burned by Bakhtiar Khilji, a fanatical Turk, and thousands of monks beheaded.

            Islamo-excuses from people like you will not cut it any more.”

      • Paul S HK

        Albertpike… Not,sure of the origin of th name… I’m afraid I can’t agree on your idea Taliban motives here.
        It’s quite clear.
        Destruction of an image.
        An atack on civilised values. A desire to shock.
        Not the slightest sign of of trying to,get cultural aid reassigned to food aid.
        Nonsense, I’m afraid.

  • polistra24

    We created ISIS. So the question is really more complicated. When we create something for the purpose of destroying other things, should we rebuild the other things so our next created destroyer can destroy them?

    • Infidelissima

      did we also create Boko Haram, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hiztub Tahrir, Muslim Brotherhood, AL Aqsa brigades, Al Shabaab, AL NUsra, Ansar al sharia, Hezbollah, and the other 100+ Islamist terrorist groups that terrorize the world, from Canada to the Philippines and from Russia down to Somalia?

      is it EVER their fault?

      • Paul S HK

        Well, they intend it. To attack us.
        So in that sense it is their fault.
        On the other hand, we went to their lands, took their resources, installed our puppets, and in the case of ‘Palestine’ we have turned a blind eye to many different breaches of international law… and so we might understand they have their… frustrations…

      • WTF

        No its never their fault and a 33 year old Muslim male in East London was just sent down for 2 years for sexually attacking a young girl on a train giving his defense as “I was fasting for Ramadan and that’s what made me do it”. In mitigation, he’s the first Muslim I’ve ever heard who actually blamed Islam for his crimes so thats an improvement from before !

    • grimm

      There is nothing Western intellectuals like more than blaming Western society for all the world’s ills. I try to fathom the motivation behind this. Does a declaration of guilt give the declarer a comforting sense of moral superiority? Perhaps cowardice and weakness are the real motive: by blaming ourselves for Islamic extremism we absolve ourselves of the need to fight it.

  • Solage 1386

    They destroyed beauty. This can never be forgiven.

  • logdon

    This speaks for itself.

    Sir Brian Horrocks on the destruction of Cleve….

    ‘Towards the end of the war, he played a large part in the fighting which forced the German army back across the Rhine. I’ve written before on this blog about the horror many soldiers felt at the destruction caused by war; to themselves, their enemies and to innocent civilians. Horrocks described ordering the destruction of the town of Kleve, during the Battle of the Reichswald:

    “One thing, during this preparatory stage, caused me almost more worry than anything else; the handling of the immense air resources which were to support us. General Crerar told me that in addition to the whole of the 2nd Tactical Air Force the heavies from Bomber Command were also available. And he put this question to me: ‘Do you want the town of Cleve taken out?’ By ‘taking out’ he meant, of course, totally destroyed.

    This is the sort of problem with which a general in war is constantly faced, and from which there is no escape. Cleve was a lovely, historical Rhineland town. Anne of Cleves, Henry VIII’s fifth wife came from there. No doubt a lot of civilians, particularly women and children, were still living there. I hated the thought of its being ‘taken out’. All the same, if we were to break out of this bottle-neck and sweep down into the German plain beyond it was going to be a race between the 15th Scottish Division and the German reserves for the hinge, and all the German reserves would have to pass through Cleve. If I could delay them by bombing, it might make all the different to the battle. And after all the lives of my own troops must come first. So I said ‘Yes’.’

    Spot the difference.

    • FedUpIndian

      So you believe Isis is destroying Assyrian artifacts in museums to gain a military advantage?

      • carl jacobs

        He is saying exactly the opposite.

      • logdon

        Can you read? Try it before your idiocy takes hold.

        The clue is in the last sentence.

        • FedUpIndian

          My apologies – I thought you were another one of these Guardianista apologists who always brings up Western perfidy in response to any criticism of the behavior of RoP types.

          • logdon

            Far from it.

            I’m an old Speccie hand who bears the scars of the mods going back ten years or more.

            I once posted a response which was removed, then took away an offending word and tried again. Still deleted.

