# US Embassy today



## aykalam

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and pulled down the American flag during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.
In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger", a Reuters reporter said.
Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, protesters tore it up, with some showing off small pieces to television cameras. Then others burned remains.
"This movie must be banned immediately and an apology should be made ... This is a disgrace," said 19-year-old, Ismail Mahmoud, a member of the so-called "ultras" soccer supporters who played a big role in the uprising that brought down Hosni Mubarak last year.
Many Muslims consider any depiction of the Prophet to be offensive.
Mahmoud called on President Mohamed Mursi, Egypt's first civilian president and an Islamist, to take action. Many others were supporters of Islamist groups.
About 20 people stood on top of the embassy wall in central Cairo, where about 2,000 protesters had gathered.
"There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is Allah's messenger. We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Allah's messenger," they chanted, with many waving religious flags.
A U.S. embassy official had no immediate comment on the protesters' actions but the embassy had put out a statement earlier on Tuesday condemning those who hurt the religious feelings of Muslims or followers of any other religions.
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others," the U.S. embassy said in its statement.
One slogan scrawled on the walls of the embassy, a fortress-like structure that is near Tahrir Square where Egyptians revolted against Mubarak, said: "If your freedom of speech has no limits, may you accept our freedom of action."
An Egyptian state website carried a statement by Egypt's Coptic Orthodox church condemning what it said were moves by some Copts living abroad "to finance the production of a film insulting Prophet Mohammad".
About a 10th of Egypt's 83 million people are Christians.
It was not immediately clear which film angered protesters.
However, according to the website www.standupamerianow.org, the Christian Pastor Terry Jones, who angered Muslims by burning a copy of the Koran, was due to take part in an event on Tuesday called "International Judge Mohammad Day" in Florida in which it would symbolically put the Prophet on trial and play it out live over the Internet.
"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the U.S. embassy statement said, adding that it condemned the efforts by "misguided individuals" to hurt the feelings of Muslims.
In another incident prompted by similar sentiments last month, a lone man attacked the German embassy with homemade nail bombs and a hammer with which he cracked glass at the entrance, following a report about a protest in Germany where demonstrators bore caricatures of the Prophet outside a mosque.
No one was injured and there was no serious damage in that incident.
(Reporting by Tamim Elyan and Reuters correspondents; Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Alison Williams)

Egyptians angry at film scale U.S. embassy walls - Yahoo! News


----------



## Sonrisa

Sorry I didnt see your post and have posted the same story. My husband passed by about an hour ago and said there were about a hundred of protesters.
Cant believe some state media website is promoting sectariAn hatred agAinst the copts once Again.


----------



## aykalam

‫???? ????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????‬‎ - YouTube


----------



## aykalam

Sonrisa said:


> Sorry I didnt see your post and have posted the same story. My husband passed by about an hour ago and said there were about a hundred of protesters.
> Cant believe some state media website is promoting sectariAn hatred agAinst the copts once Again.


it looks to me like a few more than a hundred:

https://twitter.com/MattMcBradley/status/245573732746276864/photo/1


----------



## expatagogo

Has else seen the video people are upset about?

I watched it, and I'm sorry I gave its youtube count another hit.

It's DISGUSTING.


----------



## mamasue

The guys protesting obviously aren't making a living from tourism!!!


----------



## MaidenScotland

I suspect the majority of protesters are just people who now protest because they can... nothing to do with feeling indigent about the content of the film, just nothing else to do so lets join in.
and of course the date will not have played any part in it,


----------



## MaidenScotland

An American has been killed in Libya as protesters stormed the U.S. Embassies there and in Egypt in attacks on the September 11 anniversary over a film making fun of the prophet Muhammad.
A U.S. State department spokeswoman confirmed the American's death to MailOnline, but did not provide further details, pending notification of next-of-kin. 
The person who was killed was an State Department officer at the embassy in Benghazi. Another American worker was wounded in the hand.
Witnesses said that much of the consulate has been burned by a fire set inside. Pictures from the area showed the building engulfed by flames.


Read more: American killed as radical Islamists storm U.S. Embassies in Cairo and Libya | Mail Online


----------



## JochenvW

Isn't it amazing how the Islamists are staging this PR coup for a badly produced insulting video that otherwise nobody would have watched? You can't buy this kind of advertising with money.


