@retrocop
//Now we all pooh ourselves because we know they do not have the restraint or intelligence to know how to use them.//
Well, with the guns versus swords scenario, I suspect it was less a case of restraint on our part and more a case of their generals only needing to witness the effects of two or three volleys to realise the futility of pressing ahead with their attacks. Acknowledging defeat quickly enough for most of your menfolk to make it off the battlefield alive is part of the leader's skillset. The worst battles are the ones where they sized each other up but both sides fancied their chances. Waterloo slaughtered about 25,000 of each side but the Allies had practically no choice but to make sure Napoleon was stopped in his tracks.
But, back on topic, one chilling part is the ISIS claim of responsibility which they addressed to the "French crusaders". So never mind supposed payback for the vagiaries of the British Empire, they won't even let go of the events of 900 years ago. (This may or may not be a canard and contemporary involvement may have been given the crusader epithet, by them).