Is Bombing Syria/ISIS a “Just War”?

airstrikes

Click here to read a brief summary of the Just War theory – then tell us if you think bombing Syria, with a view to eliminating the terrorist group Islamic State, satisfies the criteria for a just war.

Were St Thomas Aquinas alive today and writing his Just War Theory, would he update it to include consideration of the kind of terrorism we know, and fear,  today?StThomasAquinasyoung

Share your thoughts – all things considered, do you think Catholics should support the bombing of Syria.  Are we able to do so by invoking the Just War Theory?

And don’t let’s forget to pray especially this weekend  for those involved in making the decision to bomb Syria. Our Lady, Queen of Peace, pray for them.

76 responses

  1. It is a terrible situation but I have never felt that any dispute can be settled by dropping high explosives. In the end there has to be negotiations but we are not dealing with rational people here where Isis are concerned.

  2. Re-reading the summary of Aquinas’ Just War Theory has simply confirmed what I already believed about the whole Syrian situation. Thank you for linking it, Editor. The war in Syria cannot be justified under this principle.

    Military action in Syria is not a last resort here. There is too much the public is not being told. Who is supplying arms to Isis? What game is Turkey playing and what exactly is the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Could it be that if everyone stopped supplying Isis the Syrian government could deal with this problem themselves? Far from being a last resort, this is more a ploy to get rid of a government the West does not like. I don’t think much of President Assad, but if the Syrian people want rid of him, they will have to deal with that themselves when all this mess is resolved. For now, they are stuck with him.

    Is there legitimate authority to wage war? We need a UN mandate, which we don’t have here.

    There is no just cause. The people who murdered the people in Paris are all EU citizens. There is a report of a Syrian passport being found at the Stad de France, but it’s not certain that it belonged to one of the bombers and it may also have been a forgery. At any rate, it’s remarkable that the bomber was blown to pieces, but the passport remained in tact. The Paris murderers were mostly from Belgium, but while Nigel Farage may like the idea, no one is seriously suggesting we bomb Brussels.

    The probability of success is limited if any previous action in the Middle East is anything to go by.

    Right intention – don’t make me laugh! This is western politicians we’re discussing!

    I am not sure carpet-bombing Raqqa is proportionate, and the civilian casualties are numerous.

    I am no pacifist, but I believe we are being conned here. Who exactly are Isis and who is supporting them? Are they really that much of a threat, given that all of the terror attacks in Europe in recent years have been carried out by drugged up wasters who have latched onto a ludicrous ideology, which just happens to be in fashion right now? Anders Breivik, Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh were not Muslim, but adopted a far-right ideology instead. The murders in Paris are being used as a pretext to justify an action that the governments in the West wanted anyway.

    • Alex F

      I didn’t think it would be a just war but if I had any doubts, your most informative post would have seen them off.

      You covered all bases there and I agree with you that no way could the just war principle be used to permit bombing attacks on Syria.

      I don’t know what it is, but I notice that politicians, especially when they get to be PM, just champ at the bit to go to war with somebody. It’s just incredible that they think nothing of putting young soldiers’ lives on the line. Maybe if they were expected to go as well, they might be less keen on warmongering.

      • I wonder if we are giving too much credit to the terrorists. They are not a real army. Someone is supplying them and buying oil from them. They went into a theatre and started killing unarmed people who could not defend themselves- any coward can do that. So these are not the actions of a professional army. I suspect one soldier in the Bataclan theatre could have despatched the drugged up terrorists in no time. So far, all of the European terrorists have been shown to have histories of drug abuse and petty crime- losers who want to feel important for a day.

        So who is behind this bunch of barbaric rag-heads, for that is the real enemy? Who the heck buys oil from them? Who exactly is the USA and her poodles (sorry, allies) supporting in Syria. Obviously not Assad, but are we still supporting the “moderate” rebels who took America’s gifts of weapons and then themselves joined Isis? Is it the same ones who were filmed signing and dancing around the dead body of the Russian pilot they themselves had just murdered? Is that what passes for “moderate” these days? Why is it that Turkey is supposedly fighting Isis, but seems more interested in using that as an excuse to kill Kurds, who themselves are the only group that has any success in fighting Isis? And is it true that Turkey is buying oil from them?

        There will always be crazy lunatics who want to kill people. The problem arises when people who should know better start helping them do that. Until we get answers to some of the questions above and others, then I cannot see how St Thomas’ Just War principles can be applied here.