            This went on, word after word, posting after posting until all that was left was meaningless and only then did it appear.

            Quite a metaphor and indicative of the state of Britain at the time.

            After such idiocy I moved on to pastures new, especially US sites and now I’m dipping the toe again back in censorious Britain.

            It has got better as the whiff of rebelion grows.

            Also apologies for the hostile reply. Nothing worse than being mistaken for a Guardianista.

  • WTF

    Wrong, what we do is erect very large signs that say “Here lie the ruins of XXXXX that were destroyed by deranged Islamic Extremists”.

    If they need to be rebuilt, its up to the oil producing countries in the middle east to fund it as its their culture, not ours !

  • JohnCrichton89

    The civilizations that created those artefacts are long passed.

    Ironically, those people and their contributions to the world were purged by Muslim hordes, that is, what Muslims couldn’t steal and attempt to take credit for. We are just witnessing the tail end of the complete destruction of civilization in the middle East by Islam as it lives in a perpetual state of war.

    There is no rebuilding to be done, and the ‘Kurds’ didn’t build any of those monuments or contribute anything of measurable value to the world before, and they wont after we ‘liberate’ them.

    Just another Muslim group using the victim card so we will give them guns and ‘aid’. Which they will no doubt turn on us after they have finished torturing and killing their enemies.

    That is Europe very, very soon. When Muslims are the majority and trying to vote in Sharia, we will be the Assad regime trying to stop them. We will be the undemocratic dictators not adhering to the will of the populace, and our civilization will be purged also.

    • albert pike

      “Ironically, those people and their contributions to the world were purged by Muslim hordes,”

      If they were purged by “moslem hordes”, Einstein, what has ISIS been destoying?

  • Freddythreepwood

    I make no apology for Harris because there is nothing to apologize for. There’s nothing wrong with revenge – it’s sweet.

  • James

    Those who remember the IRA – imagine a terrorist attack and the PM goes on tv and says: Gerry Adams, lovely fella, IRA is an army of peace…

    The biggest problem is our politicians being PC and not having the decency to deal with the problems, always blaming ‘extremists’ and not islam, before launching into a sales pitch to convert us. That’s why they carry on – we need to be tough, very tough.

    Sweden have dire problems – muslims are hijacking funerals attacking people in bereavement – government has had to assign protection officers for ceremonies. They also have worst rate for rape in europe with ten of thousands on the victim list over the last few years – this is regular – http://10news.dk/sweden-muslim-rapes-woman-lying-on-broken-glass/

    Foreign policy?

    Finally, Swedes have reached breaking point – against EU laws they are now starting to kick muslims out, we should do the same because, they’ve built a stronghold in Britain and government has made them a protected species, encouraging them to pee all over us. If we didn’t have such a pathetic weak leader, we would just ban these propped up organisations, telling muslims to practice in private and respect our ways.

    • Paul S HK

      Well, James, that’s sort of what Blair did.
      I loathe the man, but he did bring peace to Northern Ireland and did so by pretending the IRA was normal and could be negotiated with. Which was right. There was a settlement that worked.

      • WTF

        sort of but it never was a religious conflict like this current islamic one.

        • Paul S HK

          The NI conflict was not a religious one…
          Hundreds of years of conflict between Catholic and Protestant and it was not a religious one…
          No one, not the protagonists, nor those who sweated as opposed to shed blood to solve it, including even the despicable Blair, would ever agree with you.

          • WTF

            OK. I’ll concede it had its roots in religion going way back to the time when Christianity went through its blood letting phase in the name of religion at the time of Henry VIII. However by the 1970’s, the ‘troubles’ and their reason for existing had morphed into a socio-economic issue rather than a religious one that leads Islam today.

            Catholic churches were still in abundance on the mainland and Catholics weren’t required to pay a ‘protection tax’ living in a predominantly Protestant country and neither were Catholics in Northern Ireland. We never saw the protestant majority on the mainland behaving like ISIS behave in Syria and having lived through that period living just a couple of miles from where the IRA blew up a Woolwich pub and those Islamic s***bags be-headed Lee Rigby, there was no discernible if any backlash against Catholics on the mainland.

