We’ve dealt with murderous Islamists before, haven’t we?

In 1898, in the context of the scramble for Africa, the British decided to reassert Egypt’s claim on Sudan. An expedition, commanded by Kitchener, was organised in Egypt. It was composed of 8,200 British soldiers and 17,600 Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers commanded by British officers. The Mahdist forces (sometimes called the Dervishes) were more numerous, numbering more than 60,000 warriors, but lacked modern weapons.

After defeating a Mahdist force in the Battle of Atbara in April 1898, the Anglo-Egyptians reached Omdurman, the Mahdist capital in September. The bulk of the Mahdist army attacked, but was cut down by British machine-guns and rifle fire.

The remnant, with the Khalifa Abdullah, fled to southern Sudan. During the pursuit, Kitchener’s forces met a French force under Major Jean-Baptiste Marchand at Fashoda, resulting in the Fashoda Incident. They finally caught up with Abdullah at Umm Diwaykarat, where he was killed, effectively ending the Mahdist regime.

The casualties for this campaign were:

Sudan: 30,000 dead, wounded, or captured
Britain: 700+ British, Egyptian and Sudanese dead, wounded, or captured.

Hmmm.

23 thoughts on “We’ve dealt with murderous Islamists before, haven’t we?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    We did not have a million of them living in the Midlands back then.

    The sort of immigration policies foisted on us by our treasonous elites, and defended here by the likes of Rusty, means that we will have these sort of attacks indefinitely – until there are no more White British Christians left.

  2. Slightly O/T, but looking through the papers, this morning, there’s widespread condemnation on the “attack on civilians” in Paris.
    When will people get it through their heads, the supposed sanctity of civilians, in conflicts, is a feature of the European wars of the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries, fought between toybox armies over which particular royal got to preside over which particular bit of territory. Civilians were excluded because there wasn’t much point in annexing territories denuded of their inhabitants & unable to provide an economic benefit.
    It wasn’t even particularly strongly adhered to, then.
    In a normal, rational war, Those where a people ( or maybe a religion) are attempting to achieve dominance, killing civilians is the point of the exercise & the military there to shield them. They’re the soft underbelly of your adversary you go for. They are the target.
    There seems to be an attitude, the Islamists are somehow cheating by failing to line up on the battlefield for the sort of engagement where both sides exchange musket volleys for an afternoon & the winner’s decided by counting bodies, whilst the officer classes drink champagne & exchange small-talk.
    You’d have though the lesson could have been learned. The Indian Wars of the US. Germany/USSR in WW2, Japanese tactics. Korea, Viet Nam, Various wars in Africa.
    War is not an extension of the playing fields of Eton. It’s not a game with rules (Apart from those ridiculous Geneva ones)
    It is, actually, life & death.

  3. Of course, if this is an actual war, then you can intern people for the duration on suspicion of supporting the enemy. Exile to enemy territory can be offered as an alternative.

  4. Bloke in Germany’s comment seems to be the logical extension of TW’s starting point: that we have conquered and held down vast swathes of Middle Eastern -North-East African territory by disproportionate violence and must do so again. Innit? But disproportionate violence has moved on since those days when the dervishes massed in lines to be machine gunned: they can now nip about in our capital cities killing at will. And wait until they get a dirty nuclear bomb.
    Yup its chickens coming home to roost time: we fucked around in their part of the world, latterly to get oil, in the process getting the likes of weirdo Gertrude Bell to carve states out of tribes and religious groupings and in the end-game deposing Mossadeq and Gaddafi who proposed distributing the profits of nationalised oil in modern welfare states regardless of communitarian differences.
    So there you go right -wing fuckwits : you’ll get everybody killed, fairly rapidly,or in undending terror as TW thinks is a preferable alternative above.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    DBC Reed – “And wait until they get a dirty nuclear bomb.”

    And yet what is your alternative? BiS is not suggesting we wait until they do. He is suggesting we act. You are the one suggesting we wait until they get a nuclear bomb. And then presumably you want us to sit around blaming ourselves until they drop another. And another.

    “Yup its chickens coming home to roost time: we fucked around in their part of the world, latterly to get oil, in the process getting the likes of weirdo Gertrude Bell to carve states out of tribes and religious groupings and in the end-game deposing Mossadeq and Gaddafi who proposed distributing the profits of nationalised oil in modern welfare states regardless of communitarian differences.”

    It is amazing what sh!t you believe. We made the Middle East wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. They did not f**k around in their part of the world. They sided with Germany in WW1 and declared war on us. We won. We then gave them their independence. And a lot of money for oil they did nothing to deserve. It is true that Bell tried to work to create functioning multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies in the Middle East. But we know those never work don’t we DB?