  3. I think that bombing should always be a last resort with round the table negotiations always the first approach however such is the resolve of these extremists I really feel that no amount of talking is going to do the job in fact I think we have already gone beyond the negotiating process.The danger off course is the collateral damage which inevitably comes with such action like christiana2 these people are not rational look at their barbarity and savage behaviour when they have a hostage or indeed a Lee rigby.There will be no stopping them in their minds until they have achieved their ultimate goal converting the world to Islam.

    • Morgana,

      I’ve been thinking about what else the allies could do instead of bombing and negotiating, which isn’t going to happen, and I wonder if going into these countries to make them better, infrastructure etc. would help stop the terrorism, get the ordinary people on board building their country? Maybe it’s pie in the sky but something like that just might work.

      • I don’t actually agree with bombing per se because then you have others getting their nose in and escalating situations but despite what Alex was saying I believe they truly are a very dangerous enemy what is going to make them stop what they are doing.Alex said that the killers in Paris were all eu citizens whilst this is correct I am sure part of their radicalization was driven by the terrorists in Syria and their cause so it matters not that they didn’t come from Syria.

        • Morgana,

          If the rationale is really to eliminate ISIS, then why are the politicians so dead set against sending in foot soldiers who would get to know the area and people and find out precisely who and where the terrorists are to be found? Then bring them to trial, which is surely preferable to killing them – in a court where they are likely to get more than a rap on the knuckles: i.e. not a UK court! Telling them they’ve been naughty boys and girls and sending them on a de-radicalisation course ain’t going to cut it, that’s for sure!

          I repeat: why are the politicians not keen to send in the foot soldiers and follow the instructions of Foreign Secretary Editor CT, if they are really motivated by eliminating the group ISIS?

          But don’t let the above points fool you – I am not sure how on earth to deal with these terrorists, but something tells me that this is unlikely to be the first successful war in which the UK has got itself engaged, after the mess they’ve left behind everywhere else, so I wouldn’t be voting for bombing if I were an MP on Monday (no chance, there’s no election before Monday!)

          • They are wary of sending in troops because they are terrified of ISIS, ISIL or whatever they happen to be called at any particular time.

            They are more terrified of their troops being captured rather than being killed. Maybe they should have listened to the murderer of
            Lee Rigsby who told them that he was only demonstrating what they themselves have been guilty of over the years.

            It is safer for their soldiers to be marching around towns and cities or abseiling from football stadium roofs during armed forces day rather than doing what soldiers are supposed to do and that is accommodating the enemy face to face.

            They condemn ISIS’ barbarity but think nothing of tearing an unborn baby to bits while still in its mother’s womb.

            It would suit them better to sort out the mess this country is in rather than meddling in other people’s affairs.

            • Frankier,

              Look what happened to this priest when he decided to not only condemn ISIS barbarity but compared it to abortion.

              With pastoral care like that offered by HIS archbishop, who needs pastoral care?

              • Editor

                That’s typical of the Catholic Bishops’ reactions nowadays.

                It’s funny how I thought the same thing as the French priest when I read about the cowardly ratbags who were on stage that night. I see where they want to be the first act to appear there again. Let’s hope they have more courage if it, God forbid, should happen again.

                I have no time for ISIS or their way of dealing out “justice” but I feel they are sending out some kind of message which is being ignored. The dressing up of captured prisoners in orange jump suits is not hard to interpret but you never ever hear or read about this.

                That is why the good guys would prefer to bomb and devastate these countries rather than put “boots on the ground” as they love to say. They are a wee bit safer up in the air.

                They would rather lose a hundred soldiers than have one of their own captured and paraded in front of the cameras dressed in the orange suits. That would be a bit too near the bone for their liking.

                At the end of the day they will have to do what they always finish up doing and that is to have some dialogue. They always treat their enemies as idiots until it is too late.

                I don’t understand why Cameron, Obama, Hollande,
                Putin, Assad and the rest of the combatants don’t have a shoot-out among themselves with the last man standing declared the one in charge. It would make for great television.

                We could send wee Nicola or Big Alex to fight our corner and with a wee bit of luck, or cheating even,
                Scotland could rule the world.

                • Frankier,

                  Speaking of Alex Salmond, and since we’re entitled to a bit of fun now and then, I thought I’d post this clip which was broadcast on the local news a couple of nights ago. In case you missed it – it is really comical – a schoolboy impersonating “Big Alex”, and making a good job of it!

