Islamic Jihadists’ main target has always been Rome

By Roberto de Mattei on RORATE CAELI

“One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, I will save the world" - Our Lady to St. Dominic

“One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, I will save the world” – Our Lady to St. Dominic

The first Islamic decapitation on western European soil since the times of the Battle of Vienna (1683) took place on June 26,2015, while the “champion” of the West, Barack Obama, was triumphantly celebrating the legalization of homosexual “marriages” imposed on all the States of the Union by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Exactly twenty years before, on June 21, 1995, the Islamic Mosque in Rome was officially inaugurated – the biggest in Europe, presented as a centre for ecumenical dialogue and religious peace. The only voice of protest heard in Italy at that time was the one of the Lepanto Cultural Centre, which promoted a Rosary of reparation in the church of St. Luigi Gonzaga, right next to the mosque, defining the construction of the Islamic centre in the heart of Rome as “a symbolic act of unspeakable gravity. Rome is the centre of the Catholic Faith: Islam at its very roots, denies the fundamental truths of our faith and intends to implant its dominion on the ruins that was once western Christian Civilization.”

During that same period, between 1992 and 1995, the ethnic and religious war was going on in Bosnia, the first “mediatic-war” of modern times, but also the most distorted by the media. The politically correct version of the conflict, presented the image of a prevalently Muslim government, but in actual fact – multicultural, besieged by radical nationalists, the Croatians and Serbians, determined to annihilate the Muslims in Bosnia. The truth ignored was that Bosnia was al-Qa’ida’s first global Jihad front and the first international event from which Islam gained enormous benefits.

John R. Schindler, an American analyst who spent almost a decade in the Balcan area, did a penetrating analysis on that war (Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, Zenith Press, St Paul, Minnesota 2007), which on many points coincided with those of Alexandre Del Valle, the geopolitical scholar, (Guerres contre l’Europe, Edition des Syrtes, Paris 2000). It was in Bosnia during the 1990s, that al-Qaeda, became the multinational of the Jihad under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden and his mujaheddin. Saudi Arabia, which had given thirty-five million dollars for the construction of the Mosque in Rome, spent hundreds in financing the fighters of Islamic guerilla warfare, encouraging young Muslims from all over the world to engage in the holy war in Europe. The first act of independent Bosnia, which remained mainly a Christian country, was its adhesion to the Organization of The Islamic Conference, that had assembled 57 Islamic countries, united in their aim of propagating the sharī’a all over the world.

Since then, it has appeared clear that Islam has been moving along two strategic lines. The « sweet » line, aimed at the Islamisation of society through the network of mosques, which constitute centres of politcal and religious propaganda – but also military recruitment – like the one in Milan, in Viale Jenner, which served as the operative base for men, money and arms to arrive in Bosnia. The expression of this «Gramscian » expansion is the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928, a movement, as Magdi Allam refers, that « promoted the Islamisation of society starting from the base, through the control of mosques, Islamic cultural centres, Koranic schools, charitable entities and financial institutes.» (Kamikaze made in Europe, Mondadori, Milano 2005, p. 22).

Alongside this “sweet” strategic line we find, not in opposition, the “Leninist” line of radical Islam which wants to achieve world supremacy through the instruments of war and terrorism. In recent years this hard line has seen the passage from al-Qa’ida to Isis, an Islamic State which extends from the Aleppo peripheries in Syria to those of Baghdad in Iraq, and has as its declared goal, the reconstruction of that universal Caliphate which as the foremost scholar of Islam, Bat Ye’Or, has made clear since the 1990s, is not the dream of the fundamentalists, but the objective of every true Muslim.

