ISIS Burns Christians Alive in Locked Caskets, Escaped Prisoner Reveals

ByPamela Geller on January 9, 2016
115 Comments
isis christians

The jihad against Christianity and Christians leaves hundreds of thousands dead, and yet Western leaders and Christian leaders in the West remain silent. Instead, they pursue the stealth Islamic ruse of “interfaith dialogue” with Muslim leaders, as their flock perishes.

“ISIS Burns Christians Alive in Locked Caskets, Escaped Prisoner Reveals,” By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post, January 9, 2016 (thanks to Claude):

An Iraqi soldier who escaped from an Islamic State prison has described the terror group’s brutal torture of Christians, many of whom died during the torture.

“They tortured the [expletive] out of the Christians and some died in the process,” Sergeant Karam Saad of the Iraqi military, who was held captive in June 2014, told Independent Journal.

“They would take some and lock them in a kind of casket, and set it on fire from the inside,” he added. “I only spent three nights in prison. During that time, I paid attention to how many guards were on duty and any signs of weaker security.”

Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.

Print This Post Print This Post

Disclamer

Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.

  • As a Catholic, I ask : WHERE IS THE POPE?

    • Mario

      The pope is a communist P.O.S.

      • liam

        lololol thick twat

    • Flyercrazy

      Where’s the Pope? He is busy creating a one world government which includes all religions as the truth (universalism) which means he believes Islam falls in the category of a religion of peace.
      Additionally he ignores what Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father but through me.”
      If that is the case, how can Christianity and the rest of the world religions embrace one another since Jesus makes it clear what he said is absolute?, The Pope believes he is Gods mouth piece, he stating God is now allowing all to overlook the absolutes God gave to the authors through His divine revelation, or divinely inspired words in the New Testament thus denying the teachings of Jesus, God in the flesh, and the Pope is unwilling to call other religions out on their false teachings.
      Therefore all Catholics, not Protestant Christians, have to place their beliefs under the magnifying glass and ask themselves if what Jesus said in the bible is true or simply a story from a good man.

      • conan_drum

        ‘god’ is well known for changing his mind! You say Jesus is the ultimate prophet, they say Mohammad is the ultimate prophet. Cannot you see how ridiculous it all is when all claim an all powerful omniscient ‘god’.

        • joker

          Correction here, Christ Jesus never said He was the ultimate prophet because He was not. He was and is the Son of God and the only way to His Father. Mohammed made only this claim as the last prophet but you and I can do also.

          • keylover

            G-d see’s everything and he accepts change because he created it…but he would not in no shape or form condone the acts of these evil people he wants you to take a stand for what’s right…if not you will see the wrath of what our creator will do

          • Flyercrazy

            Not only did Jesus say he was the the Son of God he was God manifest in the flesh. Refer to the book of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
            “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
            I assume Joker, you know this, I am posting it to expand upon what you stated.

        • Flyercrazy

          As stated below by Joker, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, however to take it one step further he also said he was God in the flesh, the others claimed to be prophets. Islam came after Christianity and Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. Buddha on his death bed said he is still seeking God.
          Jesus was either a nut case or he was who he said he was, God in the flesh, Nobody can refer to him as a good teacher or prophet since this is the conclusion which has to be drawn.

        • Flyercrazy

          Which God do you refer to? Certainly not the God in the New and Old testaments. Please give examples of where the God of both testaments has changed His mind, if you are capable of doing so I will renounce my belief in who Jesus is. I can make that statement because I can assure you there is no evidence God has ever changed His mind.
          The Bible tells us that God is perfect and all-knowing, and even when He
          apparently changes His mind, He is actually carrying out what He
          intended to do all along. He knows what is going to happen; nothing on
          earth ever surprises Him. The Bible says, “I the Lord do not change”.
          See my post below to Joker, it expands upon what he said.

          • Paul Williams

            What about when, after destroying the people of the Earth in a Great Flood, God promises to Noah that he will not do that again? Can we treat ‘I will never again do the thing that I just did’ as ‘changed His mind’? Or am I not understanding what you mean by ‘changed His mind’?

      • drummie

        The Roman Catholic Church does teach that what Jesus said in Bible is true and final. The Pope is this instance is an avowed socialist. He was raised in socialist country, Argentina. His misguided opinions and ideas about socialism color ALL his thinking. Personally I think he is the biggest mistake in the Roman Church in centuries. Many people have this misguided opinion that when the Pope speaks Roman Catholics take that as church dogma and law. Protestants will tell you that Catholics say that the Pope is infallible. The Pope is considered infallible in very few instances and that is only under certain conditions. When he speaks from the chair of Peter. and after much discussion with the College of Cardinals in trying to determine the Truth of any situation, then he speaks with the voice of the Church. He is a human being and just as fallible on day to day basis as anyone else. He is NOT God and everything he says is not a revelation from God. It seems to me that you have some anti-Catholic feelings based on misinformation and ignorance. Maybe before you attack the largest Christian denomination of the face of the planet you should make sure you know what you are talking about. For more years than not, there was only one Christian Church, what is now referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant Churches came about due to protests and splits within the Church, that is where the name “protestant” comes from. Those that split from the Roman Church also decided that there were books contained in the Bible that really didn’t belong there, so they removed them. So tell me, who is being more true to the original Christian Bible, the ones that decided after centuries that some of it didn’t belong in there and arbitrarily removed it, or the ones that follow the original text of what is the Christian Bible? All of the protests were by men, not God. Has the Roman Church made mistakes along the way? YES, that is undeniable. But how can you blame the worlds troubles on one man, the Pope? You are trying to cast blame on something you do not know about and fear. That is the epitomy of IGNORANT

        • sodacrackers2

          If you really want to blame one man for the world’s troubles today, most of us could probably figure out a better one to blame.