          • As I said above I don’t agree that bombing is the only answer I don’t know how you stop these terrorists do you put a foot army in to fight them would this be successful who knows why the reluctance for army on the ground.One thing is for sure unless Pope Francis gets on with the real job in hand consecration of Russia to the immaculate heart then we are only going to continue in a world being destroyed by man’s greed and superioty flexing ones muscles believing they have some kind of power oh how the mighty will fall when realising God is the be all and end all of everything.One thing is for sure living in today’s society is extremely terrifying.

          • Editor,

            Call me cynical (and I suppose I am, to a degree), but I think boots on the ground will be the next phase. If it were to be propossed now, it would be unlikely to get past the commons.

      • Lily, but what is ‘their country’? Gaining and converting the world to Islam is the religious obligation of all Muslims. ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – just for now, that is. If it is successfully established in those unfortunate countries, do you think that will be the end of its expansion? Infiltration of the countries of sleeping Europe has been going on for decades. I haven’t a lot of patience with conspiracy theories and searching for reasons for these horrors outside Islam itself. The Koran is unequivocal in its bellicose teachings, and talk of moderate interpretations a con. If Muslim Saudi-Arabia and Quatar are funding ISIS, why wouldn’t they? I agree that the Just War Theory cannot be invoked here, mainly because the actions proposed hold out no possibility of success, as the West should have learned by now from its disastrous actions in Islamic states. This is a war against Principalities and Powers, and is unlike all other wars, just or otherwise. I think it will be lost in the short term, and then at last the Consecration of Russia will do what air-strikes and invasions cannot.

  4. I will have more to say later, after I have some coffee and think a little more, but my first reaction is that this may well be a just war from the Russian point of view, since they are defending their client Assad from the subversion of the United States and its NATO allies. From the NATO/US point of view, however, it cannot possibly be a just war, since ISIS owes its existence to NATO/US, and the reason ISIS was created by them was to do away with the Assad regime, illegally and in violation of international agreements and standards. I do not know why NATO/US wants to get rid of Assad, perhaps because he is a Russian client, but, as alternative news sources have been reporting for quite some time, Russia is the only nation who is actually destroying ISIS. More later….RCA Victor (formerly ChristmasLiszt….)

    • RCA Victor,

      From my reading of St Thomas Aquinas in the article linked up above, I don’t think a country can justify going to war on behalf of another country so Russia wouldn’t be fighting a just war unless they had to defend themselves, not Assad.

      I like your new name better, BTW!

      • Lily,

        Glad you like the new name (honoring Victor Borge, BTW, a superb pianist in addition to his lovable wit). Here, though, are some thoughts on the Just War Theory vs. the Syrian conflict:

        1. Last resort: This rules out labeling Syria as a just war, since there was never any intent to pursue “peaceful options.” The intent has always been regime change by violence and accompanying disinformation, along with the suppression of truth. “Regime change” itself is a euphemism for undeclared war.
        2. Legitimate authority: Since this war is being conducted by proxy groups armed and funded by legitimate governments, any violence perpetrated by the proxy groups cannot be considered just. Nor can the proxy group sponsors, although they are, unfortunately, legitimate governments, be considered to be conducting a just war. What these sponsors are really doing is fomenting guerrilla warfare without declaring open war.
        3. Just cause: There is no just cause involved, only pawns being moved about on a geopolitical chessboard for nefarious ends.
        4. Probability of success. The US/NATO strategy can easily be unmasked by the straitjacketed rules of engagement under which their forces allegedly operate against ISIS. More on that here: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/19/tangled-threads-of-us-false-narratives/ and here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/17/france-russia-pummel-isis-stronghold-as-critics-blast-us-rules-engagement.html Moreover, “success” in this case can really defined, for the US/NATO, as the destabilization of Syria, which is not exactly a process which might lead to peace.
        5. Right intention: The intentions of US/NATO are clearly evil. The intentions of Russia in defending Assad could be right if they are really that simple, but are not necessarily meant to achieve peace. Moreover, there is so much fog generated by behind-the-scenes manipulation in this conflict that I am unable to say for certain what Russia’s intentions are. If her intentions are regional hegemony, then that certainly rules out “peace.”
        6. Proportionality: You might say that the US/NATO forces are avoiding disproportionate military action, but that is only because their real intent is not to destroy ISIS, but only to pretend to. The actions of ISIS, however, are without a doubt disproportionate to their objectives. Then again, they are merely following the barbaric dictates of the Koran.
        7. Civilian casualties: This would also rule out calling Syria a just war, since innocent Christian civilians are being beheaded and otherwise executed at a horrifying rate.