Islam’s diverse strategic lines are today converging into the very same global plan of conquest. During his act of establishing the Jihadist Caliphate, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in a sermon from the Mosque in Mosul, July 4th 2014, called on all Muslims to join him: if they do so – he promised – Islam will arrive even in Rome and will dominate the world. In the video diffused by Isis the black flag of the Caliphate is seen waving on top of the Vatican, the Coliseum is in flames and a sea of blood is submerging it. Lastly, the statement from the Libyan caliphate: “we are south of Rome”, while Abu Muhammed al Adnani, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic State and Greater Syria, states: “We will occupy your Rome, we will smash your crosses to pieces, we will reduce your women to slavery.”

The same objective has been proclaimed for more than ten years by the main exponent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Imam, Yusuf al Qaradawi; in a fatwa promulgated on February 27th 2005, he declared that “in the end, Islam will rule and will be lord over the entire world. One of the signs of its victory is that Rome will be conquered, Europe will be occupied, Christians will be defeated and Muslims will increase and become a force that will control the entire European continent.”

Yusuf Qaradawi (who, after having led the Egyptian “Arab springtime” was condemned to death in absentia by the Supreme Court of Cairo, on June 16th of this year) is the President of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, their headquarters being in Dublin, and a point of theological reference to Islamic organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. His ideas diffused through the satellite channel Al Jazeera, influence a large part of contemporary Islam. For the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is for ISIS, the final objective is not Paris or New York, but the city of Rome, center of the only religion, which Islam, since its very birth, has wanted to annihilate. The real enemy is not the United States or the State of Israel, which did not even exist when Islam arrived at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, but the Catholic Church and Christian civilization, to which Muhammad’s religion is a diabolical parody .

Yet, the words used by St. Pius V and Blessed Innocent XI to incite the Holy War that held back the conquering march of Islam at Lepanto and Vienna are not resounding in Rome today. Moreover, if Pope Francis shares the words of the English Prime Minister, David Cameron, according to whom the attacks of June 26th were not in the name of Islam – since Islam is a religion of peace – the battle, on a purely human level, we can say – is lost.

The West’s response to the actions and war proclamations of Islam would seem to be summed up in the hashtag LoveWins, with which the homosexualist lobby flooded Facebook and Twitter. The inversion of values that this message expresses is destined to turn what it asserts upside down: this is no victory, but slavery, the destiny of a world which repudiates its faith and turns the principles of the natural order upside down.

And yet nothing is irreversible in history. Another hashtag would be worth diffusion on the social network – a silent, but overpowering maxim: in hoc Signo vinces, the insignia impressed on Constantine’s banner at Saxa Rubra containing the history of future generations when men correspond to Divine Grace. Help from Heaven is never lacking when men of good will fight so that the Cross of Christ triumphs and reigns in souls and the whole of society. Are there still such men in the West?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Islamic Jihadists’ main target has always been Rome

  1. toadspittle says:

    In other words, Islam’s ambition is to make all the world Muslim.
    Would Catholics like the whole world to be Catholic? Oh, really?
    Personally, I detest the idea of the world being entirely Muslim, or entirely any other bullying, oppressive, dogmatic, faction.
    Also personally, I highly doubt if Isis cares two hoots more about Rome than they do about New York, London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, or Surbiton.
    It’s Western attitudes and lifestyles they don’t like, such as “immodest” dressing, legal homosexuality, and the empowerment and equality of women. Sound familiar?
    Nor, in my opinion, do the Jihadists know a Catholic from a Calvinist from a Communist, when it comes to cutting off Western heads. But I could be wrong about it. All of it.

  2. toadspittle says:

    “The West’s response to the actions and war proclamations of Islam would seem to be summed up in the hashtag LoveWins, with which the homosexualist lobby flooded Facebook and Twitter.”
    …There’s bit of irony for us all to savour. Perhaps Isis actually will capture Rome – and throw all the gay priests off the dome of St. Peters into the square.
    There’d be mixed feelings about that on CP&S, suggests Toad.

    (Surely it’s some kind of sin to make the Blessed Virgin look as soppy as she’s been in the accompanying illustration?)

