The bullets were still flying. People were still being killed. Yet even as the atrocity in Paris was unfolding in front of a horrified live TV audience, the appeasers, the justifiers and the outright sympathisers were quick to rush to the ramparts to engage in their own uniquely warped form of victim blaming .
This wasn't a savage assault on the Western way of life perpetrated by Medieval savages. It was a response to the nasty West and our interfering ways. As Mick Wallace infamously put it: "So terrible for the victims but when is France going to stop it's (sic) role in the militarisation of the planet?"
A tweet more suited to a 15-year-old kid who has just read Noam Chomsky and now insists on viewing everything through the prism of reflexive anti-Western sentiment that permeates the intellectual and political elites of the West; it showcased a perverse cultural self-loathing which rarely places the responsibility for Islamist crimes on the Islamist killers.
Wallace was hardly unique in this sentiment and it was hardly a surprise that Clare Daly, Clyde to his Bonny, would immediately endorse her friend's idiotic message.
Wallace and Daly's tweets were made notable only by the fact that they are both elected representatives of our national parliament, but anyone who has given their respective careers even a cursory glance would have known to expect no better.
They were not alone in their opinion. By midnight on Friday, 'The Guardian' was running pieces warning against Islamophobia and fretting about increased attacks on Muslims (there have been none). Salon used the attack to blame the Republicans and Fox News and we saw the emergence of 'grief hipsters' who tut-tutted at anybody who was shocked by the Paris attacks because, y'know, there was a suicide bombing in Beirut a few days earlier and people weren't as upset by that as they were by the events on Friday night. Then we were bombarded by chin-stroking poseurs telling us that not all Muslims were terrorists and the rise of Islamic extremism was a direct consequence of disastrous interventionist policies in the Middle East and culturally insensitive laws here in Europe.
We were told that this form of genocidal fascism is merely the last resort of an oppressed minority.
It's all rubbish.
The cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic extremism. Everything else is just a convenient detail for the eunuchs in the West to justify something that baffles them.
Isil is merely the logical conclusion of a brand of expansionist, murderously intolerant Islam which makes the Khmer Rouge look like a book club. In fact, Isil's own brand of cultural Year Zero owes more to the Khmer than it does to the Nazis, who are the most frequently used historical analogy.
Take all the usual weasel words and justifications for the actions of Isil and discount them as reasons for these attacks. We could remove all kuffar from Muslim lands and bulldoze Israel into the sea and it still wouldn't placate Isil.
After all, did they blame the Palestinian situation for the attack on the Eagles of Death Metal gig? No, they targeted that show because it was: "A place where hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice." Not only that, but they used religious texts to support and justify their attack.
Moderate Muslims may not like the way their religion is being used, but it is being used nonetheless and the supporters of Isil would be quick to argue that, actually, the 'moderates' are the ones who are betraying the faith.
These are people who still execute anyone accused of sorcery, as do their fellow travellers in explicitly Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the al-Nusra Front.
This is the aspect that Europe's Left is too terrified to confront - Isil and their supporters don't hate us because of geopolitical differences. They hate us because we don't share their religion and they want to bring everyone back to the Bronze Age.
Unreasonable, but not irrational, there is a logic to their actions which, while undoubtedly twisted, is easily understood - convert or die. That remains a concept which a weak-willed West, with all its visceral self-hatred and internecine bickering, is ill-suited to fight.
We can fret about the potential rise of Islamic extremism in this country and fool ourselves into thinking that we are immune. But why should we be uniquely exempt from other European countries?
Extremism doesn't even have to be violent to have an impact. Extremism can be seen in Muslim clerics who, post-'Charlie Hebdo', threatened prosecution of anyone who reprinted the offending cartoons.
Extremism is seen on Irish campuses where Shariah-spouting whackjobs are given a round of applause while anyone espousing liberal, Western values is shouted down as a racist - assuming they are allowed to speak in the first place.
The terrifying truth is not the strength of Isil's convictions, but the weakness of ours.
Put simply, they want it more than we do and until we start to aggressively assert Western values in Western countries, is it any wonder that they despise us?
Frankly, I can't say I blame them.
Acknowledgements: Lifted in its entirety from an article in The Irish Independent by Ian O'Doherty at
Labels: Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, AQAP, AQII, Assad, Boko Haram, Charlie Hebdo, Counter Terrorism, IS, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant, Jihad, Kurdistan, Radical, Terrorism