        Conclusion: This conflict can in no way be characterized as a just war. It appears to be a guerrilla war whose aim is to ratchet up and provoke further conflict between Russia and the West – leading, presumably, to WWIII. That is, the third of the three world wars called for by Freemasonry’s Grand Master Albert Pike in the 19th century, as a means to achieve world government.

        • RCA Victor,

          “…Conclusion: This conflict can in no way be characterized as a just war”

          Agreed!

          I find it surprising that there are Catholics who are in favour of this bombing campaign – maybe they’ve never read St Thomas Aquinas or maybe they think he’d modify his theory if he were alive today.

          Given that the proposed campaign (and what has been going on for some time now) involves killing civilians, I doubt it. St Thomas Aquinas was playing with a full deck, take my word for it. I own a copy of the Summa. Trust me. He’d have stuck to his conditions for a just war, no question about it, in my ever so humble opinion.

          Question: since the assurance is that the bombers will be targeting the ISIS infrastructure only, and that means they know where they hang out, so to speak, why not just go in and capture them, leaving the civilians safely in their beds?

          I think those who say “cowardice”, are, in fact, correct. Much safer up there in the air, and it definitely gives the illusion of action.

          Why can’t the Pope and Bishops see that the only action which is NOT illusory is the Consecration of Russia, which is why Our Lady requested it and prescribed its precise manner. Incredible.

          Incredible that Pope Benedict actually said in his book length interview that he couldn’t believe that a short prayer of consecration would result in the promised period of peace, that it was too simplistic. Is he crazy? If Our Lady had insisted that every bishop in the world complete a Degree in Peace Studies and then meet up for a Third Vatican Council, would he have believed THAT? Answer: probably.

          Honestly, you truly could not make it up.

          • Editor

            Does Pope Benedict’s words mean that The Thirty Days Prayer would be a lot more effective than The Memorare or three Hail Marys?

          • It doesn’t take a long prayer to change a host into the Body and Blood of Christ so what made Pope Benedict think a five minute prayer wouldn’t be as effective?

  5. RCA Victor

    A really good post very thoughtful and totally agree with the points you make. Peter Hitchens one of the few secular journalists I respect was interviewed by LBC regarding bombing of Syria and again found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. The link to the interview is below.

    https://audioboom.com/boos/3859052-peter-hitchens-on-cameron-s-delusional-case-for-war?utm_campaign=embed&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    Sent from my iPad

    • John,

      That’s an excellent interview with Peter Hitchens. As usual, I enjoyed listening to views, so thank you for linking that. It was very insightful.

      Peter Hitchens I one of these people I think it ought to almost always disagree with, but normally find myself agreeing with everything he says! That was until his reference to “Londonderry”! That’s not on my satnav, but I’m prepared to overlook little things like that when I agree with everything else!

  6. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.Eph. 6:12

    Like others who have commented on this thread, I have no idea what the real end game of all this Middle Eastern conflict is. What I do know for certain is that none of the antagonists in this power play are operating under the banner of Christ the King. Hence the absence of any will to pursue a peaceful solution to the present West-provoked Syrian civil war.

    The fact that the various Middle East conflicts of the last decade have arisen in Iraq, Libya and Syria, countries all bordering the great river Euphrates, is Scripturally apocalyptic. Yes, dark forces are at work. These conflicts have nothing to do with order, justice, morality or peace in the world. They are wars of destabilisation, planned and executed for geopolitical reasons unknown to us.

    The Pope and the Bishops of the world alone can stop this escalation of violence by consecrating Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Their collective failure thus far to obey heaven’s request is largely to blame for the catastrophe we now witness in an increasingly Godless and violent world.

    • Athanasius,

      When I listen to the clowns we have governing us trying to convince us of the absolute necessity of jumping headlong into war in Syria, a shiver goes down my spine. Something is clearly clearly closing their minds to any kind of rational thought process. At least when the “Blair Creature” (Peter Hitchens’ expression) was trying to persuade us to go to war in Iraq, he had the decency to try to come up with a semi-convincing lie to justify the action. The current situation makes no logical sense- dark forces are indeed at work.