  3. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr de Mattei, If you stop by to read our comments, I’d ask:
    1. Do you seek the forcible expulsion of Muslims from *Christendom*?
    2. If your answer to (1) is “no”, would you deny them freedom of religion in *Christendom*?
    3. If your answer to (2) is “no”, would you deny them freedom of assembly in *Christendom*?

    And, dear sir, if your answers to all three questions is “no”, then quit yer bellyachin’.

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    Mr de Mattei says: “…the ethnic and religious war…in Bosnia [was] the first “mediatic-war” of modern times…”

    Hardly. Ever hear tell of the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, the (first) Gulf War, etc. etc.?

  5. Another important book that reflects and confirms Mr. de Mattei’s viewpoint and that he might have listed in his article is “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,” by Harvard-educated journalist Christopher Caldwell.

    Perhaps Mr. de Mattei’s ideas are also supported by Jonathan Swift’s comment in his “Polite Conversation”: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

    People who base their criticism of others on what is politically correct should try to make sure that that criticism is, in fact, correct.

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    RJB says: “People who base their criticism of others on what is politically correct should try to make sure that that criticism is, in fact, correct.”

    Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but I can’t help thinking that your salutary admonition is aimed at Yours Truly. Please, friend, make no mistake: I’m on all fours with Mr de Mattei when it comes to recognising that the Muslim religion poses one of the greatest existential threats to civilization. As Pervez Musharraf, a Muslim for whom I have sneaking respect, said a few months after 9/11:

    Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most unenlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race.
    My quarrel with Mr de Mattei has naught to do with his alarm at the impending Muslim ascendancy.

    But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it.

    2 Tim 3:1- 5

    Was Paul speaking of Muslims or of us?

    Unless you’re in favour of the ethno-religious cleansing of Muslims out of our midst – which is what I was getting at in my first comment above – you must accept that the problem is not them. It is us. Unless we breed children and raise them in seriously (not just nominally) Christian homes, and unless our governments enact family friendly policies (which Muslims have no need of but which so-called Christians apparently do) encouraging us to do so, and unless old people like you and me are willing to give up some of our financial security in favour of young people starting families, we are bound to lose our countries to Muslims in the long, if not the medium, term. We – meaning people in the Western Hemisphere – are fortunate that the Muslim invasion ongoing in Europe has not become a significant problem for us yet. You Europeans are the canaries in the coal mine, so to speak, and we thank you for that, although I wish it were otherwise.

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    You are losing it. No wonder all of your comments are now subject to pre-moderation.

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Clarification: RJB, when I said “You Europeans”, I was referring to residency, not citizenship.

  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Rossi’s Ice Cream Parlour yesterday:

    Rossi’s Ice Cream Truck today:

    Forgive the grocer’s apostrophe. Those hilarious Muslims.

  10. lavsdeo says:

    Reblogged this on Laus Deo.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    My daughter, pictured here at 2:38 laughs at me for being so serious about Catholicism:

  12. kathleen says:

    Well said JH… and I fear you are right! Our birth rate has dropped so low in European (formerly Christian) countries that for some years now we are not ‘replacing’ ourselves, any longer.

    This is a comment from someone on the ‘Catholic Truth’ blog who have also re-blogged the same article:
    “About 15 years ago I was on a bus in Dublin when an elderly lady asked a young Muslim for a seat. The latter replied: “You are finished, old lady. We will outbreed you”. And they will, God help us!”

    Scary, eh? And by the time Europeans start to wake up to the coming danger, perhaps even trying to recover something of their Catholic heritage that was always based on the family, it might be too late.

  13. toadspittle says:

    Toad has replaced himself with three children, who, so far, have produced five grandchildren. Not good enough, to be sure.
    But breeding seems to be like the weather: Everyone talks about it, and nobody does anything about it.
    Would it be impertinent to ask what contribution others on here are currently making toward increasing the number of Catholics in the world?

  14. johnhenrycn says:

    First you ask Ginnyfree how much she weighs. Now you ask everyone to reveal the details of their conjugal activities. “Impertinent” doesn’t begin to describe you. Congratulations on your fructification.