            Sure, there were some atrocities on both sides in Belfast and around but at that time it was a mix of wanting self rule (unification), socio-economic discrimination and good old fashioned Kray Bros criminality. Religion played very little motivation in their actions or demands unlike Islam today. In fact since Eire went bust in 2008 its interesting to note we hear very little from Gerry Addams about re-unification as he knows those he pupports to stand for in the North would rather stay under UK rule than be bled dry with austerity in the South just to please those fascists in Brussels.

            As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for as things can and do change unexpectedly !

      • albert pike

        “There was a settlement that worked.”

        You have to remember that Britain was also planning to divert its military and intelligence in another direction, therefore it was important to make peace with the IRA

        • Paul S HK

          It did… Who,says so and why, and with what credible evidence??

          • albert pike

            I say so; and history is the evidence.

            Britain was always going to invade Iraq. Blair knew that and had to prepare for it, and any blowback within Britain.

          • Paul S HK

            So Blair made peace with the IRA in order to be able to send spies into Iraq?
            Or to be able to prevent the inevitable blowback from radicalisation that he foresaw would be the consequence of an invasion… which was designed (he claimed) to make us safer???
            Or to be able to control domestic protests against a war he claimed he really didn’t want to pursue, if only Saddam Hussein would retire?
            Albert, that’s fantasy!

          • albert pike

            Quite right Paul, politicians or the military never think ahead, do they?

            As for Blair’s ‘vision’, which brought peace to Ireland at a time when Britain’s security and military services were becoming more involved in Middle East, why do you think it was that he was unwilling to extend that ‘vision’ to the Israeli Palestinian peace process, and instead kept coming up with excuses as to why Israel couldn’t deal with Hamas, even though Hamas was trying to make a peace deal with Israel?

            http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-hamas-and-the-collapse-of-palestineisrael-peace-negotiations-40043.html

          • Paul S HK

            Well, it seems the Iraq War showed the politicians didn’t think ahead, while the military did, when allowed.

            And blair is aligned with the American evangelical right on matters of israel, and so can’t understand, or doesn’t want to, the historic sentiments of the Arabs towards the land they were born on (I leave aside the arguments about who were and were not real residents or refugees, which, as Glubb Pasha’s reports made clear, were much argued about even in 1947).
            But I don’t believe he did a deal with the specifically IRA so as to “divert [Britain’s] military and intelligence in another direction”. The areas of expertise are quite separately staffed. But I’ll ask an ex head of SIS, next time I see him.

          • albert pike

            “Well, it seems the Iraq War showed the politicians didn’t think ahead,”

            You mean they didn’t want the chaos that has followed. Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?

          • Paul S HK

            Well, Albert, I do indeed believe they didn’t want the chaos which followed.
            But then perhaps I’m too close to the establishment to believe what they tell me in private.
            But you’ll note that in public your views are very much those of the lunatic fringe.
            Even Blair and Bush’s most devoted enemies don’t say they were actually aiming to spend a trillion, destabilize the ME’s secular counterbalance to Iran and accelerate the deaths of a million people.
            But you think that was their secret aim.
            With acknowledgment to the poster who referred me to Dad’s Army: stupid boy!

          • albert pike

            “Even Blair and Bush’s most devoted enemies don’t say they were actually
            aiming to spend a trillion, destabilize the ME’s secular counterbalance
            to Iran and accelerate the deaths of a million people.”

            That’s because politics is a pantomime and they are following the same script.

            ” I’m too close to the establishment ”

            what do you do, clean the crap out the toilet bowl? Metaphorically speaking, that is.

  • Tomas Newtham

    In a related story, we find a message not of moral strength and virtue, but of destruction and decay: http://bit.ly/RagOfSodomOverIsrael

  • Roger Hudson

    A few points:
    Islam is a very late comer to the world of culture and any achievements in ceramics, maths and science came at a very high (too high ) price, the cathedral of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople is an example.
    Destroying, or failing to prevent destruction, of a cultural monument in war is a crime; one of the two reasons why atomic weapons are generally illegal. That the UK hasn’t ratified the convention is because it would make UK/US Trident an illegal system, it also kills civilians indiscriminately, also illegal.
    The balance of immediate lives against enduring culture is a debate worth having, very often culture wins out.