    • One thing about Russia amazes me. On the one hand we are told by Obama that she is a regional power, not a world power. Her economy, we are told, is about the size of Holland’s. And then look at the hardware that she is rolling out in the Syrian conflict.

      Methinks that we have underestimated Russia, in more ways than one.

      • Thank you, Prognostic umbrella, , for linking that article. Once again, PH hits the nail firmly on the head. It’s almost like he is familiar with Aquinas’ Just War Theory and has been modelling his argument on that.

  7. Athanasius spot on we are definitely witnessing the failure of Pope Francis to do what Our Lady asked at Fatima and so we reap what we sow not that the lay can do anything this must come from the leader of the Catholic church why would anyone want to bring such chastisement to the people have consequences not been considered.

  8. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is something very important in all of this that we are not being told. I thought that David Cameron made a less than compelling case for military intervention when he spoke in the Commons. If MPs have any sense, they will leave this one well alone.

  9. I agree with everybody – bombing Syria doesn’t come under the Just War theory IMHO. I don’t know why the government in Westminster is so keen on it but I think it will make the situation much worse and we will have a huge terrorist attack here, as a result. I would love to know why they are so keen on it.

  10. I agree with everyone. Bombing Syria is immoral and will do no good. Trouble is, we’ve been down this road before with Afghanistan and Iraq. You would think the penny would have dropped by now!

    I especially agree with Athanasius – what exactly is the end game? What can be achieved by bombing Syria? I firmly believe that achieving peace in the Middle East is humanly impossible. We all know what the solution is, but we have a pope more interest in fighting climate change and hugging Africans!

  11. Madame Editor,

    I cannot see that the bombing of Syria would be a just war. For one thing, the ringleaders of IS have all long since departed and are probably now in Sirte in Libya where they are consolidating their ground. Bombing Syria would only add to the misery of those whose home town it is.

    Let us remember a few things about President Assad:

    • He is the democratically elected President of his country Syria
    • His wife is English so he is not unaware of Western culture and its expectations
    • Christians were able to life peacefully in Syria prior to the troubles
    • He maintained from the beginning of the troubles that the unrest was being stirred up, not by his own people but by insurgents
    • The National Bank of Syria is one of possibly only two Banks in the world not being controlled by the architects of the New World Order – the other being the National Bank of Iran
    • There is still copious oil beneath the sands of both Syria and Iran which the same architects crave to lay their hands upon
    • Through indebtedness, those same architects already control most of the Governments in the world and can call the shots. It is they who have led America to arm IS to facilitate the the unseating of President Assad.
    • It is they who are pressing David Cameron and President Hollande and others to bomb Syria.

    When David Cameron says: “It is the right thing to do” it reminds me of Tony Blair uttering those same words in a similar theatre. RIght by whose lights? By those of the architects of the New World Order – or by those of God the Creator of all things that were made?

      • Margaret Mary,

        President Assad has always maintained that it was not on his orders that poison gas was used against his own countrymen in Syria.

        You can imagine for yourself who dressed up in what uniforms and committed what atrocities in order to calumniate him – and who paid them.

        John,

        Thank you for that link from Prophecynewswatch above. It makes very interesting reading. Truly there is some very widespread deception taking place. I wonder who can be behind it?

    • A Catholic Syrian lady told me that Christians in Syria support Assad because they are free to worship and fear what will happen if he goes. They look at Iraq where Christians were protected under Saddam Hussein and after he was removed they were persecuted and churches burned. They fear the same will happen in Syria.

  12. I watched the debate on Syria strikes live on TV from Parliament and thought how things change.
    Watching Hilary Benn saying the polar opposite of what his father, Tony Benn RIP said at the time of the Iraq vote, was really something to behold. Sitting right behind Tony Benn is Jeremy Corbyn! A lot younger then, of course, but it is interesting to see how he has stuck to his views all these years.

    I think we can only pray now for the Syrian people, now that the politicians have voted for the air strikes.

    • That was well before my time but I absolutely agree. The poor,poor Syrian people. The terrorists are hiding amongst them and there are NO identifiable targets to hit. Shocking. May God forgive our government. Yes, the same one that allows the mass murder of innocent children in the womb!

  13. For politicians to say that air strikes are needed to protect people here is nonsense. The 7/7 attacks in London were carried out by people living in England and those in Paris by people living in France and Belgium, not by people living in Syria.

