Hi Lobemush, no half-witted comments, I've realised I can't possibly compete on that basis in this company.

QED.

We would be aware of how serious the current situation is in the Middle East, with multiple sides oriented towards religious schisms, different religions, ethnicities, languages, histories.

ISIS now controls more territory than the governments of either Syria or Iraq. They have stormed a number of cities, military bases, airports, arms depots, police posts, etc., and are very well-armed. They captured a hundred tanks in Ramadi, and 1400 Humvees in Mosul alone.

Imagine the Mafia in the US with hundreds of tanks and thousands of Humvees and caches of weapons at that sort of level. Would we (or more particularly the Yanks) write that off as 'nothing to worry about', a flea-bite ? I don't think so.

So, any forces opposed to ISIS (obviously leaving out the pseudo-Left here and elsewhere) has to contend with both the complexity and magnitude of the growing conflict, quality and quantity.

Should ISIS be simply ignored, as so much of the idiot commentariat flippantly suggest ? Or (imagining for a moment that you and I are Syrians or Iraqis) should we regard it as an imminent threat to life, let alone property ?

Is it possible that ISIS can storm Baghdad, after the usual rain of bombings on bus queues and markets ? If so, then how about Damascus soon fter, they're pretty mobile after all ?

If so, will Iran step out of it all ? Hardly likely. Will they launch their regular military forces against ISIS ? Effectively, will they attempt to supplant the governments in Syria and Iraq ?

If so, what will the Saudis do ? All of the Gulf states have large populations of Shi'ite Muslims, they always have had. The Saudis are actually very few, and have never been to war (so my faulty memory suggests). Could they withstand an Iranian assault, coupled with uprisings ?

If they faulter, will Pakistan attack Iran from behind ? They can beat women to death, so they should have no trouble attacking Iran from behind while it's busy with the Saudis.

And then there's India ......

Hi Longmarch, you seem to think you've proven something. That's nice.

ISIS is simply filling the power vacuum created by the stupid Western rush to attack Iraq. This too shall pass and then some other group will do the same thing and so it will go, around and around and around.

At least it gives silly old buggers something to pass the time being worried about, I s'pose. Every cloud...

Can anyone explain why the retreating Iraqi army didn't drive the tanks out of town, shooting back at the enemy on their way? Alternatively why didn't blow the tanks up or at least boobie trap them? It is a pretty common practice for a retreating army to destroy the weapons so they will not be used against them? I realise they were in a hurry to get out, but those tanks are fast, and safe to be inside if people are shooting at you. What's with these idiots?

//.... the Northern Ireland conflict, despite the remarkable peace that has been achieved (can anyone imagine such a peace in, say, Iraq?//

Yes. I can imagine such a peace in Iraq, because I not so old that I can't remember a time when micks and proddies were merrily bombing the crap out of each other over their various grievances. They've given it a rest. It's not the first time that two opposing sides in a protracted conflict have achieved peace and made it last. I really hope it won't be the last. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe Presbyterians are just pessimists.

//Or anywhere in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia Muslims.//

Yes. Because I've heard about the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq and Syria, but nothing at all about the Sunni-Shia conflict in Cyprus, Bahrain, Turkey, or Oman to name a few a middle eastern countries in which I can find no evidence of recent religious uprisings. I suggest the author double his reading list, and include an atlas as well as the New Testament of the Bible.

//That would be the Crusades for which the Roman Catholic Church has said its mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa on multiple occasions. Ditto the Inquisition.//

Not in the Catholic Church I belong to (the Roman one): I am unsure of their official position on the Crusades but they still have the Inquistion, just under a different name. It was established in 1542 by Pope Gregory XV as the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition'; in 1908 Pope Pius X changed its name to the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office'. Since 1985 it has been known as the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith'. It's still the same organisation, just under a new name. They probably don't torture heretics these days but the Church has never abolished the Inquisition, much less renounced it.

//Who does it help? What would the theological or the pastoral rationale?//

It serves to remind us that a religious text that can be - and for most part is (these days) - interpreted peacefully as message of love and tolerance and good will can also be - and has been - interpreted as an exhortation to put unbelievers to fire and the sword by the wrong sort of person. It demonstrates that the problem is not with the book, but with how it is read.

//While the Koran encourages – and indeed commands - violence against unbelievers (at least in certain circumstances), Christianity does not.//

Ah, right. You'd be reading one of these abbreviated Bibles then. The ones that are missing the first 50 books and start at the Gospel of Matthew. Must be a Presbyterian thing. You're missing out: Leviticus is rubbish, but Jonah is a great read. There are unabbreviated versions on the web: you should check out Deuteronomy 13:6-16 and 17:2-5. Then tell me the Bible doesn't command violence against unbelievers.