  • albert pike

    “Perhaps we need censorship. The Isis vandals now destroying the greatest
    sites in ancient Mesopotamia have no care for history, so why do they
    bother”

    Perhaps because their is no architectural evidence to support the stories in the bible. Therefore if this group can destroy architectural evidence that predates the bible and its ‘garden of eden’ fable, then it will help those trying justify some zionist point of view in the future.

    • WTF

      More like they want to destroy proof of previous civilizations who actually created something and air brush out their achievements that embarrass their lack of achievement.

      • albert pike

        They are ISIS and have only been around a few months.

        • WTF

          True, but their actions make the Nazis look like a Sunday school outing to the park !

          • albert pike

            some of your jewish friends might disagree with that statement.

            Whatever, as they were with the Nazis, zionists are happy to deal with them, so they can’t be that bad, can they?

          • WTF

            Considering Islamic extremists got into bed with the Nazis during WWII to try and eradicate the Jews I’m surprised they didn’t learn anything or automate their genocidal practices to make it more efficient and less labour intensive !

          • albert pike

            There was no such thing as Islamic extremism in those days, though I realize that it is important for you to detract from the cooperation between the zionists and Nazi Germany.

          • WTF

            Conspiring with the Nazis to exterminate millions of Jews is extreme in most peoples definition of the word, what dictionary do you use, the Islamic apologist version ?

          • albert pike

            Who you talking about the zionists?

            Is this because they were only willing to allow immigration into Palestine only those young enough to have children, work and fight, and wanted all the rest left in Germany, and did all they could to ensure they weren’t able to leave?

          • WTF

            As I said – During WWII

            The Mufti used the sonderfund to support a Palestinian Arab expatriate community living in wartime Nazi Berlin, to train pro Nazi European Muslim militias in Bosnia and Russia, and to foment anti Jewish and pro Nazi activities in the Middle East where he maintained an extensive network of contacts. The Sonderfund financed the Mufti’s Nazi-Muslim government in exile and was used to fund an Islamic Institute in Dresden
            under the Mufti. The purpose of the institute was to inspire an elite cadre of Nazi- Muslim leaders to eradicate Jews.

          • albert pike

            According to jewish virtual library the Nazis turned down his request. You should perhaps get up to speed on that one.

            Now, would you like to discuss the Ha’avara agreement, between the zionists and the Nazis, and its consequences on Germany’s jewish population?
            And, also its effects on the war Judea had declared on Germany in March 1933?

          • WTF

            Hardly surprising the efficient Nazi machine turned down a request from a bunch of useless camel jockeys but it still shows motive to eradicate the Jews by Muslims and just that they couldn’t do it on their own.

            Even with subesequent attempts and overwhelming numbers of fighters from Egypt, Syria & Jordan and callously picking a moment when it was a Jewish holiday they still couldn’t manage it. No wonder the Nazis told them to f*** off !

            It really must p*** you off that a small country like Israel can beat the crap out of overwhelming forces !

          • albert pike

            “it still shows motive to eradicate the Jews by Muslims”

            No it shows that one person tried to get Hitler to support the Palestinian in their bid to stop the takeover of their land. As it was, Hitler decided to support the zionists, with whom he already had a lucrative deal.

          • WTF

            Supporting them by killing millions, is that meant to be a joke ? No I doubt it, extremist lovers of the Islamic faith don’t do comedy, I forgot !

          • WTF

            That lucrative deal must have been a cut in the operating profits of the gas chambers ! Where on earth do you get your crazed notions from, out of your ass ?

          • albert pike

            “Where on earth do you get your crazed notions from, out of your ass ?”

            The jewish virtual library is a good source.

            You need to search Haavara agreement.

            Only strong jews were allowed to immigrate into Palestine. The old and the weak had to remain in Germany — the zionists turned down 60% of all applications, and then demanded other governments refuse asylum those who had been turned down.