  14. Tell me please..were the Crusades a “just war”?
    I think that they were.
    The point is that these Islamists were, are and always have been, hell bent on destroying everything that is good, just, sensible and supportive of christianity.
    Certainly “boots on the ground” are necessary to wipe out the Islamists. But the West is weary of sacrificing its young in campaigns after campaigns after campaigns. In despairation they have come up with the idea of a more “hands off war”. Eventually it will have to be an “in your face” war but dropping bombs do cause a great deal of damage on your enemy.
    My country, Australia, has been dropping bombs in Syria for at least the last 6 months and I am glad that it is doing so. I was delighted that Russia had joined in the fray but sadly they have only been dropping their bombs on the anti-Assad Syrians. The shooting down by Turkey of a Russian bomber has kind of changed the focus and among the personal belongings of the pilot who was murdered as he parachuted down was a scapular and a crucifix.
    I am convinced that the Islamists must be attacked, bombed and finally destroyed. I pray that God will allow this outcome in the final instance.

    • JohnR,

      The Crusades were a just war because the fighters for Islam were spreading their religion by violence and aggression. Then it was possible to see the enemy and know who we were fighting. There were proper battlefields, weren’t there. This bombing campaign will kill people who have nothing to do with ISIS and that’s one big difference. Another big difference is that in this case there are other means of defeating them, e.g. cutting off the money supply, oil, access to weapons etc. I definitely can’t see that God will bless any bombing campaign.

    • John R, I agree wholeheartedly with you in your second paragraph, and must say that while I have many worries and reservations about the bombing, I am not as strongly ‘anti’ as the majority of bloggers here are. According to what we are being told, the equipment and technology of the British bombers makes for very great precision – it is far removed from the dropping of bombs willy-nilly and hoping they arrive somewhere near the target.

      MM, what you say about alternatives is true, but there is no way in which any of them could be achieved in the world today in time to save Europe from falling to Islam. I am convinced that every attempt must be made to weaken and hinder murderous militant Islam, and this, for now, means destroying ISIS in its chosen heartland.

  15. Leprechaun is quite right that Assad is the legitimate leader of Syria. Elected, even. The UK is on the wrong side, having supported the murderous terrorist rebels that Cameron refers to as “moderates”
    Our only hope is to kill every member of ISIS, but the West does not have the stomach for it and does not face the reality. The reality is that the source of evil is islam. We need to remove all muslims from Europe and confine them in the area from Turkey to Pakistan inclusive. We should not import from there, nor export to there, nor allow travel, flights or shipping. We need to impose a tighter quarantine than we would on the most virulent disease imaginable. But that will not happen.
    We have a Pope that visits mosques in friendship, apparently unaware of the First Commandment.
    From the Guardian, “After removing his shoes on entering the Koudoukou mosque and bowing towards the holy Muslim city of Mecca, the pope told several hundred men inside that “Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters”.

  16. As you may suppose from my comment above, I do think that these bombings are equally as justified as were the Crusades. It is surely obvious to you all that vast hordes of Syrians have fled Syria so when you plead that bombs should not be dropped because innocent civilians will suffer, just how many innocent civilians are there still in Syria? The vast majority there have gone there simply to push Islam forward just as of old. The bombings are aimed at oil trucks and Islamic camps. The bombs of today are far better at hitting specific targets than they could during WWII. Did you complain about us bombing during WWII? Why did the Turks shoot down that Russian bomber? Putin is right. Turkey has indeed been helping ISIS by buying its oil and that is why the Turks pounced on that Russian bomber and shot it down over Syria, not over Turkey.
    By the way, I too urge you all to look at Rorate Caeli’s latest about the justification of the Crusades just as Olaf recommends.
    This bombing is simply a continuation of The Crusades in the 21st Century.

    • JohnR,

      You appear to have missed the key point that the Crusades were a defensive action against a false religion in order to protect the Christian Faith.

      Unless I’ve missed something, Cameron & Crew are not remotely interested in protecting Christianity (hardly a word about the effective wiping out of Christians over there) – his motivation is a mixture of revenge for atrocities committed, against the mantra of preserving democracy (such as it is – we vote in our dictators, that’s, it seems to moi, what “democracy” means here in the enlightened West).

      So, however much you protest in favour of these air strikes, the case for them does not fit the requirements of the Just War theory.

      • One might argue the “Just War” case against bombing in Syria, and I do not agree with all of RCA Victor’s arguments.
        However, it would be easier to make the “Just War” case for bombing in Leeds and Luton.