----------



## aykalam

MaidenScotland said:


> An American has been killed in Libya as protesters stormed the U.S. Embassies there and in Egypt in attacks on the September 11 anniversary over a film making fun of the prophet Muhammad.
> A U.S. State department spokeswoman confirmed the American's death to MailOnline, but did not provide further details, pending notification of next-of-kin.
> The person who was killed was an State Department officer at the embassy in Benghazi. Another American worker was wounded in the hand.
> Witnesses said that much of the consulate has been burned by a fire set inside. Pictures from the area showed the building engulfed by flames.
> 
> 
> Read more: American killed as radical Islamists storm U.S. Embassies in Cairo and Libya | Mail Online


Reports now saying the Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed 

(Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on Tuesday in the Libyan city of Benghazi, a Libyan official said.

It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.

"The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

(Reporting by Samia Nakhoul, editing by Diana Abdallah)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912


----------



## MaidenScotland

The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens has died from smoke inhalation in an attack on the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi following fierce clashes at the compound, Libyan security sources said. US envoy dies in Benghazi consulate attack - Africa - Al Jazeera English


----------



## MaidenScotland

The US ambassador to Libya has died after being attacked by militiamen storming the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, reports say.


----------



## JochenvW

A comment from Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding (Caabu):



> Nothing can justify the terrible killing of the US ambassador and his colleagues. These protesters, far from promoting or protecting Islam in their anger at an insulting film on the internet, have only further harmed the image of Muslims worldwide.
> 
> Nothing could have been more counter-productive and better designed to give publicity to such Islamophobic material that is better being ignored as the rubbish it is.
> 
> And at a time when Libyans might benefit from constructive external help with the challenges of the post-Gaddafi era, such violence will only make this less likely.


'US ambassador killed' in Libya protest - live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## MaidenScotland

CAIRO, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Egypt's prime minister said on Wednesday the U.S. government should not be blamed for a film that insulted the Prophet Mohammad and led to an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, but urged Washington to take action against the film producers.

"What happened at the U.S. embassy in Cairo is regrettable and rejected by all Egyptian people and cannot be justified, especially if we consider that the people who produced this low film have no relation to the (U.S.) government," Prime Minister Hisham Kandil said, reading out a statement.

He added: "We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film's producers within the framework of international charters that criminalise acts that stir strife on the basis of race, colour or religion."


but will rent a crowd listen???


----------



## DeadGuy

And once again Muslims manage to show that they don't need any help showing how civil, tolerant, polite, respectful, forgiving, peaceful they are


----------



## aykalam

Clashes tonight between CSF and Ultras outside the embassy, tear gas

https://twitter.com/khadrania/status/245999294715424769/photo/1/large


----------



## jemiljan

DeadGuy said:


> And once again Muslims manage to show that they don't need any help showing how civil, tolerant, polite, respectful, forgiving, peaceful they are


"The Muslims"? Were Shaykh Ali Goma'a and Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayeb participating or condoning this? No. A bunch of Salafi loud-mouths are responsible, not "the Muslims". 

I can't believe that someone *who lives here * could so crassly utter such insipid nonsense.


----------



## aPerfectCircle

DeadGuy said:


> And once again Muslims manage to show that they don't need any help showing how civil, tolerant, polite, respectful, forgiving, peaceful they are


Around 10 people living between USA and Netherlands decided to make a movie to insult millions of Muslims around the world (well they are a bunch of *******s).

Hundreds of people in Cairo decided to blame the whole USA population and attacked the US embassy in Cairo (they are a bunch of stupid *******s for a fact)

Then came along Mr.DeadGuy with his smug smile and decided to blame all the Muslims for being uncivilized, intolerant, impolite, disrespectful, unforgiving and aggressive (Well honestly he is the biggest ******* of all)

You may be a Coptic who is living in Egypt and I totally understand what kind of discrimination and injustice you all suffer from, but that doesn't give the right to be a racist and be just like the others. You should be better than them, isn't that what your religion teaches you.

There is always the good apples and the bad apples everywhere, it is not just exclusive for the Muslims.


