The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

More Peace And Love From The Religion Of Peace And Love

Elder over at EOZ has, once again, come up with the news of how the muslims of the Religion of Peace are living with their neighbors. This little story highlights how some muslims in Egypt are doing their best to show the world that they are in no way associated with those muslims who attack civilians.

Or, maybe not....

In the "District of Rain" in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, an ugly scene of Muslim militants burned a church, after prayers Friday (29/11), chanting "God is great ...! God is great!",


Early in the morning two Sundays ago, hundreds of Christian Egyptians quietly slipped into a former underwear factory where they had discreetly set up a church and held their first service. Bells rang and hymns were sung.

A crowd of angry Muslims quickly gathered, threw stones at the building and burned banners that said, “No to the church.” They tried to storm the gates, clashed with police and chanted, “The church has fallen, the priest is dead,” according to witnesses. In fact, no one died, but 13 people were reported injured. ...

... In one southern city, a Muslim man was killed in clashes over the expansion of a Coptic Orthodox monastery, and Muslims torched Christian villagers’ homes because a priest was seen holding Mass inside a house...

In Ain Shams, where about 4,000 Christian families are vastly outnumbered by Muslims, congregants bought the factory three years ago and quietly began setting up their church.

Muslims bought a parking lot across the street and started building a mosque — one of about five within a few blocks. It was from these mosques that the angry crowd rallied when word spread that the Copts were at prayer.

But at their first service, the Christians announced their presence with bells and hymns — even distributing chocolates outside the building [Ed: That was their mistake. chocolate? Don't they know that sharing of chocolate is tantamount to declaring war?!?!] — apparently hoping the church would be accepted as a fait accompli. Instead, the riot erupted.

Anthony ended up being led out of the church protected by police while the mob hurled insults and stones.

Meanwhile, muslim-reaction-phobic US and Britain forced India to not respond to the muslim terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Seems to me, that once again, a week response to muslim attacks will only lead to even more attacks (ie. 9/11).

[Update:] Oh, and don't forget their persistent rage against machinery that belongs to infidels. Maybe Obama was right all along about Pakistan??



#1 Anonymous 07-Dec-2008
oddly EOZ doesn't have a link to the first block quote. i'm kind of curious where it comes from, especially considering that nov. 29th wasn't a friday this year (29/11, as the date is written in egypt) and i never heard of a "district of rain" when i was in cairo. i just did some searches for the district in both english and arabic ("mintaqa al-matar") and both turned up nothing.

not that violence against the copts isn't very real. anti-christian violence does get a lot of coverage in the international press and i just didn't hear anything about that church burning.
#2 upyernoz 07-Dec-2008
oh sorry, that was me in the above comment.
#3 captainfish 07-Dec-2008
He may have not had a direct link, but he noted the site where he got his quote from. If you have an issue with that one or two sentence quote out of the whole article, you can always ask Elder.

Just because it happens, does not diminish the fact of muslim violence.
#4 upyernoz 08-Dec-2008
actually, if you google the entire quote, it doesn't get you anything other than the EOZ site, or other sites quoting the EOZ post. i even tried searching on the al-masry al-youm site (") and got nothing.

there's no denying that some muslim are violent (or that there has been a lot of anti-christian violence in egypt). but to claim that muslims are inherently violent, as you seem to be doing here, is rather simple minded. it reminds me of the arabic-language site that claims americans are bloodthirsty by quoting articles about inner city violence in the u.s. egyptian society has a lot of violence, but so does american society. that doesn't make christianity a violent religion, even though there have been quite a lot of wars fought in the name of christianity.

the apparent errors in the EOZ quote that you mindlessly parroted here is really just icing on the cake. the real problem is that the logic of your post doesn't actually make much sense.
#5 captainfish 08-Dec-2008
It makes alot of sense to those who are simple minded like me.

To me, WARS are different than inflicting terror and indiscriminate attacks.

To me, there is a difference in attacking people of another religion than each other in the neighborhood.

To me, there is a difference between America's inner city violence (GANGS!) and attacks by non-christians on christians.

To me, there is a difference between apples and oranges. But if they are the same to you, that is fine. That is your opinion.

My opinion is that many of the wars fought by "christian" armies were fought to protect freedoms and that religion. Some in the way past were wrong. But let's stick with the time period America has been in existence. Because there is a difference in America's reformist christian faith and the dark ages belief of what christianity is.

Your belief that the attacks by Egyptian muslims on the Coptic christians is comparable to the attacks by gangs in America's inner cities is wholly incorrect. A better analogy would be if Baptists were warring with Catholics, or Mormons fire-bombed muslim mosques. Granted, there was the war between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland, but that again, was between two christian groups. Muslims also have this extensive battle between the different factions of Islam. These types of wars are more of the gang-mentality than religion based.

Just because blacks, asians, mexicans, whites, and who else attack and kill each other in gang violence does not make it the same as religious based attacks.

Now, for a comparable statement to refute my remarks would be to show how there is violence against muslims by christians in America. Got any?

Another analogy you could have made that would be comparable would be if Americans were indiscriminately attacking Mexicans or Canadians. Got any? Or, is it Mexico attacking US?

And again, as for going after me for someone else's quote, why not ask Elder where he got his quote. Granted, you did some research and found nothing. I commend you for that. And leads credence to your thoughts that the quote might be invalid. But, I would tend to give Elder the benefit of the doubt.

And, are all muslims inherently violent? NO! I say that now. There are many good people that believe in peace and freedom and follow Islam. But, do you disagree that Islam teaches violence against non-muslims? Do you disagree that almost all of the attacks by muslims are done under the auspices of their "preachers" and they do so praising their god? That faith is based on violence. The more violent the more rewards they think they will receive.

And I know you are going to say... these are just the crazies in that faith. True. Could be. Do you hear the peaceful moderate muslims condemning the violence? Do you hear them condemning the violence against other muslims in other countries? No. When the christian crazies come out of their holes and attack, there is an outcry. Look at all the people that came out against that one church that always protests at soldier's funerals.

Can you image what would happen in places like the Gaza or West Bank if the real peace-loving muslimsarabs came out in force and stood up against those who want terror? But, alas, it won't happen. There is too much call for blood.
#6 upyernoz 08-Dec-2008
thanks for the longwinded answer. but i'm afraid that you seem to be guessing wrongly about a lot of the stuff i believe rather than responding strictly to what i wrote above. for example, i don'
t believe "that the attacks by Egyptian muslims on the Coptic christians is comparable to the attacks by gangs in America's inner cities", and i didn't say i did above.

what i did say was that your practice of picking out instances of violence in various muslim societies and then using those instances to indict the overall society is simpleminded. then i said the following:

"it reminds me of the arabic-language site that claims americans are bloodthirsty by quoting articles about inner city violence in the u.s."

get it? i wasn't endorsing judging the u.s. based on inner city violence. i just said that i've seen that kind of arguments being made on arabic language sites to justify their anti-americanism. to me, as an american, their claim that inner city violence proves to propensity of american culture towards violence comes across as rather simple-minded and stupid. my point is that your argument about egyptian society is essentially the same thing, and would strike an egyptian as just as stupid.

like i said, the entire point of this post comes across as rather ridiculous. there is no society in the world that doesn't have violence and injustice. cherry picking out bad incidents makes no point at all about the overall society. but that's what you seem to think you are doing. and the fact that in the above response you glide so easily from talking about egypt, to talking about gaza, the west bank and muslims in general only reinforces my impression that you're not actually making a coherent point at all. you need to focus to do that.
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us