  15. toadspittle says:

    “Now you ask everyone to reveal the details of their conjugal activities. “
    I do not.
    Whether they had any luck with them, or not, maybe.
    …And I ask nicely.

  16. johnhenrycn says:

    After reading about the latest slaughter at Palmrya in Syria – not to mention the one in Tunisia – I’m thinking of asking that a Mass be said for the total annihilation of Isis… and Boko Haran while I’m at it. Our priest (a new arrival – one of the Vietnamese boat people from the mid-1970s) wouldn’t actually say the words, but there is nothing stopping me from requesting a Mass for my special intentions. I don’t think there would be anything wrong (unChristian) in making such a request.

    If I was really bold, I would spontaneously add it to our bidding prayers when doing one of my lector slots, but I’m not that bold. I wonder how that would go over if I did?

  17. johnhenrycn says:

    I guess it’s Boko Haram, not Haran, but God will know who I mean.

  18. toadspittle says:

    Why shouldn’t the Church Militant pray for the annihilation of its enemies? Might even pray for some practical help in wiping them out.

  19. kathleen says:

    That’s a tough one JH! 😉
    How could any decent Christian feel anything but total horror and loathing for the Islamic terrorists that compose this group of bloodthirsty savages, so steeped in evil? But there we are – obeying the Words of Our Saviour, we have to reject such feelings, and instead try to see them as poor twisted fools in the clutches of Satan. Then it follows that rather than wish them all bombed and blown to bits (after which they will most likely spend their Eternity in Hell) we must pray and beseech Our Blessed and Merciful Lord to convert their hardened hearts.

    If that seems quite impossible, remember – it has happened before! One example: in the 16th century the cruel Azteca Indians were not so different in their mindset to ISIS. After the Apparition of the Mother of God to Juan Diego and the amazing miracles that followed (and surely through the prayer of countless faithful souls) thousands upon thousands of them embraced Christianity. The good fruit of these conversions then spread over all the Americas, as everyone knows.

    So it’s tough, but we have to pray for our enemies like the ISIS terrorists… and (in my case anyway) also for the desire to do so!

  20. kathleen says:

    I’ve just seen an article by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith in the Catholic Herald: “ISIS is flourishing as Britain continues to make a mess of its Foreign Policy”.

    After listing all the things “we cannot do” in dealing with ISIS, Father concludes with:

    “Finally, we need a credible theological response to the claims of Islamism. This is perhaps the simplest part, and yet the one part of any “full spectrum response” that David Cameron and his colleagues seem least keen to confront. It is really a debate about the nature of God. Does God demand that we crucify, burn alive, throw off a high building, or otherwise kill sinners? And does God give us the competence to judge sinners and carry out such punishments? No, and again, no. Who or what could inspire humanity to act so inhumanely? Not God. The claim that ISIS is some sort of nihilistic death cult has some truth to it. In fact, most Catholics have little difficulty in recognising it as such, but would go further. ISIS is the work of Satan. To call it such is to invite all people of goodwill to disown it, as well as reminding ourselves that pacts with the Devil never bring about any good.”

    Okay, so let’s call a spade, a spade. Let that “credible theological response” mean a return to our Catholic heritage in all its splendour and strength. Then, and only then, will we become a formidable force to combat the likes of ISIS and its evil plans of death and destruction.

  21. toadspittle says:

    …And then, the reputation of cruel 16th Century Spaniards was not particularly high.

    ….from the horse’s mouth, here – in a manner of speaking. (A Dominican, though.)