  17. I realise that I am out of step with the tenor of most of you here. So be it. Personally I do not care one hoot what the motives of Cameron and Crew are. The fact is that it is the self-same enemy which the Crusaders fought against and that enemy has exactly the same motive and intention as it did at the time of the Crusades. Because it is that enemy which is being attacked by those with whatever motive they might have, then I am delighted that the attacks are taking place. As far as I can see then I am supporting a just war and it is I who is doing the supporting.
    Do you now understand what my argument is?

    • Bang on! The “liberal” weasels do not understand as they have no clue about Christianity or History. They are under the illusion that soft words will turn away wrath. It won’t work as it has never worked against an enemy that is implacable.
      There are no “good” muslims” or “bad” muslims as the so-called radicalised jihadis are merely living the fulfillment of the q’ran. The others quietly support them and may be quiescent for now.
      The air strikes are in my view quite pointless though as we add nothing to the Russian efforts. A nuclear strike on Medina might work together with the warning to stop now. The military alternative is to establish a cordon sanitaire and kill every male within it. The followers of islam around the world might become a bit fussed about that. Maybe we should face it now and not in twenty years when islam rules Europe.
      There is no theological or traditional reason why Christians should not smite the instruments of Satan.

    • John R,

      Prior to Western intervention in Iraq, Libya and now Syria, Muslims and Christians co-existed in relative peace in these lands. It was only with the removal of the regimes in two of the three countries, with the third now well under way, that Islamic brutality reared its ugly head and took hold in the ensuing chaos, revenging itself on the poor Christians of the region who are innocent of the geopolitical wars sponsored by non-Christian govenments such as our own.

      The middle-ages Crusades you speak of cannot be remotely paralleled with today. These were preached by the Popes to preserve the holy places and their Christian populations from the Muslim hoardes of the time, who hated Christianity and set about an unprvoked destruction of it. In other words, they were just wars of self defence and in defence of divine truth.

      What has that period of history got to do with our apostate governments of today whose unjust interventions have destabilised formerly stable regions resulting in the brutal eradication of the 2000-year old Christian communities of Iraq and Libya?

      You are very seriously mistaken if you think the present war in Syria will somehow weaken militant Islam. All the evidence from Iraq and Libya suggests the opposite, which is that formerly religious indifferent dictatorships are being replaced with Islamic fundamentalist ones. And the Western the world is about to become a whole lot more dangerous as a result.

      As I said before, God is not in any of this.

      • Sorry Athanasius, Islam is exactly the same now as it was in the time of the Crusades. When the Islamists are not in control they will indeed live in peace BUT when they they have the upper hand then they unleash their hateful side.
        There was an excellent article on Islam in Rorate Caeli by John R.T Lamont and it was specially written for that Blog. It was there about 2 weeks ago and I do not know how to find it after it is no longer there.
        He criticised the Canadian clergy for being weak on Islam especially Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher the Archbishop of Gatineau in Quebec.
        The main objections were that an article by this Archbishop failed to mention that the aims of Islam are to deny the Trinity, to deny that Jesus died on the cross, to deny that Jesus was no more than the natural son of Mary and to claim that Mohammed was sinless and therefore his life is a model for all Islamists. Hence taking a 7 year old child as his wife is fine and also all women are subject to their husbands and those husbands can divorce their wives just by declaring to her that she is divorced.
        The propagation of Islam is to be instituted by FORCE exactly as sinless Mohammed did.
        Do I need to say more?
        Their aim is to force this rule of life on us all with no exceptions.
        And you want to convince them simply by talking to them nicely!!!
        Wake up!!!
        You can not use reason with these creatures.
        They really are under the thrall of Satan.

        • JohnR,

          I agree that it is a difficult task to convert Muslims to the true Catholic religion, but nothing is impossible with God. It has never been the way of the Church to imitate the practices of her enemies in order to crush them. We Catholics don’t do “eye for eye and tooth for tooth,” understanding that “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord” and that “those who take up the sword will perish by the sword,” self defence excepted.

          When Hitler invaded Poland he became a clear and present danger to all of humanity. It was right and just, therefore, that we went to war against him. But what clear and present danger did Iraq and Libya represent to global peace when our leaders invaded and destroyed those countries? And what clear and present danger does Assad represent to us now that justifies our fomenting of the present civil war in Syria?