    As for Gaddafi, we waited a hell of a long time to depose him if we wanted to depose him. He came to power in the 60s. Regardless of communitarian differences? Libya is roughly 100% Sunni. What differences? Iran is not much more diverse and Mossadegh did not intended sharing the wealth with anyone much less minorities.

    Keep blaming White people, DB. IT just makes you look stupid.

  6. DBC Reed,

    But it is not difficult to know who the potential enemy is. No Muslims, no terrorism so let’s stop them coming and persuade those that are here to fuck off back to some Islamic shithole of their choice.

    Islam is the enemy.

  7. “No Muslims, no terrorism. ”

    Well, maybe ditch the Irish, the Germans, some of the Americans. Some of those nordics can get a bit excitable and we shouldn’t take any chances with the Mediterranean lot…

  8. We don’t need Maxim guns these days. Everyone can just change their Facebook profile pic to a Tricolour to really put the shits up the Islamists.

  9. “In 1898, we didn’t have politicians fretting over offending the fellow religionists of the murderous bastards, did we?” Of course we did. Britain was always worried about stirring up the moslems in India.

  10. “The River War” is one of Churchill’s greatest books. Or at least, one of my favorites. Especially if you can find the unabridged version, which has never been reprinted, but which is supposedly about to be, by the St. Augustine Press. (I say “supposedly” because they’ve been saying that for five years.)

    Churchill lambasted Kitchener for desecrating the grave of the Mahdi and carrying off his head in a kerosine can. Queen Victoria, reading this account, remarked that it smacked far too much of the middle ages for her taste. But you won’t find this mentioned in the abridged version. By the time the abridged version was published, Churchill was an aspiring politician. Seems that back then, political correctness consisted of *not* talking about such unpleasant things.

    (However, Churchill does revive the tale in “A Roving Commission”, his autobiography, written around 1936.)

  11. @DocBud Dunno where you live, but in America, we have old-fashioned home-grown terrorists, too. Can you say, Oklahoma City?

  12. “No Muslims, no terrorism. ”

    Well, maybe ditch the Irish, the Germans, some of the Americans. Some of those nordics can get a bit excitable and we shouldn’t take any chances with the Mediterranean lot…

    Cornish separatists, too.

  13. @SMFS
    “We made the Middle east wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.” According to you. In fact, we made some seedy royal families (former tribesmen) and assorted crooks in the area wealthy. When Mossadeq wanted to share the oil (BP) wealth in Iran by nationalisation, he was ousted by the usual CIA plot with Brit support although in the UK energy=coal / electricity was nationalised.Ditto pretty much Gaddafi.
    The fear was that communism would catch on in Iran (Mossadeq was also going to share the wealth by a 20% tax on land rents like that sickening American Commie Henry George. We’ll have none of that Land Value Tax from you matey or your so called intellectual chum Adam Whathisname who lived a long time ago and used such difficult old timey words!!).
    I am surprised that Syria where 50% have had their houses shot up and all the neighbouring countries are struggling with refugees fleeing from all the prosperity can be described as wealthy beyond their wildest dreams .

  14. From time to time, the USA and its allies decide to seek the overthrow of some faraway government, for some combination of humanitarian and geopolitical reasons (we find thuggishness particularly unattractive in governments supported by Russia).

    Direct intervention is a last resort, so the usual approach is to fund and arm the most effective internal opposition.

    Armed opposition to thuggish governments carries a high risk of violent death. Only the most strongly motivated are willing to pursue it.

    The strongest popular motive for risking violent death is religious fundamentalism.

    The result is that in any region where religious fundamentalism is at all common, the fundamentalists come to dominate the armed opposition movements we support.

    The oil-rich middle east is of particular geopolitical importance, and hence likely to attract western attention. Its governments are well funded, so that any effective opposition has to be similarly well funded. And, unfortunately for the world, there are a lot of religious fundamentalists there.

    So we have created well funded and well armed groups of religious fundamentalists in the middle east.

    Armed religious fundamentalists are about the least biddable people one can think of. The notion that they can be constrained to fight the forces we oppose, rather than the societies, especially ours, which they oppose, is not one supported by the evidence of history.
    __

    It seems to me that the lesson of all this is not that Islamists are uniquely murderous, but that it’s stupid to arm nutters in the expectation of being able to direct their insanity. It’s an extreme example of the unifying theme of this blog, which is that governments, ours in particular, are much less competent than they think they are.

  15. FWIW: Extremely strong recommendation for “The Race to Fashoda” by David Levering Lewis — which covers these events.

    I’m not claiming it’s the best history I ever read, but it’s my favorite history book.

    Interesting because it covers all the angles of who was interested in remotest Africa: the French, British, Turkish, Egyptian, Mahdist, Ethiopian, Arab — and focuses mostly on the bizarre French plan to stake claim to the area by sending a small force on foot for 2 years (!!!) to capture an abandoned fort.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-Fashoda-Colonialism-Resistance/dp/0805035567

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *