Chilling Video of Suicide Bomber Calmly Walking Into Cairo Church

Tweet

The bomber walks from the bottom right of the screen, fairly rapidly but calmly. It looks as if the man under the tree at lower left may have tried to say something or challenge him but the bomber keeps walking into the small courtyard of the Church. For a few seconds there is calm and then a tremendous explosion blows out the windows and part of the roof.

According to the Egyptian authorities, the bomber was killed in the explosion. If true, the black-clad man seen running out of the church a few seconds later is obviously not the bomber.

From the Daily Mail via Pamela Geller:

Haunting footage captures an ISIS suicide bomber calmly strolling into a Cairo church before killing 25 Christians in a savage attack

• Abu Abdallah al-Masri detonated a 12kg bomb killing 25 on Sunday
• Six children and 19 adults, mostly women, killed and 49 were wounded 
• Now the Egyptian government has released footage showing the bombing

By Charlie Moore For Mailonline 

PUBLISHED: 12:10 EST, 13 December 2016 | UPDATED: 05:18 EST, 14 December 2016 

Horrifying footage showing the moment an ISIS suicide bomber killed 25 Christians at a Cairo church has been released by the Egyptian government.

Abu Abdallah al-Masri detonated a 12kg bomb targeting Cairo's main Coptic Christian community, killing six children and 19 adults who were mostly women.
A further 49 were wounded in the savage attack on Sunday. 

Now, the Egyptian government has released footage showing the bombing which appears to capture the 22-year-old terrorist in the act.

The video is a recording of CCTV footage from outside a chapel adjacent to St. Mark's Cathedral, seat of Egypt's ancient Coptic Orthodox Church.

It shows a dark figure crossing the street and walking through the gates of the church. 

Moments later, the blast sends clouds of dust and debris through the windows. 

It was among the deadliest attacks in recent memory to target Egypt's Coptic minority, which makes up around 10 percent of the population and was largely supportive of the military overthrow of a freely elected Islamist president in 2013. 

El-Sissi led the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi, a senior figure in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood group. 

Since then, Islamic militants have carried out scores of attacks, mainly targeting the security forces, while the government has waged a wide-scale crackdown on dissent. 

Small protests were held outside the church in the aftermath of the attack, as Christians accused the government of failing to protect them, a complaint that goes back many years. 

Officials and government supporters have touted the quick identification of the suspected bomber as proof of the efficiency of the security bodies, but Christian activist Nader Shokry said more could have been done to prevent the attack. 

'How did all this planning take place without the security knowing about it?' he said. 'You are saying that this person belongs to a terror group and has been previously arrested... So you should have kept a close eye on him.' 

The Interior Ministry said late Monday that the attacker belonged to a terror cell founded by an Egyptian doctor and funded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders living in exile in Qatar. It said the cell was tasked with staging attacks that would stir sectarian strife. 

But Islamic state has claimed responsibility for the bombing in a statement released on Tuesday. 

Three men and a woman were arrested in connection with Sunday's attack and other suspects were on the run, el-Sissi said. 

The Brotherhood condemned the bombing.

Egyptian-Born Canadian Journalist Sentenced to Three Years in Prison by Egyptian Court

Tweet

Don't work for Al-Jazeera

This is being presented as a story about press freedom, which it obviously is in part. The charges revolved around the journalists somehow collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian Government. And it feeds the narrative that the current ferociously anti-Islamist government of Fattah el-Sissi is anti-democratic and authoritarian.

Somewhat neglected however are a few inconvenient facts. El-Sissi has himself come out against the cooked up case, and the currently imprisoned journalist Mohammed Fahmy has sued his former employer Al-Jazeera for 100 million dollars for reasons that substantially confirm the Egyptian Court's more general claim--that Al-Jazeera was (and still is) in collusion with the Brotherhood.

Best case ending: Fahmy goes free and that Jihad supporting news organization is knocked down a peg.

By Brian Rohan, CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian court on Saturday sentenced three Al-Jazeera English journalists to three years in prison, the latest twist in a long-running trial criticized worldwide by press freedom advocates and human rights activists. 

The case against Canadian national Mohammed Fahmy, Australian journalist Peter Greste and Egyptian producer Baher Mohammed embroiled their journalism into the wider conflict between Egypt and Qatar following the 2013 military ouster of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi. 

It wasn't immediately clear how the sentence would affect the three men, although lawyers said they would be asking for a pardon from President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who has personally spoken out against the case. 

Greste, earlier deported in February, spoke to Al-Jazeera from Sydney and said he believed an Egyptian appeals court would overturn the verdict. Fahmy and Mohammed, both on hand for Saturday's hearing, were immediately taken away by police after the hearing. 

"We broke no laws, we did nothing unethical or illegal or immoral. And so it's just incomprehensible to see how the court can come to this conclusion," Greste said, adding that the verdict was "clearly political." 

"There is no other way of interpreting this," he said. 

Mostefa Souag, Al-Jazeera's acting director-general, also criticized the verdict, saying it "'defies logic and common sense." 

"The whole case has been heavily politicized and has not been conducted in a free and fair manner," Souag said in a statement. "There is no evidence proving that our colleagues in any way fabricated news or aided and abetted terrorist organizations and at no point during the long drawn out retrial did any of the unfounded allegations stand up to scrutiny." 

Judge Hassan Farid, in his ruling, said he sentenced the men to prison because they had not registered with the country's journalist syndicate. He also said the men brought in equipment without security officials' approval, had broadcast "false news" on Al-Jazeera and used a hotel as a broadcasting point without permission. 

Fahmy's wife, Marwa, broke down in tears as the verdict was read out, with others sobbing in the courtroom. 

"I am asking for justice, for fairness," she said while leaving the court. "I feel extremely disappointed because I love my country and I know that Mohammed loves his country. ... It's really hard for us." 

Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, who represented Fahmy on Saturday, said she would be meeting with Egyptian officials later in the day along with Canadian Ambassador Troy Lulashnyk to press for a presidential pardon. 

"The verdict today sends a very dangerous message in Egypt," Clooney said. "It sends a message that journalists can be locked up for simply doing their job, for telling the truth and reporting the news. And it sends a dangerous message that there are judges in Egypt who will allow their courts to become instruments of political repression and propaganda." 

Lulashnyk said Canada was deeply disappointed by the outcome. 

"We are calling for his full and immediate release and his return to Canada, and this is now the time for the government to make that happen," he said. 

The case began in December 2013, when Egyptian security forces raided the upscale hotel suite used by Al-Jazeera at the time to report from Egypt. 

Authorities arrested Fahmy, Greste and Mohammed, later charging them with allegedly being part of Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, which authorities have declared a terrorist organization, and airing falsified footage intended to damage national security. 

Since Morsi's ouster, Egypt has cracked down heavily on his supporters, and the journalists were accused of being mouthpieces for the Brotherhood. Al-Jazeera and the journalists have denied the allegations, saying they were simply reporting the news. 

At the time of the journalists' arrests, Qatar and Egypt increasingly had been at odds over Doha's support of Islamist groups and the Brotherhood. In the time since, Qatar, which owns Al-Jazeera, has expelled some Brotherhood members and made overtures toward easing tensions with Egypt, though the Qatari government continues to support some Islamists in the region. 

At trial, prosecutors used news clips about an animal hospital with donkeys and horses, and another about Christian life in Egypt, as evidence they broke the law. Defense lawyers — and even the judge — dismissed the videos as irrelevant. 

Nonetheless, the three men were convicted on June 23, 2014, with Greste and Fahmy sentenced to seven years in prison and Mohammed to 10 years for being found with a spent bullet casing. That ruling was later overturned on appeal by Egypt's Court of Cassation, which said the initial proceedings were marred by violations of the defendants' rights, but a retrial was ordered. 

On Saturday, Mohammed received an additional six months for being in possession of a "bullet," according to the full text of the court decision carried by the Egyptian state news agency MENA. It wasn't immediately clear why Saturday's verdict referred to a "bullet," rather than a spent bullet casing. 

The case has brought a landslide of international condemnation and calls for el-Sissi, who as military chief led the overthrow of Morsi, to intervene. Egypt deported Greste in February, though he remained charged in the case. Fahmy and Mohammed were later released on bail. 

Fahmy was asked to give up his Egyptian nationality by Egyptian officials in order to qualify for deportation. It's not clear why he wasn't deported, though Fahmy said he thinks Canada could have pressed Cairo harder on the matter. 

Angered by Al-Jazeera's handling of the case, Fahmy has filed a lawsuit in Canada seeking $100 million from the broadcaster, saying that it put the story ahead of employee safety and used its Arabic-language channels to advocate for the Brotherhood. Al-Jazeera has said Fahmy should seek compensation from Egypt.

BREAKING: ISIS Seizes Parts of Sinai City After Coordinated Attacks

Tweet

The nearby Rafah border crossing, a few miles from Israel and the Gaza strip

The War has come to Egypt.

A few hours ago we mentioned President Obama's support of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood and ISIS are separate and to some extent opposed entities, they in turn are both working to bring down the current Abdel Fattah el-Sisi government, and no doubt draw members from the same sources. The recent assassination of Egypt's top prosecutor could have been undertaken by either group. Given the Obama Administration's support for the Brotherhood and its lukewarm dealings with el-Sisi, it is arguably now de facto allied with ISIS in a rapidly expanding conflict.

From the International Business Times (1 July, 10:23 AM CST):

A series of coordinated attacks in Egypt’s northern Sinai city of Sheikh Zuweid has left up to 50 people dead amid growing concern over the Islamic State group's spread in North Africa, military and security officials said. The Sinai-based group, "State of Sinai," which has pledged allegiance to ISIS, took responsibility for the attacks on social media. 

The assault began Wednesday morning when militants launched a coordinated series of attacks against military checkpoints and posts and detonated suicide bombs. The militants cut off streets leading to the city's police station, bombed government posts and checkpoints and stationed themselves throughout the city, media reports said. The attack came just one day after Egypt’s president pledged to broaden his government’s crackdown on Islamic militant groups operating out of the peninsula. 

Egyptian military F-17 jets bombarded ISIS targets in the Sinai following the attacks, the Daily Star reported. A journalist based in Sinai, Mostafa Singer, told Daily News Egypt that the city was out of the control of Egyptian security forces, and ISIS released a statement announcing they had seized parts of Sheikh Zuweid, according to the Guardian. “We have total control of many sites, and have seized what was in them,” the statement read. 

A policeman denied that the city was under the group's control, a Twitter account with the handle @EgyptianStreets said, citing Daily News Egypt. He admitted, however, that ISIS had effectively laid siege to the city... 

In January, the same group responsible for Wednesday's assault was responsible for a series of attacks which resulted in more than 40 deaths. Similarly, in October 2014, the group launched an attack that led to 30 deaths. Sheikh Zuweid was a target in both assaults. 

The attacks highlight growing security concerns in Egypt, where Islamic militant attacks have surged following the military’s ousting of Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, amid widescale street protests against the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood president. Last month, Egypt’s court sentenced the former leader to death, a move the U.S. called “deeply troubling.” 

The sentence followed suit with thousands of mass death sentences and arrests which have been handed down against Islamic extremists and government opponents under President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, the country's former military chief who became its president last year and has established himself as hard-handed against terror. 

On Monday, the country’s top prosecutor was assassinated in the capital, Cairo, by unknown assailants, in an attack that may have been linked to anger over Morsi's death sentence. 

Israel has closed its border with Egypt amid security concerns, and the IDF said they were closely monitoring the border, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Ode to Obamalodon: A Case Study in Evolution

Tweet

Transitional Obamalodon with half-formed musculature  

(On the inspiration for the title, see here.)

Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage is well known and parts of it have been catalogued in a number of places. But I wanted to set out a comprehensive account for the record, including the most recent mutation from "it should be left up to the states" to "it shouldn't be left up to the states". The account is long and (for some may be) tedious, but such is often the case with these things. If you're quickly reading this post on your phone  and only have a few minutes before your date returns from her cigarette, here are the takeaways:

1. On gay marriage, most people know that Obama was against it before he was for it. But fewer know that he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. The technical name for this is "evolutionary reversal." Among evolutionary biologists it is a recognized, though somewhat uncommon phenomenon.
2. Many if not most politicians evolve on issues. Though, especially among Democrats the gay marriage issue has been a veritable laboratory in widespread and rapid evolutionary activity. However, Obama is notable, if not unique in repeatedly recognizing the evolutionary process as it was happening and indeed, in forecasting future evolutionary changes. Take a look at these gills, baby. I won't have them forever.
3. Many Obama opponents see the evolution thing as a dodge. His current views were always his real views. He was secretly hiding his views until the time was right to reveal them, etc. I do not see it this way (and no, I'm not kidding or joking around on this one). I fully believe that Obama was in favor of gay marriage, then was against it, then was for it. He was for leaving it up to the states, then he was against that. As to why his views changed or why, say, his particular view at one instance might have been this rather than that, those are separate questions. But I think Obama's views simply are...whatever they are at the time. That's how he thinks. That's what views are to him. Of course, I don't find this laudable or re-assuring. Rather, I find it, well, fascistic. In large part, Obama's views at any one time are whatever he thinks they should be to most effectively strive for, attain or hold on to power. Or, to put it another way, they are what he believes will serve him best at maximizing his own power over others. I didn't vote for him, by the way. How did you guess?
4. On this note, Obama may currently be in favor of gay marriage, but I believe if he thought it politically expedient, he would not only be against gay marriage (as he was when that was politically expedient) but would be in favor of criminalizing gay conduct and imposing harsh punishments on such. Off to the camps with them, if it came to that. What? You think that's unfair? Well, note that Obama is an intense supporter (to the point of ignoring all other considerations including traditional and obvious U.S. interests) of the Muslim Brotherhood--an outlawed hard-core Muslim group, whose stated aim is to impose full-blown Sharia law on the people of Egypt. Where is his liberal concern for gays (or anyone) in that case? (See the last two items, below).

Okay, so here goes. Gay marriage, Yes or No?

1996: Yes.
State Senate candidate questionnaire from Outlines--a Chicago gay newspaper:

I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.

1998: Maybe.
Similar questionnaire from Outlines:

Do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you co-sponsor such a bill? Undecided.

2004: No, but for strategic reasons.
Interview with Windy City Times:

I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ...What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

2004: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with WTTW Chicago public television:

What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. … We have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved. … I don’t think marriage is a civil right...but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions.

2006: No, but this may be because I am infected with society's prejudices.
From The Audacity of Hope:

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …[But] it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.

2007: No, though yes to civil unions.
Democratic Primary Debate sponsored by a gay rights group:

I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

2008: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with megachurch Pastor Rick Warren:

I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix...I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.

2008: No, though (not quoted here) yes to civil unions and no to federal intervention either way.
Interview with MTV:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

2010: No, but I may be evolving.
Interview with a group of liberal bloggers:

I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.

2011: No. Never. But he may be evolving.
White House Press Secretary Dan Pfeiffer to Net Roots Nation activists:

The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states.
David Corn of Mother Jones, quoting an Administration source:

[President Obama] has always said that it is a state issue, and he's not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment [against gay marriage], but he's not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states:
Interview on Good Morning America:

I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

2012: Yes, and if it is recognized in some states, that recognition cannot be denied by other states.
Same Interview:

Well, I — you know, my Justice Department has already — said that it is not gonna defend — the Defense Against Marriage Act [which attempted to block the decisions in some states from impacting the decisions of other states]; that we consider that a violation of [the] equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that — that move on the part of the Justice Department.

2012: Yes.
Same Interview:

At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

2015: Yes, and it should NOT be up to the states.

Rose Garden reaction to the Obergefell Supreme Court decision requiring states to recognize gay marriage:

And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,...When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. For all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we will ever be alone. That has always been our story. Today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we made our union a little more perfect.

2015: Yes, and rainbow.
The White House a few hours later:

Now, here's the Muslim angle.

2011-2015: No (and throw all the gays in jail).

The Obama Administration, to the anger and disdain of liberal Egyptians, supported the Muslim Brotherhood while it was on the path to turning Egypt into a full-blown authoritarian Islamic state. After the popular coup that ousted that organization and then outlawed it, the Administration has continued to express its support for the Brotherhood, holding meetings with key figures at the White House, among other things.

The stated aim of the Brotherhood has always been to create an Islamic state governed by Islamic Law or Sharia, a legal code that among other things, criminalizes and harshly punishes homosexual behavior. Though in initially gaining and attempting to consolidate political power, the Brotherhood was somewhat cagey on the explicit consequences of Sharia for gays as well as for other groups (mindful of Western opinion and the opinion of Egyptian "moderates"), here are a few hints of their views:

From an article on the 2011-12 elections, "Egypt Islamists 'use homophobia to win votes'":

The Muslim Brotherhood is "using homophobia and xenophobia to attract people's votes like they did before during the constitutional referendum and influenced people to vote 'yes'," according to Jennifer Josef from the international gay rights organisation ILGA. 

At a recent rally attended by about 25,000 people in Tanta, north of Cairo, Mohammed Badie, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood was reported to state that "it is not permissible for democracy to allow what is forbidden (haram) or forbid what is allowed (halal) even if the entire nation agreed to it." 

Mr Badie stressed that "the West has allowed gay marriage under the pretext of democracy, which we will never allow in Egypt..."

And here is a 2012 Foreign Policy Magazine interview with Dr. Mohammed Ghanem, the Brotherhood's spokesman in London:

FP: What is the Brotherhood’s position on gay rights? 

MG: We’ve never had a public issue on this particular problem. Most of the laws in Muslim countries consider it as illegal. Culturally, Muslims don’t like it. Legally speaking, I don’t think there have been any problematic cases. The people simply refuse it.

Muslim Terrorist Attacks on Christians: A Global Comparison

Tweet

Dogo Nahawa Massacre, Nigeria, 2010: Over 500 Christians--mostly women and children--are hacked to death by Muslim attackers screaming "Allah Akbar!"

