WITH CALLS GROWING for military action against the so-called Islamic State — and warnings, including from Foreign minister Julie Bishop, that jihadists bent on setting up a terrorist state may already be too entrenched to wipe out — the usual anti-war bleatings are emanating from the usual orifices of the Left. Today we see a picture somewhat less ideal than the fantasy world in which the “compassion” babblers and chardonnay drunks dwell.
Readers know I make very few bones about the true value of the ABC’s QandA programme: with a panel of six (including the host, journalist Tony Jones) that is invariably stacked 4-2 or (mostly) 5-1 with left-wing participants, QandA is not a serious forum for quality discussion of politics and current events: it is merely a weekly opportunity to get a good look at what the Left is talking about among itself.
So it was last night, and it will equally surprise very few people that once my Twitter feed (and the enraged responses to my tweets) began to stream, I was as focused on that side of the discussion as I was on the programme itself.
The reason I begin with this background explanation is that inevitably, the discussion on QandA turned to events in the Middle East and the so-called Islamic State, which — as we discussed last week — is nothing more than an extremely violent claque aiming to set up an expansionist terrorist state, and which is prepared to rape, torture and kill whoever and whatever might stand in its path. I posted a tweet noting (in effect) that all of QandA‘s Lefties were now pouring out their reasons why ISIS should not face military strikes from the West: and that their position was despicable.
Almost predictably, a “Dr Kwanda Ngo” (not his/her real name, I’m sure) — who may have found the reference to “sub-human filth” in the tweet that I posted last week’s article in — responded.
Reality is “no story book or action film,” Kwanda informed me. It was simplistic and easier to “view people as dehumanised monsters.” I pointed out that the atrocities being committed were being carried out by those who are no better than barbarians, and that only monsters rape kids and behead people.
According to “Kwanda,” action against ISIS was a self-fulfilling prophesy: it would merely drive people toward the insurgents, to which I noted that what is going on in the Middle East was bound to happen anyway (my thinking being that the radicalisation of insurgent Muslims over the past decade or two was always going to confront the world with this type of development at some juncture). “Now that is utterly false,” came the reply.
Yes, this is but one conversation on the #qanda thread on Twitter but I could have picked from countless dozens of others: this “Dr Kwanda” was perfectly representative of the outpouring of Leftist twaddle that floods Twitter every Monday night, Australian Eastern Standard Time, between 9.30pm and 10.30pm.
So it’s with a certain grim determination that I post this morning; I don’t pretend we’ll get to the nub of everything to do with ISIS in one sitting or anything approaching it.
But there are two things I want to bring to the attention of readers today, and for those righteously (and bombastically) opposed to the notion of Australia contributing military resources and manpower to a broad Western coalition to act against ISIS — or to such a coalition striking the Islamic State at all — I would hope that these snapshots might shock a little reason and rational logic into them.
I have been reading a couple of articles this morning — you can access them here and here — that focus on a 17-year-old girl who was forced into sexual servitude by ISIS forces. Even those of a similar ideological outlook to myself (and therefore not deluded by the “romanticism” of ISIS, or the morally degenerate state of Western society, or any other such mindless drivel) will find themselves shuddering in disgust to read them.
We talked about some of the atrocities of ISIS, very broadly, in the discussion last week; this is the first time we’ve looked at a specific example of what that murderous, despotic movement is doing, and I fear it won’t be the last. But it is one reason among so very many that justify action being taken to blast the so-called “Islamic State” off the face of the planet.
This issue — covered independently by separate British media outlets — is sickening enough in that it involves young teenage girls; like any father with a daughter, or in fact any decent human being at all, the entire notion of the vicious enslavement of the source for the stories (and the rest of the 40 girls imprisoned with her) I find absolutely sickening.
An exacerbating factor is that the girls seem to range in age from 13 to 17: not even legal. Not even old enough to call most of them “young women.” I can’t really publish what I think of men who find it acceptable to have sex with children; such language is unprintable, and would make the occasional expletive that finds its way into this column look positively virtuous by comparison.
An additional exacerbating factor is that when they’re not being raped for the pleasure of the ISIS thugs holding them captive, they are being beaten brainless by them: some, according to the girl who was brave enough to speak to the Western press, are so badly traumatised that they can no longer speak.