          • WTF

            Whatever, but you should live in 2015 and smell the coffee instead of harping back to decades ago when we all know mistakes were made by all nations and groups.

            However it still doesn’t alter the facts that in today’s world Islam is the ‘motherlode’ of bad ideas compared to any other religion. We all know the Bible has hate passages in it but western society had the intellect to contextualize the bad parts and dismiss them a couple of centuries or more ago.

            Islam with its predominantly uneducated followers lacks any intellect to do this and that’s why its preaching inspires and/or promotes barbaric practices, genocide, stoning, rape, Jihadism and a raft of other sociopathic, corrupt and obscene practices that some of its followers revel in.

            When posters like yourself keep dragging up ancient history to try and mitigate Islams current obscenities you sound just like John Cleese going on about what did the Romans do for us. Life of Brian was a funny comedy lampooning religion but unfortunately Islam is a really sick joke foisted on vulnerable people that has turned some into mass murderers.

          • albert pike

            “Islam with its predominantly uneducated”

            Between you and me you are the only one who appears uneducated. Not only that a hypocrite.

            You try to justify ethnic cleansing on the actions of one person who turned to the Germans for help in stopping the takeover of his land, and then when it is shown that the Germans refused to help and had already made a deal with the zionists, you decide we have to forget about the past.

            But you are right, you should forget about the past because it certainly isn’t on your side.

          • WTF

            We can disagree about the past but the present is certainly on my side. Hamas has a clearly stated objective to finish off what the Nazis attempted in Germany. The covenant of Hamas is too long to post here however its very clear
            they want the destruction of the Jewish state and all Jews within it. Here is that covenant in all its sordid detail –

            http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

            As for my trying to justify ethnic cleansing, I have never said that of any group and I would ask that you retract that slur or justify it by re-posting where I suggested ethnic cleansing. Contrary to that which I have just been accused of, various Muslim groups in the past few years have been attempting ethnic cleansing of Christians, Yazidis and Jews of course.

          • albert pike

            “Hamas has a clearly stated objective to finish off what the Nazis attempted in Germany.”

            That will be why they have promised not to use violence to recover any stolen land if Israel ends the blockade.

            “they want the destruction of the Jewish state and all Jews within it. ”

            They want a single state shared by jews , moslems and christians.

            You caan’t get nuffin right.

            Idiot

          • Infidelissima

            Israel EXISTS

            ‘Palestine’ does not – choke on it Abdul 😀

          • WTF

            Doesn’t wash as their covenant is unequivocal that they want the destruction of Israel and NO where do they offer any compromise. If you’re so certain they are willing to compromise then provide proof or STFU !

            A bit of documented proof from your side would help your position but its sadly lacking.

          • albert pike
          • WTF

            Ignoring the obvious bias of this link –

            “There is every sign that Hamas has stopped using military
            tactics, although there are disaffected elements that continue to fire rockets into Israel.”

            Hamas never had any military tactics against the Israeli military, their cowardly tactic was bombing civilians just like our own Islamic bombers and as was stated here, elements are still firing rockets at Israel so they haven’t renounced violence towards Israel.

            “The reluctance of the British and other Western governments to recognise Hamas as the winner of the last Palestinian General Election”

            As the article pointed out previously, no one person or political body represents the Palestinian people when you have breakaway groups doing their own thing. Thats the problem with global Jihadism towards the west in the name of religion, there isn’t a Pope or a Chief rabbi who represents that faith and its a clash between different vested interests within Islam. No wonder we cant recognize a group that represents all of Palestine and is willing and able to deliver.

            Finally – “A peace settlement in Palestine without Hamas’s agreement (which would of course include Hamas’s formal acceptance of Israel’s right to exist) is unlikely to survive.”

            No s*** !. This article was written by a liberal Jew hater making assumptions that he has no right to make that hamas will accept Israels right to exist. There’s no “of course” in it but just his rose tinted view, not whats happening on the ground in the region.