          • keylover

            Yes I blame two Obama and Rothschild

          • Decimated1

            You want to explain the definition and description of the false prophet ??

          • sodacrackers2

            Seems like you might want to.

          • Decimated1

            So in other words you’ve never read the Bible instead you listen to a man.. one directly contradicts the Bible !!! I am directly saying that there is an extreme amount of evidence that says Pope Francis is the false prophet and he’s introducing one world religion and preparing the way for the Anti Christ…

          • sodacrackers2

            And you think you know this how? I am personally scandalized by this Pope.

          • Decimated1

            Well tell you what… if you’re so scandalized by this man, and you obviously have the most advanced educational tool known to man at your fingertips, with the vast repository of human knowledge. And I really do not have the time to list all of the evidence for you.. which you should not be taking my word for it anyways.

            They have this wonderful thing called a search engine, you type in things like evidence that Pope Francis is the false prophet, and push enter or go… and you can examine all of the evidence that has been compiled, and reach your own conclusion…

            Its called investigating and studying… M’kay ?

          • sodacrackers2

            I am not looking for any prophets, and if I were, I would not search on the Internet. I follow Jesus. He knows me and still loves me.

          • Decimated1

            You’re not looking for any prophets ???

            Where did that come from ??? All I’m telling you is to study as ordered in the Bible.. which obviously you are refusing to do and proves my point exactly.

          • PeterLeonard Ludwinski Godsown

            Yes – TRUE.

          • drummie

            Your direct statement above was denigrating the largest CHRISTIAN denomination in history and currently. The Pope is one man. I would put my Bible knowledge as equal to most, more than many. Less than some. Apparently many Protestants do not know the Bible either. They decided part of it wasn’t real and threw it out. So much for accepting the WHOLE Bible.

          • Decimated1

            So you believe your writings right now could be included in the Bible ? That your pontifications are equivalent to truly God inspired writing ? You are laughable if you claim to have such Bible knowledge, but not recognize the authenticity of truly God inspired writings… you can claim to have all the knowledge and memorized everything that you ever read.. But if you really did you would know one thing.

            Without Christ you are nothing..

            Satan himself knows the Bible, and he will quote it to you all day long perverting your mind. And you know what you get in the end.. Pope Francis !! Do you want to point your finger at others and say so much for accepting the whole Bible ?

            so when I look at you… so much for accepting what it says , and deciding that is is not a finished book. Nobody in their right mind would listen to anything you have to say, because the Bible actually says those that speak the things you speak.. will continue to deceive and be DECIEVED.

            Scripture can only be discerned and understood through the Spirit. I don’t care what your knowledge is, its obvious you don’t understand the very basics.. ever learning but never understanding… who would want to drink your Similac

          • David C. Telliho

            Mohammad. His description is best described as a perverted child molester, a murderer, slave owner, out of control sexually, beastiality, tortures his victims, thief, with delusions of world conquest.

          • Decimated1

            Well yeah he is a false prophet… but I was referring to the false prophet in the Bible

          • drummie

            I am not blaming anyone. Pointing out the the Roman Catholic Church is not to blame either. Some Protestant ignorance goes really too far.

          • sodacrackers2

            I knew that. The Church has survived 2,000+ years despite treachery and corruption; and it will survive until He comes again.

        • Flyercrazy

          Your quote “The Roman Catholic Church does teach that what Jesus said in Bible is true and final.”
          If that is the case, which I beleive to be so, read my original postd again regarding the Catholic church’s stance on universalism (all religions lead to the same place).
          Once again, Jesus made many absolute statements regarding his Divinity, the path to heaven ect., based on what the “Roman Catholic Church believes to be the case regarding the infallibility of the words in the book of the bible, their stance on the issue of Universalism is non biblical and goes against the teachings of Jesus, God Himself.
          Jesus was either who He said He is; “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through Me”, or he was a misguided self centered psychotic man thinking more of Himself than what He stated to be the case in the scriptures. Universalism ultimately leads to the destruction of Christianity on all levels.
          I could rip apart everything you said but will do so at another time. Your ignorance regarding the impact the stance the Roman Catholic Church takes on Universalism deflates if not totally destroys the claims of Jesus rendering Christianity on the level of a comic book authored by an ignorant preschooler.

          • drummie

            Again, you are blaming the Roman Catholic Church for the Pope. They are NOT one and the same. You are confusing the Pope for the Church. Is Jim Baker a protestant Church? HARDLY.

          • Flyercrazy

            If you will notice in my original statement I did not bring the Roman Catholic Church into this debate, you did.
            Please excuse my ignorance. I did not know the Roman Catholic Church is not influenced by the Pope with regard to anything he has to say.

          • drummie

            Did not say not influenced. Everyone keeps saying that what the Pope says is what the Catholic Church teaches. That is NOT true.

    • Shafiq Islam

      Mike, in all fairness, he has strongly condemned this violence. He has no armies, and if he becomes strident it will bring down wrath on already-suffering and persecuted Christians worldwide.I’m sure he is working behind the scenes, and I think that Catholics and all people of goodwill in the secular realm ought to demand that their governments take action, especially to rescue Christians, Yazidis, Bahai and other vulnerable groups.