  22. Michael says:

    This is an excellent article Kathleen, thank you for posting the link – the final paragraph, which you quote above, underlines the real reason why we are so reluctant to engage ISIS on any of the other points that Fr. Lucie-Smith mentions. We are so committed to the belief that beliefs don’t matter/it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you’re ‘nice’ to people (which we, erroneously, believe will occur automatically, regardless of what underpins your culture at any given time), that we cannot allow ourselves to see that we are dealing with a movement driven to what it does precisely by what it believes!*

    Unfortunately, as time goes on and the hollowness of so much of our secular discourse about rights, liberty and human worth becomes more apparent, this only serves to make our leaders more determined to avoid the issue, knowing as they do that as soon as they admit the need to both engage with ISIS’ ideology as ideology and to examine what kind of truly coherent, robust response we can offer, the whole project that the past few generations have been building in the West will be exposed for the feeble thing it really is. Worst of all of course, from their point of view, is that this exposure will also bring to light the fact that the only things worth preserving in that project have their roots in the very things they have been trying to obscure – i.e.; Christianity and the natural law tradition.

    The one positive in all this is that the exposure of secular humanism’s inability to present either a challenge to Islamism or even a robust defence of its own ‘values’ is virtually inevitable – the challenge from outside will not go away, and the changes we are creating within our societies will become increasingly unsustainable in the long term, showing up the flimsiness of our concepts of rights, etc. We will have to confront the issue eventually – the question is, how long will it take for us to do so, and how much worse do things have to get before then?

    *Apologies for the use of the words ‘belief’ and ‘believe’ so many times in one sentence there!

  23. Michael says:

    P.S. Here’s a great example of how not to deal with terrorists living in your country:

    Rather than enforcing existing laws created to penalise those who preach to incite violence, and, say, shutting down Islamic charities with known links to terrorism, much better to introduce intrusive legislation into our schools and workplaces, making sure that our children know about (and our citizens support) ‘British values’ (i.e.; same-sex marriage, transgenderism, etc) so that people who object to these newly created values are punished instead eh? Brilliant.

    More on the UK’s reluctance to confront the growing threat within and without its borders here:

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    When I propose prayers for the total annihilation of ISIS, I think that can be seen as in keeping with our doctrine of just war. A pacifistic stance when confronted by their shocking sub-human barbarity is a sin. Furthermore, there is nothing necessarily contradictory in praying for the destruction of the organization (ISIS) whilst also praying for the conversion of its followers.

  25. toadspittle says:

    “A pacifistic stance when confronted by their shocking sub-human barbarity is a sin.”

    Agreed 100%,* JH. Trouble is, Christ didn’t. “Turn the other cheek,” he said.
    And I think he meant just that.
    If the evil ones come to kill you, don’t resist, was his message. You will die and go straight to Heaven as a martyr.
    Early Christians demonstrated this in the arena.
    I wouldn’t, but there you are. I’m not a early Christian. (…or much of a late one.)

    * Why? Because I think Nietzsche was right on this one: The ‘humble’ Christian mentality is a slave mentality. Flocks of sheep, lambs to the slaughter, and all that.

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    “…whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

    Our Lord, in the first passage, is speaking of attacks against thee, not of attacks against defenseless others. If you let yourself be smitten on both cheeks, that’s your call; but it’s no part of Jesus’ message that you should stand by wringing your hands when it is happening to others.

    Hence the second passage, which isn’t simply a call for organ donations,

    We are Catholics. We recognise the importance of context in biblical interpretation. We understand that the Bible is not the whole story. We are not Fundamentalist snake handlers who think they know what the Bible means and who eschew the very notion of context. We look to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to explain to us the meaning of the Bible. It used to be (I’m told) that Catholics were discouraged from actually reading the Bible on their own. Not sure that was such a good idea, but neither is it a good idea to read the Bible without the benefit of commentary from wiser minds than ours.