And perhaps worst of all — in the psychological sense, at any rate — these girls are apparently being encouraged, coerced, and goaded into speaking to their own families and to Western media outlets. Why? So the world knows about the treatment being meted out by ISIS to its “enemies.” So the families of the girls know, in infinitesimal detail, precisely what is being done to their daughters. Because the ISIS thugs consider their victims so worthless that the global humiliation of forcing them to publicise their own sexual suffering is preferable to killing them.
Indeed, according to these reports (and there is no reason to question them), requests by the girls to be shot dead or beaten until they die are refused: they are more valuable alive as sex targets, and as reverse propaganda agents of the cruellest variety imaginable.
No, “Dr Kwanda,” reality is no story book or action film — and neither is this.
All of this is made even worse again when an additional aspect of ISIS’ enslavement of these girls — the fact they belong to the tiny, ancient religious minority of Yazidis — is considered; it scarcely requires observing that barbarians purporting to act in the name of “religion” would target such a group, but taken in sum the plight these girls find themselves in is such that death is probably preferable: and they have said as much themselves.
All of this relates back to the chardonnay-swilling compassion babblers who sit around passing the vacuous moral misjudgements of the Left on anyone who disagrees with them, and who will argue — London to a brick — that not only should Australia take no part in any military strike, but that there should be no military strike against ISIS at all.
Pointed fingers aimed at Messrs John Howard, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are waggled in support of their position; stern admonishments that “we didn’t learn our lesson in Iraq last time” and that “this is all George Bush’s fault” accompany the gesture.
And the sordid details of exactly what the sub-human filth that is ISIS is actually doing to its victims are an inconvenience to the diatribe of “compassion” these finger-shaking fools engage in, and would lecture from an assumed position of moral superiority over the Right that is non-existent.
Those who claim their anti-war bleating is informed by their “social conscience” or similarly vapid gobbledygook should hang their heads in shame.
Perversely, these would be the first people to defend the right of those who survive the ISIS brutality to hop on a boat, head for Australia, and be fawned over with “compassion” and unconditional welfare money — if, perchance, they managed to survive a perilous voyage by sea in the first place.
And it is perverse because the West has the power to go into the Middle East, wipe out much of the ISIS terror group and any infrastructure it has established, and free these people in their own country.
Even those who eventually manage to make it out if ISIS is permitted to remain in place, when more time has passed and countless more people have been slaughtered at its hand, will do so leaving behind a death toll that could be drastically reduced by the act of the West in confronting the insidious menace of the Islamic State whilst the opportunity exists to now do so.
I haven’t talked about beheadings, or outright torture, or some of the other atrocities of this contemptible gang of brutes: I’m sure we will do so in time.
But for anyone who thinks those with the ability to confront this menace and defeat it should do nothing of the kind, they should read about the 17-year-old who had to tell her parents what the filth of ISIS physically did to her.
If that doesn’t get through to them I don’t know what will.
AND ANOTHER THING: As debate rages in Australia about what to do about “radicalised” young Muslims travelling to the area infected with the scourge of ISIS, another interesting piece from the British media overnight casts an interesting light on what happens when self-styled heroes travel into battle — only to find that they are, to use the vernacular, as weak as piss compared to the “brethren” they seek to “fight alongside.”
Dubbed the “Cream Puff Brigade,” the Daily Express tells the tale of a group of British and European Islamic jihadis who asked their ISIS “brethren” for permission to go home because they were disillusioned with the jihadi war and were “sick of the brutality of their fanatical leaders.”
In response, their “brethren” dubbed them “traitors who deserved death” and took their weapons, locked them in a torture camp, and are said to be “mistreated on a daily basis.”
Not that I have a shred of sympathy for them; they are as guilty of bastardry as those they now seek to flee from.
I just have to wonder whether the “radicalised” Australian Muslims, who return to this country after “fighting alongside their brethren” in the ISIS-affected area, fit the same category as their European counterparts described in the article I have linked here.
My position on those who travel to fight the Islamic State’s battles remains unchanged: if they possess the citizenship of any other country when they depart Australia, they should be stripped of their Australian citizenship and/or right to residency here — and permanently denied re-entry to the country.
I suppose there is a savage irony in this; having journeyed to fight with ISIS and be heroes, the discovery they are nothing of the kind must indeed grate on these men.
Returning to Australia to behave in a “radicalised” fashion won’t make them heroes either: and having willingly ventured into the lion’s den in the first place, nobody ought to be perturbed if they find themselves unable to get back out when the going gets too rough for even these “heroes” to handle.