----------



## expatagogo

JochenvW said:


> Isn't it amazing how the Islamists are staging this PR coup for a badly produced insulting video that otherwise nobody would have watched? You can't buy this kind of advertising with money.


The movie was shown once in an empty theater in Hollywood - empty because nobody was interested in watching it.

The video clip has been available on youtube for months, yet no 'reaction' until September 11.

Next week, the US House of Representatives will vote on the US' 'foreign spending' bill, which includes the financial aid packages for Libya and Egypt.

Timing is everything.


----------



## JochenvW

jemiljan said:


> Were Shaykh Ali Goma'a and Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayeb participating or condoning this?


Just out of curiosity: did anybody hear a senior member of an important Egyptian or Libyan Muslim organisation other than government denouncing the recent use of violence against US installations and staff in the name of Islam? :confused2:


----------



## MaidenScotland

I am meeting a friend whose husband works in the embassy so I may have some update on what has happened from the embassy point of view.


----------



## MaidenScotland

American flag being burned in Tunis... after prayers protest called for tomorrow


----------



## aykalam

Protesters storm US embassy compound in Yemen


Demonstrators smashed windows of the security offices outside the embassy before breaking through the main gate of the heavily fortified compound in eastern Sanaa. Security guards opened fire and there were reports of casualties on both sides but no details were immediately available.


----------



## MaidenScotland

The back wall of the USA embassy was breached.. in full view of the police .


----------



## aykalam

MaidenScotland said:


> The back wall of the USA embassy was breached.. in full view of the police .


when? on Tuesday?


----------



## MaidenScotland

aykalam said:


> when? on Tuesday?


Sorry yes Tuesday..


----------



## DeadGuy

jemiljan said:


> "The Muslims"? Were Shaykh Ali Goma'a and Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayeb participating or condoning this? No. A bunch of Salafi loud-mouths are responsible, not "the Muslims".
> 
> I can't believe that someone *who lives here * could so crassly utter such insipid nonsense.


_
A bunch of Salafi loud-mouths_? What you mean Salafi Jews? 


_Shaykh Ali Goma'a_ and _Shaykh Ahmed al-Tayeb_ never came out to tell people that violence and killing is wrong either, not yet anyway! Or have they?


----------



## MaidenScotland

Egyptian friend tells me of the conversation she had with a taxi driver last night.. 

he said

We are not that stupid.. do they not think we know what they are doing, allowing this so we do not think about all the other things going on in this country.


----------



## aykalam

Muslim Brotherhood Statement on Anti-Islam Film

Muslim Brotherhood Statement on Anti-Islam Film - Ikhwanweb

"While we reject and condemn the bloodshed and violent response to that abuse and the incredible tolerance certain countries show towards it, we cannot ignore the fact that these countries never made a move regarding the abuse until after the strong reaction seen across the Muslim world."


----------



## aykalam

BTW, MB still calling for Friday protests


----------



## aykalam

and this video from Tahrir taken this afternoon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07HBcwBrHUU&feature=player_embedded


----------



## DeadGuy

aPerfectCircle said:


> Around 10 people living between USA and Netherlands decided to make a movie to insult millions of Muslims around the world (well they are a bunch of *******s).
> 
> Hundreds of people in Cairo decided to blame the whole USA population and attacked the US embassy in Cairo (they are a bunch of stupid *******s for a fact)
> 
> Then came along Mr.DeadGuy with his smug smile and decided to blame all the Muslims for being uncivilized, intolerant, impolite, disrespectful, unforgiving and aggressive (Well honestly he is the biggest ******* of all)
> 
> You may be a Coptic who is living in Egypt and I totally understand what kind of discrimination and injustice you all suffer from, but that doesn't give the right to be a racist and be just like the others. You should be better than them, isn't that what your religion teaches you.
> 
> There is always the good apples and the bad apples everywhere, it is not just exclusive for the Muslims.