      I admit that he got caught up in the rush to accept “refugees” and that was a mistake. We should show compassion and help them, but we should not do so through the suicide of our Judeo-Christian culture. The Good Samaritan didn’t take the injured man home, he took him to an inn, cared for him and paid for his continued care. The west caused this mess with its ill conceived interventions in the region, and it needs to deal with the fallout by supporting UNHCR.

      • a6z

        Yeah, right. Like the pope at the time of the Holocaust couldn’t have condemned it for fear of making things worse for the Jews and creating a danger for the Catholics in the Third Reich. There’s always an excuse not to do what you don’t want to do.

        • Shafiq Islam

          I appreciate your point, but consider the massive riots and attacks caused by a few cartoons. A full throated condemnation of Islam would result in burned churches and tremendous slaughter of priests, religious and Christians of all denominations. I know; I’m an ex Muslim, now a Christian living in South Asia.

          • Mike Swan

            Interesting

          • liam

            would be to a twat like you

          • Flyercrazy

            You should be discussing your thoughts on a porno forum, certainly not here. Since you are attempting, and poorly so, to be a Catholic apologist I suggest you clean up your act or soon everything you say will be dismissed more so than usual.

          • conan_drum

            If you are now a Christian why do you call yourself Islam

          • Shafiq Islam

            That is the surname with which I was born. Changing it would demonstrate my apostasy to everyone and I would be killed.

          • EamonnDublin

            There are plenty of Christians in the middle east called “Islam”. It’s their name.

          • the_dhimminator

            Thanks for your comments Shafiq… I don’t think I can appreciate how difficult it must be living as a Christian in a Muslim country, but unfortunately I’m also not sure preventing these riots/slaughter of priests and other atrocities is the current Pope’s motivation. It seems that he is more motivated by the false belief that appeasing Islamic supremicism is the answer to bringing about “world peace”.

            This belief needs to be strongly opposed. I’m sure the Pope doesn’t need to condemn Islam overtly but neither should he embrace it. Unfortunately that is exactly what he appears to be doing.

          • Jim Fox

            A nuke or ten would give the bastards pause for thought.

          • sodacrackers2

            So happy you were able to escape Islam; wish there was a way to make it safer for others to freely leave.

          • Shafiq Islam

            Sodacrackers, I have escaped it spiritually but not physically. I keep a Bible on my laptop and phone, but hidden and well protected. I dare not go to Mass, but a seminarian friend brings me consecrated hosts every week and a small group of us celebrate the Eucharist together.

          • sodacrackers2

            I will pray daily for your safety. Keep the faith!

          • Shafiq Islam

            Thanks brother. God bless you.

          • sodacrackers2

            God bless you and keep you safe.

          • a6z

            Let me say this gently. There was plenty of room for less than a full-throated demand for unassimilable Muslim millions without going to “a full-throated condemnation of Islam.” That is a false dichotomy.

          • Shafiq Islam

            Yes, if you read my first comment on this issue, I did say that he was mistaken to advocate accepting the refugees. However, I also believe that he cannot condemn Islam or attribute terrorism to it without bringing down the wrath of the Islamists on innocent people all over the world.

          • a6z

            The Islamists who will kill innocents for what the Pope says will kill them anyway–perhaps later but more certainly–if he refrains.

            Of course, I’m not in a hurry to die either. But death comes to every man. And truth could save civilization. It has within the last century, twice.

          • Shafiq Islam

            What will save Judeo-Christian civilisation is a policy of rescue and disengagement. The US and NATO have created this problem, and continuing to throw gasoline on the blaze isn’t smart.

          • a6z

            I am sympathetic to you, but I suspect that particular post is incorrect in both parts.

            Even apart from rescued Muslims themselves, will their progeny adopt or attack the West and its peoples? Experience to date hasn’t been encouraging. (Rescuing Christians and Jews is another matter.)

            You must understand “this problem” to be something other than what I understand “this problem” to be, because I think “this problem” predated the existence of NATO, and of the US.

          • Shafiq Islam

            I was referring to several other posts I have made on this site advocating rescue of Christians, Yazidis, Jews and other persecuted minorities. I guess I should have said that again, sorry.

            Yes, it is a longstanding problem dating back to the seventh century and the foundations of the Muslim religion, but it has been greatly exasperated by stupid, immoral, brutal and counterproductive US and NATO foreign policy. That is why disengagement is necessary; Islam and western civilisation are fundamentally incompatible.

          • a6z

            I don’t think you can disengage from people who are acquiring ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Making them unable to do so seems to me the irreducible minimum.

          • Shafiq Islam

            I would consider that self-defence, part of the rescue component, so I would agree with target strikes on nuclear facilities. You probably know that in 1984, India and Israel planned to knock out Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, but Reagan tipped the Pakistanis off and forbade the Indians to do it. So it’s not just Obama….

          • a6z

            I like you, Shafiq, but that’s not even good enough to check. I bet someone claims it’s true on the Internets, though! :D

          • Shafiq Islam
          • a6z

            Out of respect for you, I followed the link and read the article. I can always use a good laugh, anyway. The sourcing is very soft.

