Look at the CNN headline. “State TV: 2 dead and 60 injured in clashes involving Coptics in Cairo.” That’s like saying “Five dead in clashes involving Sharon Tate in Los Angeles,” or “91 dead in Kristallnacht clashes involving Jews in Nazi Germany.”
These “unidentified men” did not have beards, we’re told, and were dressed in “plain clothes” — thus they weren’t military or police, or, presumably, caftan-wearing Islamic hardliners. The implication is that they must not be Salafis or Islamic supremacists of any kind. Yet who else can they be? Who else is attacking Coptic Christians in Egypt? Angry partisans of the Council of Chalcedon?
“State TV: 2 dead and 60 injured in clashes involving Coptics in Cairo,” by Mohamed Fadel Fahmy for CNN, May 15 (thanks to Assad Elepty):
Cairo, Egypt (CNN) — Violence erupted in the Cairo neighborhood of Maspero when pro-Coptic protesters clashed with unidentified men, leaving at least two people dead and 60 injured, state TV reported early Sunday.
The demonstrators initially staged a sit-in in front of the state TV building to demand greater rights for the religious minority.
Problems between Egypt’s Muslim majority and its Coptic Christian minority have been on the rise in recent months, with a number of violent clashes reported between the two groups.
Dozens of unidentified men, dressed in plain clothes, began firing live ammunition into the air and attacking the demonstrators around the entrance of the sit-in enclosure with sticks and stones. They also threw Molotov cocktails. It was not immediately clear who the attackers were or what their motive was.
Yes, it’s a real puzzler! Has Tim McVeigh been spotted around Cairo lately? Maybe it was Tim.
“They did not have beards. It was just a bunch of bad guys carrying guns and clubs,” said Maged Girguis, a pro-Coptic protester.
“Bad guys”? This is the favored politically correct and slightly ironic term that the U.S. military uses to describe the jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can’t call them what they are, so they resort to this infantile locution. And it seems to be much the same here: Maged Girguis knows that if he says who the attackers were and what motivated them, it will go even worse for the Copts. So he clams up.
Witnesses claimed the attackers were people from neighboring slums, seeking to incite sectarian violence.
Well, at least we know they were “people.” That rules out the alien invasion theory. But what kind of “people”? “People from neighboring slums, seeking to incite sectarian violence.” Ah. They were from neighboring slums, so they must be poor and uneducated, which is in every other mainstream media story the reason why people become Islamic jihadists, but in this one simply another dead-end clue to an ongoing mystery.
We do know that they were “seeking to incite sectarian violence,” and we know from above that there has been trouble between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, but since these men are unidentified and their motive unknown, it would be Islamophobic to assume that by “sectarian” is meant “Muslim/Christian.” Maybe the mob was made up of Buddhists, or Scientologists, or Mormons, or Pentecostals. It’s a mystery!
Egyptian riot police were deployed and created a human barrier between the men and the demonstrators.
A pro-Coptic protester was hit in the head by a rock. He initially refused to enter an ambulance, saying he feared arrest by the army. Volunteer doctors attempted to treat him in a make-shift field clinic but his wounds were severe and he was eventually taken away in the ambulance.
Apparently the rock leapt up of its own volition and made for the pro-Coptic protester’s head.
The demonstrators captured one of their alleged attackers, who was badly beaten.
The pro-Coptic protesters broke up the sidewalk around the television station and threw chunks of rock and concrete at their attackers. The demonstrators were armed with clubs and metal chains and a man was seen carrying a sword.
Later, two groups of men were seen clashing outside the foreign ministry, which is near the TV building. It was not immediately clear whether they were the same groups that fought outside the TV station earlier, though state TV reported that Coptics were involved in the unrest.
Coptics were involved, but who else? No clue. Maybe they found some Amish to pick on.