I disagree with the assessment as well. I also have to roll my eyes at the intentional vagueness behind the statement on “Stop” does not necessarily mean, “Bomb.” In other words, stop them without violence.
Yes, I agree this would be wonderful, but do we seriously think that these guys would listen to reason given their charter and their actions.
Children’s heads on pikes? Rape jihad? The clear and unambiguous statement by the group that they will kill all infidels and bring the entire world under the Islamic Caliphate? What more does an armed force have to do and say before we conclude, “Ya know, I don’t think these guys are on the guest list for the next ecumenical council.” Yes, we are Christians who despise violence and war. We don’t like killing people, even when they are guilty. We would much rather dialogue and work things out peacefully. Okay! Anyone disagree with that? No? Great! Didn’t think so! Now can we stop engaging in this false compassion? I am one to think that there comes a point that one is not only morally justified in engaging in force to protect the innocent but in fact they are morally OBLIGATED to defend the innocent if they are able!
What would you say about some muscle bound father that let his wife and children be raped in front of him because he felt using force to save them would have put his soul in jeopardy. At best one would say he has a malformed conscience, and at worst it would be said he was a horrible coward.
I don’t know about the innocents on the ground, but I would sure rather get killed in the crossfire between my liberators and my killers rather than die because every army in the world did nothing due to wanting to maintain their ‘moral superiority.’ They wanted to be able to say, “We let innocent people be murdered because we didn’t want to accidentally kill them.” How sweet.
There are Swiss Guards who would defend the Holy Father by more than just screaming, “STOP!!!” at a threat.