            (1 of 3) For the Israeli connection, for example, the article says this:

            It has also been rumoured that Israeli air force was part of the plans to attack Kahuta in 1984 because it did not want to see an “Islamic Bomb” developed by Pakistan. …. Conversations with some people … support the idea of an Israeli connection to Indian plans to attack Kahuta.” (emphasis added)

            (There isn’t firmer sourcing for this in the elided portions or elsewhere in the article. Check it yourself.)

            (2 of 3) For the Reagan tip-off, this:

            “On September 22, a reliable source from a foreign country— later assumed to be the CIA Deputy Director —reported to the Pakistani top brass that there was the possibility of an Indian air strike. The same day, ABC television also reported that a preemptive Indian attack on Pakistani nuclear facilities was imminent, which was based on a briefing made by the CIA to a US Senate intelligence subcommittee.” (emphasis added)

            For the first sentence, we have no way to know whether the “reliable source” was correct and truthful (nor whether he was a CIA deputy director).

            For the second sentence, it is manifest that it must have been a closed briefing (or the testimony itself would be public), so ABC (if correctly quoted) was peddling rumors.

            This is evidence (in the empirical rather than the legal sense), but it is very, very feeble evidence.

            (3 of 3) That India considered and even contingently planned pre-emptive war doesn’t even need a source. As between adjacent nations which have been enemies since creation, such consideration and contingent planning is normal and to be expected.

            The question is whether the planning went further than mere contingency. I won’t paraphrase here the articles’ sourcing on that, but follow the link and judge for yourself. It looks pretty light to me.

            (Also) I did a quick Google search and followed a few links. It appears that the story, which is really a particular spin on the Levy/Scott-Clark book, appears only in the Indian Express. That is very suggestive, but by no means conclusive.

            Of course, other sources, from the Gurardian to the American Interest, have their own spins on the book, but I couldn’t find much interest in this plan-and-tip-off story.

            I put more time into this than I think its likelihood is worth because I think you’re a friend worth cultivating. I hope that, in friendly reciprocity, you will check it out next time I say something you think is weakly sourced (or nonsense). Of course, like me, you can’t promise to be convinced.

          • Shafiq Islam

            I notice that you didn’t look at the most definitive sources, the declassified documents. Any historian or lawyer would have gone directly to the authoritative sources rather than looking for straw men to demolish, correct?

            I don’t have time to go through all of them, but the Wilson and GWU collections contain a lot of material. It it clear that Reagan knew they had a weapons programme and took no action; in fact he certified their compliance with NPT despite knowing that they were building bombs so he could continue giving aid.

            This chronology and the documents below may help:

            http://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm

            http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb531-U.S.-Pakistan-Nuclear-Relations,-1984-1985/

            http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114254

            http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114253

          • a6z

            You’re right. I haven’t. I have already spent far more time on this than it merits.

            One nation contemplating a nuclear surprise attack, trusts another with the secret, indeed with leading the operation? Which other nation would have to stage outsize of its strategic reach by about eighty times its size? Thereby forfeiting all its other allies in exchange for, as at best an ally, India? Please.

            Not worth reading about. Literally not even good enough to check, as I said to begin with.

      • drummie

        Islam caused this mess with their continuation of there war against anything not Islam. It has escalated by idiots that do not realize that Islam and freedom are incompatible.

    • Punk Rock Patriot

      I WAS a Catholic. I’m sorry to say the Communist party has taken the Vatican The Pope is a big Commie! He handed over people to be killed by the Junta death squads during the El Salvadorian revolution. He is a Jesuit and Jesuits were never allowed to be Pope until Commies took over. Have you noticed how the left hates Christians but love the Pope? He’s a media darling! Because he’s one of them! Plus even locally the Church has gone left! I could not stand it anymore.

      • liam

        can you show us your evidence please lets see your source.?

        • Ruckus_Tom

          Supporting the belief in globull warming would be a good start.

    • Tatonka

      The pope converted,.he is now one of them

      • liam

        DONT BE A GOBSHITE ALL YOUR LIFE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SAVE CHRISTIANS NOTHING THE POPE IS DOING HIS BEST IF HE COMES OUT AND CONDEMN MUSLIMS MORE CHRISTIANS WILL DIE ITS OUR BLOODY GOVERMENTS WHO ARE BOWING TO ISLAM NOT THE POPE.

        • keylover

          I’ll lay my life on the line and so should he!

    • Mike Swan

      Your pope resigned from bo’s visit and a broken arm. Your new pope is a nwo pope! Flee the catholic religion its now the nwo religion!

    • wilypagan

      As a Catholic I ask – is the Pope Catholic?

    • marlene

      He’s busy reading his book of apostasy: The Communist Manifesto.

    • Mal M

      Today
      the POP do nothing as the predecessor
      Pop did nothing during the Holocaust in WW2. In fact he runs a huge business
      such as collecting money from highways, banks, income payment to Vatican,
      selling earphones to San Petrus and Sistine Chapel separately. You can’t
      use one earphone bought in one site in another one. It is similar to what Martin Luther
      saw in 1517 in Rome. Corruption all over.

      • liam

        lolol and who told you that lie then a protestant fundamentalist

    • Lisa

      I think he’s upgrading the popemobile. Some of the things he has been saying lately will have upset a lot of people.

    • movingwaters

      promoting a one world Babylonian, New Age mystery religion = communism for the masses and fascism for governments and preferred multi-national corporations.

    • sodacrackers2

      The seat of St. Peter is empty.

    • Rob Porter

      The Pope has mindlessly declared that in “authentic Islam” there is no violence. This Pope is a foolish man who wallows in delusion. At least Pope Benedict spoke out against the appalling treatment of Christians in the Muslim world and for that the Muslims in typical infantile, mentally retarded manner, got quite upset. They have a ‘master race’ mentality, believe the mindlessly stupid things they do, and consequently are demented.

      • Shafiq Islam

        Rob, I really believe he is saying these things to lessen the pressure on Christians. If he openly condemned Islam every church in Muslim countries would be burned to the ground, every priest crucified and every nun raped and murdered. It would be open season on Christians, and they’d go door to door searching for us. It would be, in other words, a Christian holocaust.

        • Rob Porter

          I’ll simply point out the Pope Benedict did condemn the violence against Christians in Muslim countries and I don’t believe it got any worse than it had been. My disgust for Western leaders who simply ignore the suffering of Christians, Yazidis and Kurds know no bounds. There is a very considerable failure of courage in the West. The attitude is one of “As long as I’m alright, Jack, to hell with you and your problems”.

          • Shafiq Islam

            Rob, Benedict’s criticism was tepid, there was an uproar, and he walked it back by saying he was only quoting an ancient author to stimulate discussion. Trust me on this: if Francis came out and called Islam what it is (Satan worship), we’d all be slaughtered within hours, there wouldn’t be a church left standing and you’d have sleeper cells activated in the west so that there would be attacks in many churches the next Sunday.

          • Rob Porter

            How on earth, then, do you suggest that we fight these viloe people? What you are saying is that if we say anything too strongly worded they will retaliate with more savagery. That is a losing recipe. I’m all for retaliating to their violence with even greater violence, leveling their mosques and if they pray in streets run them down with big trucks. If they escape this then gun them down. To me, for what they have done to Christians in Iraq and Syria they are vermin who deserve eradication. If it weren’t for Obama ISIS could be incinerated in a week. I hear the napalm is outlaw, well I’d use it anyway on this vermin.

          • Shafiq Islam

            No, I was referring specifically to the Pope. The western political leaders must acknowledge the problem and act to resolve it, but I warn you again, learn from experience! Terrorism has increased greatly since your so-called war on terror; the inevitable civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure have radicalised previously peaceful Muslims, and the Qur’an gives them a warrant to respond violently.

            You cannot kill all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and you are currently creating new radicals faster than you can kill or capture the current crop. Be realistic and Christian.

            The answer is quite simple: (1) rescue innocent remaining Christians, Jews, Yazidis and others placed in harm’s way by the US’s destabilization of the region, (2) stand back and let the two repugnant theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran, both sponsors of terrorism, go at it tooth and toenail to keep them occupied and undermine their governments, (3) give preference in immigration to persecuted Christians, Jews and other faiths rather than Muslims, and (4) disengage except for arms’ length commercial transactions.

          • Rob Porter

            I agree mostly with what you’ve written in your last paragraph about rescuing remaining Christians. Yazidis, etc, but the only “rescuing” of Jews in Israel is to give them every military aid possible. Then I stand back and let the “two repugnant theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran, both sponsors of
            terrorism, go at it tooth and toenail to keep them occupied and
            undermine their governments”. Hopefully they’d destroy each other.

            However, I don’t understand your idea of giving preference in immigration to Jews. Israel is their land and I don’t see that too many would want to move from there to idiotic Western countries like Canada, the U.S., Britain and Western Europe that are increasingly afflicted with vile Arab Muslims who would attack them there. There is vastly more violence against Jews than against Muslims – despite the ‘poor us’ victim lie of Muslims – the most revolting, disgusting liars on earth.

            Another thing, I’m not American so cannot relate to de-stabilizing the Middle East you are taking about. It seems to me that Sunnis and Shiia do a good job of that all on their own. As to Muslims being ‘radiclized’, again it seems to me that with the greatest of ease they get that way – with the great help of imams and news media. For decades they’ve been terrorizing Westerners, first by destroying airliners, attacks on airports, murdering Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games, attacks on ships, etc. In their feckless, Islam afflicted, irrational minds, the problems of the world and their problems are always someone else’s fault, never theirs. I guess Muslims attacking German women in Cologne on New Years Eve was also someone else’s fault! Why don’t Muslims just ‘grow up’, but then I realize that as long as they have Satanic Islam they never will be fully sane.

            Muslims are causing most of the terror in the world today, not “right-wingers” as the idiotic, politically correct and thoroughly dishonest Western media would have us believe, so why don’t you suggest they clean up their act?

            Thus with Muslims causing most of the terror, why would the West not wage a war on terror? It seems to me that the West is caught between a rock and a hard place, it is being terrorized, but when it responds to defend itself Muslims get radicalized. Muslims of ISIS, al Qaeda are destroying churches and a whole host of things, not least historic sites ‘because they are not of Islam’, so I don’t accept that it is the West destroying infrastructure. They, largely though not entirely, are causing wars i.e. Iraq vs Iran, and Iraq invading Kuwait, so they need to accept much of the blame – but they won’t. Objectivity is not a characteristic of the Muslim world.

          • Shafiq Islam

            Rob, if Jews want to go to Israel, that’s perfectly fine but if they have relatives in the US or Europe, they should be allowed to go there.