          You will know that it is a very great sin before God to say “let us do evil that good may come of it”? No, we Catholics do not force Muslims to abandon their false religion under pain of death because we have the true spirit of God, which is mercy and compassion for the souls of our enemies. That’s why the Church has in her First Friday and Good Friday prayers a petition for the conversion of those lost in the darkness of Islamism.

          I recall a line from the film “Jesus of Nazareth” which is actually well suited to this debate, and which really sums up the teaching of the Church with regard to bringing about the Reign of Christ the King. The line was this: “Before kingdoms change, men must change”. In other words, Islam will ultimately be defeated by the truth of God and His grace. Has not Our Lady of Fatima already promised us the victory when she will convert the world through the triumph of her Immaculate Heart?

          Until that time comes it is our business as Catholics to detest the present violence between the godless forces on all sides. Our own Western governments permit the killing of babies in the womb and legislate in favour of actions that are contrary to both God and nature. Would you argue that they are any less culpable before God because their transgression of the Commandments is less publicised?

          At any rate. I accept that It is both a right and a duty for our leaders to stamp out this ISIS group at all costs and by whatever means, for it is truly an evil mencace to society. But that’s not what the bombing of Syria is all about. The real action that needed to be taken against ISIS was boots on the ground in Iraq and Libya when ISIS was wiping out the Christians there. It didn’t happen. Why?

          And why are they insisting that ISIS is their target in Syria when all objective experts have said that ISIS is a very small problem in that civil war? I fear this has more to do with countering Putin than countering Islamic terrorism.

          Additionally, it would do us all well to consider for the sake of objectivity the tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children who have died as a result of the allied invasions of Iraq, Libya and now Syria. These people did nothing wrong and yet their homes have been bombed out and millions have been forced to flee, all in the name of countering Islamic extremism. We cannot close our eyes to this injustice while deploring the brutality of the Jihadists. Both are evil.

          If our governments had understood the dark nature of Islam from the beginning, then they would not perhaps have opened wide the doors to our Western culture and allowed it to flood in and take hold everywhere. We are now reaping the bitter rewards of that folly, seeing that Islamic leaders in Europe are shamefully very silent in the face of ISIS atrocities.

          In this respect, the Rorati Caeli article you mentioned was spot on. I read the piece and agreed with it.

          Anyway, all this talk of Islam and Middle Eastern conflict may soon be academic. If relations continue to deteriorate between Russia and the West, and they are at an all-time low right now, then it is very likely that nuclear war will come out of nowhere, as some prophecies predict. Then we will all have to face the horrors, and worse, that those Eastern countries are presently suffering. When God is rejected, as He is on all sides right now, then it’s not a case of if war comes but when war comes. Remember the words of Our Lady at Fatima: “War is a punishment for sin”!

    • Maybe if everybody who wants to bomb ISIS wrote to Pope Francis to ask him to consecrate Russia as Our Lady wants, there wouldn’t be any need for bombing.

      I don’t think we should be keen to bomb anyone, especially souls we think are working for Satan. Surely, we risk them being damned without the chance to repent?

      I don’t think anybody is suggesting “soft words” – I see hard action suggested in cutting off their money supplies etc. but bombing Iraq wasn’t too clever and I don’t think this latest campaign will be either. There’s something in the British psyche that needs to be at war with somebody all the time. I think other routes are more likely to succeed and less dangerous including to the souls of the Moslems who we should be trying to convert.

    • I agree with you both. Had our forebearers been so weak and p.c. we’d have been under Sharia law 500 hundred years ago or so. Has anybody heard of the book: The Mosque of Notre Dame? Some sober reading! Of course our politicians don’t have a christian thought in their collective heads, but the Moslem invasion has to stop!!

    • That link about the foiled attack on Pope Francis is a brilliant analysis of the Muslim psyche, and I hope all involved in the debate here will take the trouble to read it. Judging from many comments, the nature of Islam seems to be simply not understood here much more than it is in the non-Muslim world. Andrew Patterson, John R and maybe a few others are the exceptions. The debate has thrown up many red herrings that serve to distract from the truth about Islam, which is that no Muslim is ‘peaceful’ and they are our mortal enemies, because they are enemies of Christ. As someome has said, once they are numerous enough in any area, they will all unite to carry out the will of Allah and the instructions of his Prophet.The Koran is readily available in several English translations from Amazon. I chose one that is approved by Muslim scholars to avoid any misunderstanding, and I think it is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand rapidly unfolding world events and the terrible imminent danger they pose.

%d bloggers like this: