ISIS and the West: Neutrality absolves nothing

British Muslims extremists are joining ISIS. The UK must take responsibility — and action — before it’s too late

Iraq Online Only
Victims of terror: Yazidis are rescued by Kurdish forces after being trapped by ISIS in the Sinjar mountains last month

British citizens are supporting genocide. Not ignoring genocide, or being complicit in genocide, but actively supporting genocide. The murder of the Christians and Yazidi of Mesopotamia by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is being supported by direct financial aid from the mosques of this country, and by fighters raised in Britain who are crossing a quarter of the planet to partake in genocide.

This was the conclusion that I reached after attending last Saturday’s anti-ISIS demonstration in London. Far more modest in size than the thousands strong anti-Israel demonstrations that have been receiving so much media-oxygen, this protest was directed at a far worse evil. A sample of what is being done: after slaughtering the male population of Yazidi villages, the ISIS forces round up the women to be openly sold as sexual chattel, in accordance with Koranic injunction.

So, in the 21st century, the century of nanotechnology and genetic engineering, we have a return to the slave market. Human types we thought extinct march around in the world of the airplane and the personal computer. Minds that are half a step removed from the stone age are brandishing modern weaponry.  And this monstrous regression is occurring with the full support of people in the UK.

That support is completely clear to those on the receiving end of it. A Kurdish gentleman attending the rally remarked bitterly that a British born and trained Muslim fanatic was a hundred times worse than anything local, and that many young Muslims travel to London specifically for the purpose of indoctrination. I have heard similar stories from Nairobi to Tripoli.

British support, and European support (fighters have been flocking to Iraq and Syria from all over the continent), for these atrocities make a nonsense of the isolationist claims of certain thinkers. Writing in the Guardian, former Stop the War convenor Lindsey German asks who would support “further military intervention” in the area. That point of view is phrased more honestly by former far-right US presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan who says it is of no concern to him if one group of foreigners kills the other, and that our boys should stay home.

But what we are seeing plainly is military intervention by Britain in this region, and on the wrong side. Who will seriously and honestly say that, if boys born and raised in London are now herding chain women to the slave docks, that this is not Britain’s responsibility? And who is so myopic as to think that if this responsibility is evaded, that we will not all pay the bitter price? When the last Christian has fled Iraq and the last Yazidi has been murdered, and those British boys return with British passports, who do you think they will target next?

The words internationalism and solidarity have acquired a tinge of the quaint and the bleeding-heart. They conjure up images of the bearded Marxist distributing badly printed leaflets at Speakers Corner, or of Mrs Jelleby’s obsession with Borrioboola-Gha. In reality, they are matters of the most cold-blooded practicality. They are a recognition that forces that are up to no good in some distant country are likely to start trouble closer to home. At the rally, a Hazara survivor of the Taliban’s massacres made this point with some vigour, that the West thought it could ignore the Taliban’s predations until it became impossible on 9/11.

In this time of global travel and communication not even islands are islands. ISIS is not a menace to “just” the Yazidi, or to the region, but to civilization itself. It follows that those who are fighting this menace should have our maximum support, not because they deserve it or because we would be disgraced otherwise, though these things are true, but because we are next in the firing line.

In practical terms, the British state should make it clear that any British citizen who has gone to fight with ISIS will only re-enter this country in a wooden box. Further, Britain should offer the military aid to fighters opposing ISIS on the ground and offer any Christian, Yazidi or other infidel fleeing this menace asylum on our shores. Finally, the problem has to be tackled at its source in this country — those supporting ISIS from the UK should be jailed. All three of these points are inextricably linked; there are already attacks on Yazidi communities in Germany, and Yazidi spokesmen at the rally described a similar situation developing here.

The internationalist obligations extend further than Iraq, however. To the OK reader, sub-Saharan Africa is seen as a mosaic of empty bellies and fat tyrants; in fact, it is at the frontline in the struggle for civilization. Whether it is Kenya fighting against al-Shabaab, or Nigeria fighting Boko Haram, through defending themselves, the nations of Africa are defending us, and they deserve support and not condescension.

Ever since the problem of jihad became impossible to ignore in September 2001, there has been a strong and marked tendency to court Muslim opinion. Whether it is President Bush’s campaign for hearts and minds, or wails about Islamophobia, the idea seems to have been that the only hope in resisting jihad is in making nice. This may have been understandable, but it is not excusable, because we are now discovering that the price of this courtship is turning our backs on innocent victims while fawning on those that would happily cut our throats. A far better policy for the West would be to seek out and make common cause with all other infidels, whether they are Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, Christians in Africa, or Yazidi in Iraq. There would be far more honour, and far more practical sense, in such a course, than in ignoring the cries of the innocent, in the hopes that the killers won’t notice us next.