            Toppling Saddam opened Pandora’s box. Under him, Christians thrived and lived in peace because he kept radicals under his thumb. When the US marginalised the Sunnis and allowed the Shia to come to power through elections, all hell broke loose and ISIS evolved. Who can deny that the Iraqis were far better off under Saddam than now? It’s similar in Syria, Libya and Yemen.

            The inevitable civilian casualties anger and radicalise previously docile people. Even the CIA admits that.

            The US hasn’t decisively won a war since 1946, despite fighting many. Americans overestimate their hand time and again and never learn.

          • Rob Porter

            Shafiq, Again I do agree with you, this time about Iraq and toppling Saddam opening a Pandora’s box. As with Saddam in Syria under al-Assad, Christians were allowed to peacefully get on with their lives. Despite his savagery and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds, ironically Iraq was better off with Saddam in power.

            However, he did set himself up for an overthrow because of the wars he caused, first with Iran, then by invading Kuwait, his WMD that he used against Iran and the Kurds, his efforts to hurl missiles at Israel – with the help of Canadian weapons expert, Gerald Bull, who Mossad finally assassinated in Brussels.

            I guess foreigners killing hundreds of thousands of their people was to Iraqis more egregious than Saddam doing so! Some irony, but probably true. Western involvement in Libya, thanks to the idiotic Barack Obama with Canada, Britain and other nations stupidly getting sucked into the plan of fool Obama, created all hell, but now it’s Muslim jihadis carrying on the conflict, so why continue to blame Westerners for destabilizing Libya even if they should never have got involved there? If Muslims in Yemen continue to target Westerners, why would the West not target them there? It seems to me that Muslim irrationality prevents them fathoming why ‘their’ people are being eliminated on their soil. However, an Irish friend of mine who lives in Canada, pointed out to me that drone strikes in Yemen were inciting Muslims there. Still, if Muslims stopped their activity from Yemen, it occurs to me that they would not be targeted there.

            America today cannot fight it’s way out of wet paper bag, not because they don’t possess the means or “over-estimate their hand”, but because its leader and military men don’t behave as if they are fighting a war and thus wholeheartedly and ruthlessly set out to destroy an enemy. The mindset is wrong and their idiotic politicians have too much influence over the way the military fights a war, tying the hands of soldiers from doing what is necessary to win and ignoring the advice of their generals. One case was Douglas MacAthur in Korea where President Truman tied his hands. In Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal is a good example. He wanted 40,000 to 45,000 troops to conduct a surge – that he’d successfully run for General Patraeus in Iraq. Obama the devious halfwit told him he’d give him 30,000 (as if Obama knew best) and by the time McChrystal got himself fired, thanks to Barack Obama he didn’t have even nearly 30,000. As if that wasn’t deliberate in regard to Obama! The enemy is in the White House! Then the Americans have Obama’s Muslim-enemy favouring rules of engagement – that get Americans killed! And then Americans don’t have the stomach for long conflicts, their lousy media and fifth columnist communist and Muslims traitors playing a role – not least like CBS’s Walter Cronkite announcing that Vietnam was “an unwinnable war”. As if Cronkite knew! After Nixon had pounded North Vietnam and then withdrew America from Vietnam, North Vietnam admitted that they could not have continued for another three months.

            Now Obama has diluted his military with weak, obedient, p.c. men – some real retired ‘beauties’ appearing on tv – and fired strong charactered officers! Not one MacArthur, Patraeus or McChrystal among them! If in 1987 South Africa had some of these now pathetic American generals leading it, it’s vastly outnumbered army in south-east Angola would never have thrashed the communists. Less then 5,000 South Africans hammered a communist army of 26,000 to 27,000 led by Russian General Konstantin Shagnovich. How? By fighting ruthlessly and skillfully. 94 Russian tanks, broken up, ly rotting in the bush, between 4,800 and 6,000 dead, Cubans, Angolan communists and both Russian and East European advisors, its airforce and then army driven out of Cuito Cuanavale. But now they claim victory – they always do! Castro even had his leading General, Sanchez, executed for this failure. Castro said this was because Sanchez was sending drugs to the U.S. Take that with a grain of salt!

            I don’t like Russia allying itself with vile Iran in Syria, but like many others on this site I’m happy seeing it doing what half-hearted America is not doing. ISIS could be almost entirely crushed in a week, but Obama does not want ISIS crushed so, as Putin has stated, he ‘pretends’ to fight ISIS – while Turkey supplies ISIS with food and ammunition. I recently read of the RAF doing two strikes n one day, the on tv I heard that Canada had done two strikes on one day. The U.S. had done possibly a few more. And this is serious effort to beat ISIS? – while ISIS so savagely murders Christian men, women and young children, Yazidis and Kurds. Obama is in my opinion pure trash. America will never defeat Islam while Obama is president and while the Republican are such cowards.

    • RetiredNavyphotog

      Where was the pope during the Dirty War in Argentina when dissidents, students and others were kidnapped off the streets, tortured and murdered?
      Why didn’t he speak up?

    • keylover

      Please the vatican did nothing when these Muslims slaughtered over 5 million Christians in Sudan now did they they turned their backs and at that time I went off on the Pope with every swear word I could and felt good about it he paid for what he did…God is good! But he also helps those who help themselves remember that…he doesn’t want us to lay down and accept this evil!

    • Decimated1

      He seems to be ushering in the Anti Christ… Don’t he ?

      That would make him the false prophet, wouldn’t it ?