          • Infidelissima

            every time you use the zionist internet, and IDF soldier gets a new Uzi

            😀

          • Infidelissima

            500 Million useless arabs who can not destroy 7 million israelis, and boy have they tried hard for 70 years

            so now, they are busy slaughtering each other and turning their own countries into dust, while Israel is stronger than ever

            brilliant!

          • albert pike

            “so now, they are busy slaughtering each other”

            With weapons supplied by Israel, and the west.

            “while Israel is stronger than ever”

            Naturally. Israel is behind the slaughter. How else do you think it will get the land between the Euphrates and the Nile?

            Though what happens then could be a problem for those not wishing to convert.

          • Infidelissima

            you poor muzzies – slaughtering, raping, beheading, burning, gassing and EATING your own and blaming Jews for it, when there’s barely a Jew left in any of your gigantic countries?
            If only you weren’t such retards Lol

          • Infidelissima

            muslims GAS muslims

            nazis used to gas people

            muslims = nazis

          • albert pike

            Nazis killed people

            Jews kill people

            Jews =

          • Infidelissima

            ‘kill’ and ‘GAS’ don’t really have the same ring to them, many many many people ‘kill’… in fact, everybody does, yet not everybody is a nazi

            but only muslims GAS, and even EAT their own – and film it for entertainment
            no wonder Allah is on the side of Israel since 1948 – even he hates you Lol

          • albert pike

            “kill’ and ‘GAS’ don’t really have the same ring to them,”

            Bullets are far more efficient.

          • Infidelissima

            you know what’s fun?
            nobody kills as many muslims as other muslims

            you know what else is fun?
            muslims = nazis, no matter how idiotic your half-logical replies

          • albert pike

            The Nazis can’t have been that bad. Although Judea had declared war Germany in March 1933, in an attempt to economically isolate the country, the zionists negotiated the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis that gave the Nazis the opportunity to export manufactured goods and foods to the zionists in Palestine, who then sold the produce throughout the Middle East.

            The amount of produce bought depended on the numbers of young, fit, and healthy jews that emigrated to Palestine. Those that were not young fit and healthy were not allowed passage and the zionists put pressure on Germany not to allow them to leave the country, and other countries not to take them if they did.

            I wonder what deal Israel has made with ISIS, that has resulted in cooperation between the two?

          • Infidelissima

            blablabla
            BIBI WON!

            muslims = nazis

            Israel exists, and Palestine does not.

            write me an encyclopaedia for all I care Abdul Lol

    • Damaris Tighe

      You’ve forgotten Rod Liddle’s piece about dogs – or is making that all about Zionism & the Jews a stretch too far even for you? Btw, this thread is about IS & the cultural heritage of Mesopotamia. Congrats for at least trying to make it, once again, all about Israel & the Jews.

      Stupid boy.

    • Damaris Tighe

      The Garden of Eden story is based on a Mesopotamian myth & was used by the OT writer/s to make a theological point. I realise that Muslims believe that the Jews ‘falsified’ their bible. But it’s no more mythical than the stories in the Koran & Hadiths. Or do you think that Mo flew to J’lem on a winged horse?

      Stupid boy.

      • albert pike

        ” Or do you think that Mo flew to J’lem on a winged horse?”

        That was an interpretation of a dream.

        Idiot

        • Damaris Tighe

          Ok, I accept that. So why can’t the stories in the OT be equally subject to this sort of interpretation?

          • albert pike

            ask those who try to pass it off as fact

            idiot

          • Damaris Tighe

            You do realise, don’t you, that ‘stupid boy’ was a bye-line from Dad’s Army – said by Cpt Mannering to Albert Pike in every episode. ‘Idiot’ doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

          • albert pike

            “‘Idiot’ doesn’t quite cut the mustard.”

            Given your posts you have to admit that it is rather fitting

          • TNT

            No. If Damaris were really dumb, Mo, Musloid, Koranimal… any of those would do just fine.

        • TNT

          Ah yes. The standard Muslim recourse. It’s always either a dream or a metaphor.

          When really, all it is are the repeated ramblings of hopeless inbreeds.

          • albert pike

            Your mother was a moslem, was she?

