Sunday, May 15, 2011

Islamic Supremecists continue to attack Christians in Egypt

Andrew McCarthy catches the Washington Post in a sophistic canard in its reporting recently entitled “12 dead in Egypt as Christians and Muslims clash”, in yet another example of what may be accurate but not true.  The fact of the matter is that this 'clash' was in fact an attack by Muslim jihadists on a Christian church, & all dead were Christians at the hands of the mob.
Screaming “With our blood and soul, we will defend you, Islam,” jihadists stormed the Virgin Mary Church in northwest Cairo last weekend. They torched the Coptic Christian house of worship, burned the nearby homes of two Copt families to the ground, attacked a residential complex, killed a dozen people, and wounded more than 200: just another day in this spontaneous democratic uprising by Muslim hearts yearning for freedom.
The Post's use of the passive voice continues in a more actively passive sense (yes, I suppose I could say that) in its support of the Obama administration's policy toward the continuing (& escalating) turmoil in Egypt, as it takes some lengths to attempt to draw a distinction without a difference between what we are told (still) to believe is a secular, simply political ('well, okay there are some religious overtones') of the Muslim Brotherhood (Remember DNI Clapper's testimony before Congress to that effect, while the FBI's Mueller & the CIA's Panetta practically choked beside him?), & the more radical Salafists.  McCarthy makes the case that there is no real distinction between the two - in fact, they are practically one & the same.  With my time in that area of the world, I have to agree.  After all, the Muslim Brotherhood's motto is:
 “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!”
See also the Wall Street Journal's take on the subject.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.

Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.

Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.

I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.