That's very lovely 

If you read my comment, I never "blamed" anyone, I only commented on the fact that Muslims, and AGAIN, are contradicting everything they're trying to convince the whole world with, and that they're not waiting for anyone's help to show what they really are (Won't use the smiley thing, but you know which one I'd use :eyebrows

Also the VERY FEW MUSLIM people that actually came out condemning what the REST OF THE MUSLIMS are doing were subjected to comments like yours, their faith was questioned, and in many occasions, their life was threatened, that should show you that HYPOCRISY is the real problem, it's not the religion of anyone commenting on the issue :spit:

You wanna call my comment _racist_? No problem, but then what would you call Muslims' behavior all over the world? :eyebrows:


----------



## Qsw

The vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. 

These events are tragic, and should not be used to stoke further tension. This problem won't be solved by trying to pin the blame on all Muslims. 

Sadly this kind of reaction will probably lead to more movies/offensive material (to Muslims) and the cycle will likely continue. It seems to me the best reaction is to let this kind of material vanish into oblivion. As others have said, this movie was so obscure, now it is all over the news.


----------



## MaidenScotland

Qsw said:


> The vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people.
> 
> These events are tragic, and should not be used to stoke further tension. This problem won't be solved by trying to pin the blame on all Muslims.
> 
> Sadly this kind of reaction will probably lead to more movies/offensive material (to Muslims) and the cycle will likely continue. It seems to me the best reaction is to let this kind of material vanish into oblivion. As others have said, this movie was so obscure, now it is all over the news.




I more or less said the same thing to an American friend of mine on her facebook.. which has basically led to an argument with a good friend, she has asked me a simple question that I cannot answer.
Why when we do so much not to offend Muslims do they not give the same respect to us?


----------



## MaidenScotland

On a day when protesters briefly stormed the U.E. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an international plea for a de-escalation of the ongoing demonstrations in the Middle East this morning and heavily criticized the obscure anti-Islam movie that sparked the outrage on 9/11.

"We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence," Clinton said at the State Department, sitting next to Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Saad-Eddine Al Otmani, who is in Washington for a set of strategic discussions.

Clinton's remarks come ahead of what are expected to be major protests across the Islamic world on Friday, a day when many Muslims go to mosques for prayer services, often with a political message.

"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries," Clinton said, referring to the film Innocence of Muslims, which has been linked to attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in Egypt, Libya, and now Yemen. "Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."

Clinton touted America's tradition of religious tolerance and noted that millions of Muslims enjoy religious freedom in the United States. She also reiterated the U.S. government's condemnation of the attacks.

"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted, in the strongest terms," she said.

Clinton called on the governments of the region to protect diplomatic posts and said that in the current technological environment, preventing videos like these from being made and disseminated is "impossible."

"But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be."


----------



## hurghadapat

MaidenScotland said:


> I more or less said the same thing to an American friend of mine on her facebook.. which has basically led to an argument with a good friend, she has asked me a simple question that I cannot answer.
> Why when we do so much not to offend Muslims do they not give the same respect to us?


I know this is a little out of context but it always sticks in my mind as it was said to me by an egyptian "not all muslim are terrorists but for sure almost all terrorists are muslim" it just seems to me a little bit like the question your friend has asked you.. ie no answer to it is there.


----------



## Qsw

MaidenScotland said:


> I more or less said the same thing to an American friend of mine on her facebook.. which has basically led to an argument with a good friend, she has asked me a simple question that I cannot answer.
> Why when we do so much not to offend Muslims do they not give the same respect to us?


Not sure what your friend is referring to. Who is trying not to offend Muslims? Which group of Muslims are they not trying to offend? In which ways are these Muslims not giving the same respect?

My personal experiences in the USA are very positive for the most part, but I rarely hear of good stories overall, and nothing has really changed on that front. I can recall things like when the NY Islamic Cultural Center (or something) was planned and people protested against it. Though there were supporters as well who defended it. I've heard in at least one town/city citizens are fighting against plans to build Mosques. US presidents take extra care not to offend Muslims or paint the wars in religious terms, and I think I heard at least a couple of "good news" stories. But I can't say the good news is proportionate to the bad from my recollection. One other good story I can remember is the election of the first Muslim to congress.

Regular Americans are usually warm and welcoming in my experience, as are regular Muslims. But the media doesn't paint a good picture of either side in my opinion. I'm sure the vast majority of Muslims in the West are enjoying their freedom of religion etc., but the media rarely sheds light on peaceful coexistence or mutual respect. I'm lucky I have personal experience to rely on.