          • TNT

            Projection is a terrible thing, fool.

            Islam is the cesspit of the human soul. You don’t HAVE to be dung forever.

    • Infidelissima

      I think you’re mentally ill

      (must be genetic)

  • Spock Puppet

    Typical atheist, doesn’t realise that people are worth more than all the stone in the world.

  • Infidelissima

    Dear Albert Pike (or Abdul for his fellow pedophile worshippers),

    Q: How do you vote in Palestinian elections?
    A: Palestinian what?

    —————————————————————–

    Q: How do you know who will lead the Palestinians?
    A: Just check out who is left standing on their roofs.

  • Thorsted

    In Islam all kind of religious symbolism is forbidden. A christian cross is to a muslim tolerated but a cross with the depiction of Christ -is not. That is why we see the destruction of art with religious symbolism.

  • Meghan Nova
  • Woudy Treez

    Let them destroy everything while the West talks.

    Talk is cheap.

    Then they will move on to the West.

    Lives are cheap in Islam.

    Let them do what they want since we are letting them anyway and our Leftists are applauding them.

    We have lost from within our own societies.

  • Miguel Angel Tinoco

    People will sooner or later forget and forgive that scores
    of millions of babies are being murdered thru abortions worldwide, the many
    peoples are raped in India or the middle east, the abuses of authority in
    America, corporative global sale of weapons of mass destruction by Russia, the
    US, North Cores and Israel to other nations, and even other unkind regimes, the politically
    and religiously motivated genocides, how corrupt politicians and secret
    combinations of all sorts are plundering the rights and treasuries of respective
    their nations, but they will not forget or forgive when somebody overthrows
    their idols nor that steals the money from their altars.

    I don’t lose any sleep over broken stones or idols,
    nothing of that will remain there or anywhere when the end of the world comes. As a matter of fact that is one thing I don’t
    regret. For, no statue of Mary, no wooden
    cross or statue of the LORD Jesus Christ, no painted image, no saintly monument,
    no esteemed picture, no high tower, no engraved image. For it is going according to the order and
    program of heaven; and the LORD has spoken it and commissioned us to declare it
    publicly and not conceal it saying:

    I
    will utterly consume all things from
    off the land, saith the LORD.

    (Old Testament
    | Zephaniah 1:2)

    Babylon shall be destroyed and never rise
    again—Scattered Israel
    shall be brought again into the lands of her inheritance.

    THE
    word that the LORD spake against Babylon
    and against the land of the Chaldeans
    by Jeremiah the prophet.

    Declare
    ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach
    is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.

    For
    out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her
    land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall
    depart, both man and beast.

    (Old Testament
    | Jeremiah 50:Heading – 3)

    And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances
    thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our
    land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

    Micah 5:6

    For
    the day of the Lord of Hosts soon cometh upon all nations, yea, upon every one;
    yea, upon the proud and lofty, and upon every one who is lifted up, and he
    shall be brought low.

    Yea,
    and the day of the Lord shall come upon all the cedars of Lebanon, for they are
    high and lifted up; and upon all the oaks of Bashan;

    And
    upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills, and upon all the nations
    which are lifted up, and upon every people;

    And
    upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall;

    And
    upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all
    pleasant pictures.

    And
    the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be
    made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And the idols he
    shall utterly abolish.

    And they shall go into the holes of the rocks,
    and into the caves of the earth, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them
    and the glory of his majesty shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake
    terribly the earth.

    In
    that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which he
    hath made for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;

    To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into
    the tops of the ragged rocks, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them and
    the majesty of his glory shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake terribly
    the earth.

    Cease
    ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted
    of?

    (Book of Mormon
    | 2 Nephi 12:12 – 22)

    Behold,
    I, even I, will bring a sword upon
    you, and I will destroy your high places. And your altars shall be desolate,
    and your images shall be broken: and I will cast down your slain men before your idols.

    (Old Testament
    | Ezekiel 6:3 – 4)

    Thus saith the Lord God; I will also destroy
    the idols, and I will cause their images to cease
    out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land
    of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the
    land of Egypt.

    Ezequiel 30:13

  • Miguel Angel Tinoco

    When Isis destroy ancient monuments, it’s
    not always true that ‘people are more important’

    Civilized people balance the short-term interest of one
    generation against the values enshrined in the past, and the right of future
    generations to share that past

    https://spectator.com.au/features/9466372/when-isis-destroy-ancient-monuments-its-not-always-true-that-people-are-more-important/

    People will sooner or later forget and forgive that scores
    of millions of babies are being murdered thru abortions worldwide, the many
    peoples are raped in India or the middle east, the abuses of authority in
    America, corporative global sale of weapons of mass destruction by Russia, the
    US, North Corea and Israel to other nations, and even other unkind regimes, the politically
    and religiously motivated genocides, how corrupt politicians and secret
    combinations of all sorts are plundering the rights and treasuries of respective
    their nations, but they will not forget or forgive when somebody overthrows
    their idols nor that steals the money from their altars.

    I don’t lose any sleep over broken stones, false gods, engraven
    images or idols, nothing of that will remain there or anywhere when the end of
    the world comes. As a matter of fact
    that is one thing I don’t regret. For, no
    statue of Mary, no wooden cross or statue of the LORD Jesus Christ, no painted
    image, no saintly monument, no esteemed picture, no high tower, no engraved
    image. For it is going according to the
    order and program of heaven; and the LORD has spoken it and commissioned us to
    declare it publicly and not conceal it saying:

    I
    will utterly consume all things from
    off the land, saith the LORD.

    (Old Testament
    | Zephaniah 1:2)

    Babylon shall be destroyed and never rise
    again—Scattered Israel
    shall be brought again into the lands of her inheritance.

    THE
    word that the LORD spake against Babylon
    and against the land of the Chaldeans
    by Jeremiah the prophet.

    Declare
    ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach
    is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.

    For
    out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her
    land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall
    depart, both man and beast.

    (Old Testament
    | Jeremiah 50:Heading – 3)

    And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances
    thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our
    land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

    Micah 5:6

    For
    the day of the Lord of Hosts soon cometh upon all nations, yea, upon every one;
    yea, upon the proud and lofty, and upon every one who is lifted up, and he
    shall be brought low.

    Yea,
    and the day of the Lord shall come upon all the cedars of Lebanon, for they are
    high and lifted up; and upon all the oaks of Bashan;

    And
    upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills, and upon all the nations
    which are lifted up, and upon every people;

    And
    upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall;

    And
    upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all
    pleasant pictures.

    And
    the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be
    made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And the idols he
    shall utterly abolish.

    And they shall go into the holes of the rocks,
    and into the caves of the earth, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them
    and the glory of his majesty shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake
    terribly the earth.

    In
    that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which he
    hath made for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;

    To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into
    the tops of the ragged rocks, for the fear of the Lord shall come upon them and
    the majesty of his glory shall smite them, when he ariseth to shake terribly
    the earth.

    Cease
    ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted
    of?

    (Book of Mormon
    | 2 Nephi 12:12 – 22)

    Behold,
    I, even I, will bring a sword upon
    you, and I will destroy your high places. And your altars shall be desolate,
    and your images shall be broken: and I will cast down your slain men before your idols.

    (Old Testament
    | Ezekiel 6:3 – 4)

    Thus saith the Lord God; I will also destroy
    the idols, and I will cause their images to cease
    out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land
    of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the
    land of Egypt.

    Ezequiel 30:13

  • bugs thumper

    these ancient sites will be destroyed IS or no IS nothing lasts forever. What is happening is a reflection of the sick misled lives we live.
    As we reap we sow.
    IS is just another part of ourselves. Most people cant see it that way of course.

  • Anything short of full faithful restorations carved from the same type of rocks as the original would be not only woefully insufficient… but arguably every bit as obscene as the destruction of the same.

    In short, there’s no undoing ISIS’s erasure of Iraq and Syria’s history.

    And as has oftentimes been said, a country with no history has no future.

    Indeed the destruction wrought by ISIS shall be their eternal legacy.

Close