  • As usual regarding most of the atrocities of Islam, the silence is deafening.

  • It’s another holocaust—but this one is widely known. I’m so discouraged and sad. I wouldn’t even know what to do. Those who can do something are in complete denial or ignoring it.

    • SwampBabe

      We know Obama knows about this, yet he doesn’t want any Christian refugees. It is time people realized there is a reason for that. Obama wants nothing to do with Christianity.

      • PeterLeonard Ludwinski Godsown

        He’s a demon.

  • farflung

    The body of Christ resides in every man. Not the Pope nor any man can save you . Time for everyone to get active, to kill off this cancer as it spreads around the world. No folks, the time of peace is over, unite with your neighbors , get active for as we quietly sleep our freedoms are being taken and soon we awake as the Jews in Israel with this scourge upon us. Support Trump, support Israel, for soon it shall be all that is left.

    • concerned

      The body of Christ resides in those who have accepted him as their Lord and Saviour, and who have repented of their sins. If you sincerely repent and accept Jesus, your sins will be forgiven, because he is faithful to His Word.

  • Punk Rock Patriot

    The fact that Obama stays silent as hundreds of thousands die for their faith by subhuman miscreants tells us everything we need to know about him. He is an EVIL muslime!

    • Mike Swan

      He isn’t just a muslim, he is an islamic muslim! He wears the ring!

      • Mike Swan

        The demonc rat party and bo is bringing them in the US by the cover of darkness on ups planes fitted with seats! 30 busses hauling to their hotels, food, clothing! Some thinks their isis escaping the russian troops. The democ rats in their zeel for voters are destroying their own country! And bankrupting it, 18trillion dollars and counting! LORD have mercy on us all!

        • wilypagan

          Go Trump!

  • fedupMan

    The beacon of freedom, USA is totally silent these days.

    • drummie

      The beacon of freedom was extinguished the day that Barack Obama was elected.

  • Mahou Shoujo

    Why are not political, scientific and religious leaders not uniting to resit and remove the ignorant superstitious violence of islam? Silence is assent, which is precisely how the subhumans that call themselves muslims see things. If there is no strength and will to survive, there will be no life. Time for the alleged leaders of humanity to be human. Leadership, not mindless optimism is required.

    • drummie

      That requires morals, leadership and just plain guts.

      • Mahou Shoujo

        … Yes, “Bad ass” that is easy to believe, as is stupid mule, and horse’s ass.

        • Decimated1

          I was thinking of a snakes.. and he even got lower than that

          • Mahou Shoujo

            Lower than sediment in a septic tank.

          • Decimated1

            I’m believe he’s even giving competition to the bacteria on whale dung at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.. he’s downright knocking on Satan’s door

          • Mahou Shoujo

            There is nothing lower than a democrat who abuses trust and power to promote islamic hatred and violence.

  • marlene

    Death to islam.

  • Michelle

    The attacks on Christians is being ignored by our governments and nothing is being said or done by the UN because of whose in it but we are now talking among us that we have to be on defence mode and willing to fight by whatever means and that means putting pressure on lax clergy to pressure the government that enough is enough and demand compensation and protection from these Muslim extremists as they have no morals and justice should be the same for all, and to demand to know where are the Christian and yazidi and non Muslim refugees help!?

    • drummie

      It isn’t being ignored, according to Obama it doesn’t happen. Therefore he orders that the policy of his regime is that it doesn’t exist. All the leftists leaders in the world are ignoring one thing: Islam does not care that you are leftist or conservative, you are an enemy of Mohammed and therefore an enemy of Islam. Obama agrees since he is one of them. Another reason is plain cowardice. In the US, everyone gets a trophy for showing up occasionally, not for winning. We have allowed ourselves to be made into cowardly wimps by the left and have no WILL to win. That requires commitment, work, and sacrifice. If you wait long enough a leftist government will take care of you they say. They need to look around and get out of the way and let those that will fight the scourge that is Islam and destroy it. It is NOT a religion, it is a political system based on control and conquest disguising itself with a few religious trappings.

  • EamonnDublin

    I suggest that those on this board who are concentrating on vilifying Catholicism and The Pope would be better engaged concentrating on the evil that is Islamist terrorism.

    • RetiredNavyphotog

      What bothers me about the pope is that he feels countries should take Syrian refugees. However, Vatican City – one of the richest places on earth – will not take anyone unless they are married to a Swiss Guard.
      Where was the pope when he lived in Argentina during the Dirty War? Students, dissidents, the clergy and academics were abducted off the streets, tortured and murdered.
      Why didn’t he speak out? He lived in Argentina at that time.

      • EamonnDublin

        I am not saying that The Pope should ignore Islamist terrorism – I, too, am disappointed that the Catholic church is barely raising a whisper. What I AM saying is that Islamism is the problem in the world today, not the Catholic church. It is one thing to say “the Catholic church should speak out”. It is quite another thing to BLAME the Catholic church for the existence and evils of Islamism, and to concentrate on vilifying Catholicism.

  • RalphB

    Needed: Re-Enlightenment

    We see in this forum how many of us see the problem with the other guy’s religion or philosophy but refuse to question our own. Many of us look at the history of man’s quest to understand the universe and his place in it and observe how again and again and again people not only believe incredible things without any rational evidence at all but then use these beliefs as a justification for unspeakable cruelties towards others.