The news out of Europe isn't good either from what I recall. But I'm mostly ignorant on the issue of Muslims in Europe, all I've heard about are the case of Marwa el Sherbini, the Swiss anti-immigrant/Muslim party, some Dutch politicians attacking Islam, a radical murdering a critic of Islam, the Danish cartoons... I hardly ever hear about good news on this subject. Even though in the West the majority of both communities get along fine.

I consider myself a liberal Muslim. I appreciate that the West allows Muslims freedom of religion, and I want it to always stay that way for all religions. I like the ideals of freedom of speech, religion, etc. But I think in general people only remember the bad. When you add all the negative news stories to the recent wars, drone strikes, etc., I can imagine why some Muslims have a negative view of how the West treats Muslims. I can also see why some Westerners have negative views of Muslims, based on what they see in the media and because of the actions of a tiny minority who commit violent acts in the name of Islam.

The problem is that both sides are offended by what the other considers a "natural" thing to do. Freedom of speech will always be protected, so nobody in the West will take any action to stop future offensive (to Muslims) material. Some Muslims will see this as the West openly attacking Islam, will protest etc., and thus this will keep going on until one side gets tired of it eventually I guess, and stops.

What is inexcusable and reprehensible is the use of violence, and it has lead to tragedy sadly. Moderate Muslims need to step up and try to ensure protests remain peaceful.


----------



## txlstewart

Qsw said:


> Not sure what your friend is referring to. Who is trying not to offend Muslims? Which group of Muslims are they not trying to offend? In which ways are these Muslims not giving the same respect?
> 
> My personal experiences in the USA are very positive for the most part, but I rarely hear of good stories overall, and nothing has really changed on that front. I can recall things like when the NY Islamic Cultural Center (or something) was planned and people protested against it. Though there were supporters as well who defended it. I've heard in at least one town/city citizens are fighting against plans to build Mosques. US presidents take extra care not to offend Muslims or paint the wars in religious terms, and I think I heard at least a couple of "good news" stories. But I can't say the good news is proportionate to the bad from my recollection. One other good story I can remember is the election of the first Muslim to congress.
> 
> Regular Americans are usually warm and welcoming in my experience, as are regular Muslims. But the media doesn't paint a good picture of either side in my opinion. I'm sure the vast majority of Muslims in the West are enjoying their freedom of religion etc., but the media rarely sheds light on peaceful coexistence or mutual respect. I'm lucky I have personal experience to rely on.
> 
> The news out of Europe isn't good either from what I recall. But I'm mostly ignorant on the issue of Muslims in Europe, all I've heard about are the case of Marwa el Sherbini, the Swiss anti-immigrant/Muslim party, some Dutch politicians attacking Islam, a radical murdering a critic of Islam, the Danish cartoons... I hardly ever hear about good news on this subject. Even though in the West the majority of both communities get along fine.
> 
> I consider myself a liberal Muslim. I appreciate that the West allows Muslims freedom of religion, and I want it to always stay that way for all religions. I like the ideals of freedom of speech, religion, etc. But I think in general people only remember the bad. When you add all the negative news stories to the recent wars, drone strikes, etc., I can imagine why some Muslims have a negative view of how the West treats Muslims. I can also see why some Westerners have negative views of Muslims, based on what they see in the media and because of the actions of a tiny minority who commit violent acts in the name of Islam.
> 
> The problem is that both sides are offended by what the other considers a "natural" thing to do. Freedom of speech will always be protected, so nobody in the West will take any action to stop future offensive (to Muslims) material. Some Muslims will see this as the West openly attacking Islam, will protest etc., and thus this will keep going on until one side gets tired of it eventually I guess, and stops.
> 
> What is inexcusable and reprehensible is the use of violence, and it has lead to tragedy sadly. Moderate Muslims need to step up and try to ensure protests remain peaceful.



I have heard the arguments that the uneducated Muslims in Egypt are being led to respond in violence by those who want to manipulate the facts--using propaganda. I see truth in this. I have heard that the poor are the ones causing problems because they have too much time on their hands. Someone also pointed out that a highly educated Egyptian doctor went to the airport in Glasgow, Scotland with a car full of explosives, determined to detonate them. He was stopped by an ordinary citizen. 