The always useful Religion of Peace website has compiled a running list of Muslim terrorist attacks on Christians since 9/11. As of the end of March it lists 1,242 attacks in 51 countries and territories, totaling 9,161 deaths and 12,003 injuries. It's a morbid subject, obviously, but it's also important. I believe the authors try to stick to a consistent and fair methodology. Here are some notes on it:

1. Tens of thousands of 21st century Christians have been martyred for many reasons and by numerous hostile groups--including members of various non-Christian religions and anti-Christian ideologies--but only attacks by Muslims are counted.
2. Only attacks on Christians where they were almost certainly singled out and targeted as Christians are counted. Thus, few of the most well-known Muslim terrorist attacks are counted--since the victims of those attacks were for the most part targeted indiscriminately.
3. The list includes some personal actions--a Muslim father murdering his daughter because she converted to Christianity--religiously motivated attacks by lone or unaffiliated attackers, mob actions, premeditated attacks by recognized terrorist groups and war crimes by quasi-military units.
4. Due to reporting and other considerations it no doubt leaves out many other occurrences, ranging from more personal attacks to quasi-military actions.
5. The list does not include attacks or human rights violations by governments.
6. 87% of the attacks involved at least one fatality and 48% involved at least two fatalities.
7. For the most part, each attack was labeled by country, though there are a few exceptions--attacks in the Muslim areas of the Russian Federation are broken out by territory and there are a few non-national territories included, such as Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority.
8. There are no links on the site's list but each attack is easily verifiable due to the inclusion of a date and a relatively unique description of the event.

We put together a summary of the data, based on recorded casualties, ranking the results by % of total casualties per country, and by % of total casualties by country controlling for population:

Total Casualties by Number and % of Total:

Nigeria 11,377 54%
Egypt 1,601 8%
Iraq 1,541 7%
Pakistan 1,223 6%
Syria 1,220 6%
Indonesia 1,032 5%
Philippines 934 4%
Lebanon 346 2%
Sudan 311 1%
Kenya 305 1%
Bangladesh 251 1%
Central African Republic 226 1%
Somalia 120 1%
Ethiopia 109 1%
Other 568 3%

% of Total Casualties by Country, Controlling for Population:

Lebanon 19%
Nigeria 16%
Syria 12%
Central African Republic 11%
Iraq 11%
Egypt 4%
Philippines 2%
Somalia 2%
Kenya 2%
Sudan 2%
Libya 2%
Pakistan 1%
Israel 1%
Kosovo 1%
Liberia 1%
Indonesia 1%
Palestinian Authority 1%
Macedonia 1%
Saudi Arabia 1%

Tentative Conclusions:

1. Much of this is not a surprise. That Nigeria tops the list, accounting for over half of the total casualties, is not unexpected.
2. However, it might be a surprise that, controlling for population, Lebanon is even more dangerous.
3. Virtually all of the casualties are in the Middle East, Africa and South and South East Asia--areas that to one extent or another are not fully covered by Western media.
4. Population is total population, not total Christian population. Thus, for example, Pakistan is almost certainly a more dangerous place for Christians than the numbers might indicate.
5. All attacks since 9/11 are given equal weight. I suspect that some areas--Syria and Iraq--would appear much more dangerous if only recent results were counted.

The number of Christians killed and injured on this list is horrific, and as a Catholic I have no doubt that many of the dead were and will be recognized as martyrs. But it is notable and perhaps odd that virtually none of the Christians killed were public personalities. For example, I believe the list includes only one bishop and very few well-known priests, ministers or Christian laymen. (One exception might be the Orthodox priest Daniel Sysoev, murdered in 2009, who became locally famous in Russia for evangelizing within the Moscow Muslim community.)

By contrast, there have been numerous well-known non-Christians and atheists murdered, including the Bangladeshi bloggers cited in the previous post, the Charlie Hebdo journalists, and the Dutch anti-Islam figures Pym Fortune and Theo van Gogh. And of course there are a number of others, such as Salmon Rushdie, who have lived for many years under the threat of death.

Why this is the case is a question I hope to answer in another post. It almost certainly reflects well on the bravery of some contemporary atheists. And by the same token probably reflects badly on the current state of organized Christianity and the Catholic Church, especially in Western countries.

If atheists, such as Oyasiqur Rahman are willing to sacrifice their lives to tell the truth about a violent, tyrannical and soul destroying religion, where are, say, the Catholic priests and bishops? And where is the Pope, or is he too busy bragging about riding in a used car?