    And as much as we love and respect our religious brethren we find ourselves turning away and sighing about man’s fear of his own capacity to look and understand reality without the alleged benefits of the religious “wise” men who have gone before and left us the world we see today. I know, it’s always the other guy’s irrational religion or secular philosophy that is at fault, never my own.

    So one again I post my little essay on why religion offers no hope of destroying the resurgent Islamo-atrocity and the only hope for mankind is a resurgent Western Enlightenment, child of the Renaissance rediscovery of the of the religion-doubting ancient Greeks thinkers, above all, Aristotle. Without a resurgent Enlightenment, we are destined to fight blood with blood. With it, we fight the irrational hatred of man’s happiness on earth with the brilliant light of reason that gave the Enlightenment its name and gave birth to the conviction that nature (or nature’s God) has endowed man with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That conviction is not one that grew out of religion; it grew out of the secular challenge to the hegemony of religion.

    A resugent Enlightenment in the west will sweep aside the neo-marxist postmodern (i.e., post-Enlightenment) West and with it the leftist enablers of Islamic jihad. Forget the multiculturalists — the West still leads and can turn what is left of reasonable minds in the Islamic world back towards their abandoned twelfth-century engagement with Greek thought. If we are to avoid a bloodbath we must make the Islamic Enlightenment inevitable.

    If we do manage to re-Enlighten the West, there will soon be an Islamic Enlightenment — but there will not be an Islamic Reformation. The Christian Reformation was a movement to end the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church that, to the reformers way of thinking, was veering far from the original message and example of Jesus. Thus there can be no modern Islamic Reformation because it has already taken place: the Wahhabi movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and ISIS are the Islamic Reformation — the movement to end the abuses of Westernized and democratized Islamic nations in order to return to strict Sharia Law and the original religious (if you can call it that) vision of Muhammad.

    Why was there an Enlightenment in Europe but not in the Islamic World? For the same reason there was a Renaissance in the west, but not the east: After flirting with the rediscovery of Ancient Greek culture and philosophy by Avicenna, Averroes and other Muslim thinkers (there were once such), Islam sank back into the mire of intellectual submission to its savage roots, never to be awakened until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent dragging of Islamic countries into the modern world by, war, technology, and the demand for petroleum.

    But why was there a successful Enlightenment in the West? I maintain it was a combination of the explosion of information made possible by movable-type printing (c. 1440), leading to the explosion of sects and intellectual ferment that came with the Reformation (c. 1517-1750) — making all heresies possible, leading finally the exhaustion of the many contenders in the European Wars of Religion (c.1525-1650) when it became abundantly clear that faith was neither the guarantor of truth nor of victory. In the the wake of what can only be described as the shame of European Christendom, with the death toll reaching possibly 45 million souls — all in the name of Jesus, meek and mild — European thinkers, artists, writers, philosophers, and other persons of good will took a hard look at the utility of faith as the solution to human distress and turned instead to reason. Many contributed ideas. Locke published his Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1689 and the movement away from faith and towards reason has continued to this day. Christians and Jews continued to look to their scriptures for guidance on the spiritual and moral order but no longer looked there for scientific truth or advice on creating the social order because all scriptural advice presumed a totally authoritarian social order — an order that had failed catastrophically.

    So why, given a Western re-Enlightenment, will there eventually be an Islamic Enlightenment? Because the Internet is the unstoppable modern analog of movable type. Because Islam will never be monolithic again, and because the Islamic authoritarian social order will fail catastrophically. Mostly it will fail because of its own lies and internal contradictions. If we care about the futures of our children and grandchildren we should do everything we can to avoid moderating the current sectarian wars between Sunni and Shia, ISIS and IRAN, etc., while acting to prevent their encroachment on non-Muslim and not “moderate” but (currently) “American-friendly” Muslim countries. You be the judge as to whether the current battlegrounds, Iraq and Syria — or what parts of them — are American friendly.

    Eventually, with the right strategy on our part, Islamic jihad will be bankrupt and exhausted, their national armies defeated, their leaders humiliated, and their countrymen who have been educated in the principles of Western liberal (rights-respecting) democracy will finally be able to bring the Enlightenment to Islam. Unfortunately, those Muslims educated by the Western (not re-Enlightened) leftist establishment will return home eager to impose new forms of totalitarianism in place of the old one.

    So oddly enough, the battle will be won or lost on the campuses of American and European universities. I know that reason, liberty, individualism, and rights — if heard — will be victorious there as well, because most humans value life over death, and death is all that the haters of life and liberty have to offer. Therefore it is critical that the leftist’s plans to implement thought control in the universities (and major media) be defeated. That must be our project then: to re-Enlighten the universities of the Western world.

    I have necessarily left out a great deal in this lightning tour of history and my vision of our future, but I hope it will inspire some thought. Use your Web-searching skill to investigate the people, ideas, and events I have mentioned if they are unfamiliar to you and tell us what you think. As I indicated, I have posted essentially this same essay in the past, but none of my religious brethren here on Atlas Shrugs thought it worthwhile to respond — or maybe I left you speechless? I think there is enough thoughtful material here to at least start a conversation. What do you think?

    • Dno

      Re-Enlightening the universities of the West? Sounds great in theory, but with the way things are moving, I don’t think there will be time for that. The immediate problems are already almost at the point of being out of control. No Western Leader is capable of doing this. There’s also no way of fully disengaging from the Middle East without leaving Israel behind.