Shot in the back as they tried to flee

Mark Steyn handles his rage better than me, by writing thus: No other word for it but slaughter

PHOTOGRAPHED from above, the body bags look empty. They seem to lie flat on the ground, and it's only when you peer closer that you realise that that's because the bodies in them are too small to fill the length of the bags. They're children. Row upon row of dead children, more than a hundred of them, 150, more, many of them shot in the back as they tried to flee.

Reports of children being bayoneted after asking for water. Of girls being raped by the Psychopaths. There was never any intention of survival, certainly not of the hostages.

In the 1990s, while the world's leaders slept – or in Bill Clinton's case slept around – thousands of volunteers from across the globe passed through terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and were then dispatched to Indonesia, Kosovo, Sudan . . . and Chechnya. Wealthy Saudis – including members of the royal family – invested millions in setting up mosques and madrassas in what were traditionally spheres of a more accommodationist Islam, from the Balkans to South Asia, and successfully radicalised a generation of young Muslim men. It's the jihadist component – not the asymmetrical one, not the secessionist one – that accounts for the mound of undersized corpses, for the scale of the depravity.

There's hardly a better word for it: Depravity. Religion has nothing to do with it, except insofar as Islam preaches and encourages the dehumanization of non-Muslims. Murdering children is good. Inversely, not murdering is probably bad, by these standards. I like clear lines. It is not hard to see who is on which side.

Read it all.