  27. “and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” Luke 22:36
    “Proclaim ye this among the nations: prepare war, rouse up the strong: let them come, let all the men of war come up. Cut your ploughshares into swords, and your spades into spears. Let the weak say: I am strong.”- Joel 3:9-10

    “These precepts are always to be observed in attitude of mind,
    namely, that a man should always be prepared not to
    resist….but at times one must act otherwise because of the
    common good….. Hence Augustine says…nothing is more unhappy
    than the happiness of sinners, in that impunity is nourished,
    and an evil will is strengthened” – Summa 2 St. Thomas Aquinas

  28. kathleen says:

    Oh yes JH… (and The Hapsburg Restorationist too) – I wholly agree with the “just war doctrine” and with your clarification in your comment of 13:56 JH of what you meant in asking for a Mass for “the destruction of the organisation ISIS”… and Boko Haram. Even our duty to pray for the conversion of their members takes a marathon effort of the will (and God’s much-needed Grace), so despicable are these inhuman men.

    In fact, it would surely be cowardly, and I would even say unChristian, to do nothing to fight the threat and great evil that Muslim terrorism poses to our Faith, our families, our livelihood, etc. There is nothing in Our Lord’s words, or in the teaching of His Bride, the Catholic Church, that justifies a spineless pacifism that would deny us the right of self-defence and that of our Holy Church.

  29. Brother Burrito says:

    JH, If I was in charge, I’d send in a brigade of Ghurkas with kukris freshly sharpened.

    These fine soldiers are not averse to decapitating the foe and lobbing the heads into the enemy dugouts ahead to give them a “firm purpose of amendment”, you might say. ISIS would be off for their eternal reward before breakfast.

    “As the use of paratroops was increasing during the Malaya confrontation in the 1950’s, a British colonel asked the leader of a platoon of Gurkha if they would be prepared to jump from a C130.

    Somewhat to the colonel’s surprise, the Gurkha sergeant requested a day to talk it over with his men.

    The next day, the Gurkha duly reported that they would do it, but only over marshy ground with the aircraft flying at no more than 100ft.

    ‘But at a hundred feet the parachutes wouldn’t work,’ the colonel explained.

    The Gurkha replied, ‘Parachutes? No-one mentioned parachutes!’ ” (Probably apocryphal)

  30. kathleen says:

    Good well-reasoned comment Michael. Unfortunate I think we have already grown so “feeble” in the West, having rejected all our noble Christian “virtues”, and embracing so much that is sinful, that we are already incapable of seeing the truth. We are literally ’tilting at windmills’, entrapped in the reigning Secularism and Modernism, and letting the real enemy gain ground.

  31. johnhenrycn says:

    Just so, Kathleen.

  32. kathleen says:

    Very interesting links Michael… although they have set my blood boiling! 😡

    In the second link Charles Moore hits the nail on the head:
    “Islamism is unappeasable because it is a doctrine, not a set of demands.”

    Let’s get this into our thick heads once and for all.

  33. Michael says:

    When I propose prayers for the total annihilation of ISIS, I think that can be seen as in keeping with our doctrine of just war.

    Hmm, I’m not sure. The sixth of the seven points which must be fulfilled for a truly just war is that the amount of force to be used must be enough to succeed and no more. I don’t necessarily disagree, but whether or not total annihilation (and nothing less) of the organisation ISIS would be required in order to succeed in nullifying their threat is a debatable point. Furthermore, in this total annihilation, one would also have to try one’s best to ensure that point 7 of the just war criteria is fulfilled – no involvement of civilians – a difficult task indeed.

  34. Michael says:

    Early Christians demonstrated this in the arena.

    Individual Christians are not nation states.

  35. Michael says:

    although they have set my blood boiling!

    Yes, I know what you mean! And yes, the quote from Charles Moore you cite above is just what Fr. Lucie-Smith was (I think) getting at in the conclusion of his article – we are still treating ISIS/Islamism as some kind of standard political entity which we can bargain with, break down into separate demands and try to make compromises; the one thing they do not want to accept is that it their acts are motivated by their beliefs. At least our leaders are consistent I suppose – they act in their own lives without any real principle, and are motivated solely by utilitarian concerns, so it makes sense that they would expect the same of everyone else.

  36. Michael says:

    Fair point. Though it must be remembered that any barbarities committed by the Conquistadors was not only going against the grain of their culture’s root principles, but that the most robust critiques of their behaviour in the Americas actually emerged from their own culture (in this case St Bartolomeo de las Casas). I don’t think the same can be said of the Aztecs, or of ISIS.

  37. johnhenrycn says:

    As always, Michael, you are a voice of reason, which is not to say I agree with your reasoning. Total annihilation (and nothing less) is what I suggest is needed. What sort of lesser diminution of their power are you suggesting?

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Tell me this (someone) – are the deaths of innocents, any innocents, absolutely forbidden by just war doctrine?

  39. No, the deaths of civilians must simply not be an intended consequence (though I’m not sure if that counts unintended yet foreseeable deaths)

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    THR, when our grandfathers and fathers fired artillery and tank shells against each other, did the inevitable and therefore obviously foreseeable death of civilians they caused make our war an unjust one?

  41. JH,
    The burden of cause which makes a war just or unjust lies with the commanders and those making decisions. Had the civilians been deliberately targeted, that tactic would unjust. Had the commander been able to make the decision to engage the enemy in manner unlikely to hurt any civilians as opposed to the alternative, he would have had the moral duty to do so. The primary aims and means of the commanders in a war and their attitudes toward immoral practices being used make the war just or unjust, not the individual actions of the soldiers (who in so far as they intend the consequences, are morally responsible for them).

  42. Michael says:

    Total annihilation (and nothing less) is what I suggest is needed. What sort of lesser diminution of their power are you suggesting?

    I’m afraid I wasn’t doing anything as useful as suggesting any positive alternatives to total annhiliation JH. All I was saying is that the question of whether this would be necessary to succeed in the objective (which here, would be to stop ISIS from being any sort of threat, present and future) is debatable – for instance, it might be possible to strike a severe enough blow to ISIS that they become disbanded and lose both a common direction and any credibility in the eyes of their followers. This would then nullify their threat, without totally annihilating them. Again though, I am not sure if this alternative would actually be sufficient, and it is possible that total annihilation would be required in ISIS’ case, but I am not sure, and it is something that would need to be resolved if the war were to be truly just.

  43. Michael says:

    P.S. There is also the practical point that, when one assesses the various wars that have been engaged in throughout history, very few, if any of them, can be said to have fulfilled all seven points of Just War theory. As you point out in your comment at 21:25 on July 7th, civilian casualties were almost certainly foreseeable, and yet were presumably written off as a sad but inevitable consequence of pursuing ‘the greater good’. Most calculations of the justness of war similarly take place within a broadly utilitarian framework, but if we are trying to decide what to pray for, we must look to the ideal (even if such an ideal is seldom aimed for, let alone achieved, in practice).

  44. Brother Burrito says:

    Gurkha are the answer. Vide supra.

    Giving these ISIS bastards real fear for their lives in knife-to-throat combat might just make them see sense.

  45. Michael says:

    Agreed – those chaps know a good deal about fighting, and a few in ISIS’ midst would really show them what it’s like. The humiliation of having been taken down by a small group of Nepalese men with funny knives would no doubt give take their confidence down a few pegs too.

    Just found another Gurkha related quote too, from Field Marshall Sam Wanekshaw of the Indian Army:

    ‘If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.’

  46. johnhenrycn says:

    “But the Gurkhas … they used to … wouldn’t let you do guard duty, because they always said Canadians were too loud, too noisy. And if they wanted to, if they come up behind you some night, you never heard them. You didn’t hear nothing. You’d just feel this arm going around your neck, feeling for your dog tag, and they’d say, ‘Okay, Johnny’ “

    …from a Veterans Canada website that I can’t link. I remember my father-in-law telling me once that Gurkhas also used to run their fingers over bootlaces to tell whether the sleeping soldier was an enemy or not. I lace my Sunday Going To Mass shoes German style 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s