It's a good example of the tricke-down theory: those at the top must affect change.

I want no one to get hurt in all this madness. These recent events make me (and all my friends and family) glad that I followed my instincts and left Egypt.


----------



## aykalam

the religious debate should not distract us from the fact that real people (both Christian and Muslim and probably others with no religious faith too) are dying out there. 4 protesters killed today in Yemen.


----------



## Qsw

Such a tragedy, I hope it comes to an end soon. 

Glad you are somewhere where you feel safe txlstewart, hopefully it's not too far off before everybody here can feel safe. I can certainly understand your decision, even though I'm always saddened when people decide to leave.

I also think there is a significant portion of these protesters who are just people with too much time on their hands. The motives of people like that doctor, I don't think I'll ever understand. Glad to hear he was stopped, I just can't understand how people like that decide on the actions they plan to take. So repulsive.


----------



## GM1

A blog from Zeinobia:
*USembassy : Important questions we have to answer*

After the huge conquest of US embassy in Cairo yesterday and what followed from implications that have not finished up till now , still there are several questions that many Egyptians “including me” ask themselves today about the whole scene.

Why do People suddenly remember that offensive home made film now when it was produced from several months ago ??

Why was the first one to air the video publicly on any TV channel was rude Khaled Abdullah on Salafist TV channel Al Nas ?? Khaled Abdullah is said to be from the state security men in Islamist realm in Egypt since 1990s by the way. I do not understand already why Abdullah would air such offensive crappy film for his Ultra-Conservative viewers and to spread the film in this way !?? I did not want to post clips from that crappy short film but I have to post this clip to prove that Abdullah was the first to speak about it in Egypt publicly on TV

*Where was the police ? Where was the security ?? There was no single policeman , not even the army units that used to protect the embassy since the revolution at the embassy !!? Abnormal scene for anyone has ever crossed two blocks away from the US embassy !??* I do not understand how the security forces beat the crap out of the protesters who wanted to occupy the Syrian embassy from two weeks !? For God sake the security forces protected Borg Al Arab stadium than the embassy !!

Where were the security forces when the Egyptian intelligence allegedly warned that there could be terrorist attacks against American and Israeli embassies and interests in Egypt !!!?????? Yes it seems that the Egyptian intelligence warned from that according to former presidential candidate and intelligence officer Ahmed Hossam Khairallah !! There have been Jihadist Salafists yesterday in the protest !!?? What is going on !??

Why did the Salafist calling group “which include many Sheikhs that used to cooperate with State security” choose the Ultras groups ??

Why do Shafiq and Mubarak support these protests amazingly ?? Are they happy that the Americans are tasting from their so-called poison aka Islamists !?

At the same time the Zamalek Ultras was escalating the walls of US embassy , some members of Ultras Ahlawy 07 were at the Mohamed Mahmoud Street after being invited by the group on Facebook for some event, the UA07 cancelled that event and the UA07 boys left.I do not know what event it was but I feel that UA07 felt there was some sort of trap and left.
There are four protesters that have been arrested yesterday and accused of breaching the US embassy. Who are they ??

We need answers on these questions because something is not normal about yesterday’s scene.
#USembassy : Important questions we have to answer 
and an update of today: USembassy : And security forces are back to their normal place "Updated"


----------



## MaidenScotland

GM1 said:


> A blog from Zeinobia:
> *USembassy : Important questions we have to answer*
> 
> After the huge conquest of US embassy in Cairo yesterday and what followed from implications that have not finished up till now , still there are several questions that many Egyptians “including me” ask themselves today about the whole scene.
> 
> Why do People suddenly remember that offensive home made film now when it was produced from several months ago ??
> 
> Why was the first one to air the video publicly on any TV channel was rude Khaled Abdullah on Salafist TV channel Al Nas ?? Khaled Abdullah is said to be from the state security men in Islamist realm in Egypt since 1990s by the way. I do not understand already why Abdullah would air such offensive crappy film for his Ultra-Conservative viewers and to spread the film in this way !?? I did not want to post clips from that crappy short film but I have to post this clip to prove that Abdullah was the first to speak about it in Egypt publicly on TV
> 
> *Where was the police ? Where was the security ?? There was no single policeman , not even the army units that used to protect the embassy since the revolution at the embassy !!? Abnormal scene for anyone has ever crossed two blocks away from the US embassy !??* I do not understand how the security forces beat the crap out of the protesters who wanted to occupy the Syrian embassy from two weeks !? For God sake the security forces protected Borg Al Arab stadium than the embassy !!
> 
> Where were the security forces when the Egyptian intelligence allegedly warned that there could be terrorist attacks against American and Israeli embassies and interests in Egypt !!!?????? Yes it seems that the Egyptian intelligence warned from that according to former presidential candidate and intelligence officer Ahmed Hossam Khairallah !! There have been Jihadist Salafists yesterday in the protest !!?? What is going on !??
> 
> Why did the Salafist calling group “which include many Sheikhs that used to cooperate with State security” choose the Ultras groups ??
> 
> Why do Shafiq and Mubarak support these protests amazingly ?? Are they happy that the Americans are tasting from their so-called poison aka Islamists !?
> 
> At the same time the Zamalek Ultras was escalating the walls of US embassy , some members of Ultras Ahlawy 07 were at the Mohamed Mahmoud Street after being invited by the group on Facebook for some event, the UA07 cancelled that event and the UA07 boys left.I do not know what event it was but I feel that UA07 felt there was some sort of trap and left.
> There are four protesters that have been arrested yesterday and accused of breaching the US embassy. Who are they ??
> 
> We need answers on these questions because something is not normal about yesterday’s scene.
> #USembassy : Important questions we have to answer
> and an update of today: USembassy : And security forces are back to their normal place "Updated"




The police were there but they stood back and did nothing to prevent the breach of the back wall.. just as they done nothing to save the Israeli embassy


----------



## aPerfectCircle

DeadGuy said:


> That's very lovely
> 
> If you read my comment, I never "blamed" anyone, I only commented on the fact that Muslims, and AGAIN, are contradicting everything they're trying to convince the whole world with, and that they're not waiting for anyone's help to show what they really are (Won't use the smiley thing, but you know which one I'd use :eyebrows
> 
> Also the VERY FEW MUSLIM people that actually came out condemning what the REST OF THE MUSLIMS are doing were subjected to comments like yours, their faith was questioned, and in many occasions, their life was threatened, that should show you that HYPOCRISY is the real problem, it's not the religion of anyone commenting on the issue :spit:
> 
> You wanna call my comment _racist_? No problem, but then what would you call Muslims' behavior all over the world? :eyebrows:


Very clever Mr.Smug 

You have successfully managed to repeat the same of what you said before but with more crap for a treat :clap2:

I don't really care about the behavior of Muslims, Christians or Jews or any other faith anywhere for all that matter. People are just being people. They kill each others and they hate each others in the name of their holy purpose.

I didn't call your comment "racist", that was meant for you. You are a racist .

So keep up the good work, and make sure to teach your children if you have any, about the behavior of Muslims all over the world as I am sure someone somewhere is doing the same and I am also sure that they will all have a blast.


----------



## MaidenScotland

Qsw said:


> Not sure what your friend is referring to. Who is trying not to offend Muslims? Which group of Muslims are they not trying to offend? In which ways are these Muslims not giving the same respect?
> 
> My personal experiences in the USA are very positive for the most part, but I rarely hear of good stories overall, and nothing has really changed on that front. I can recall things like when the NY Islamic Cultural Center (or something) was planned and people protested against it. Though there were supporters as well who defended it. I've heard in at least one town/city citizens are fighting against plans to build Mosques. US presidents take extra care not to offend Muslims or paint the wars in religious terms, and I think I heard at least a couple of "good news" stories. But I can't say the good news is proportionate to the bad from my recollection. One other good story I can remember is the election of the first Muslim to congress.
> 
> Regular Americans are usually warm and welcoming in my experience, as are regular Muslims. But the media doesn't paint a good picture of either side in my opinion. I'm sure the vast majority of Muslims in the West are enjoying their freedom of religion etc., but the media rarely sheds light on peaceful coexistence or mutual respect. I'm lucky I have personal experience to rely on.
> 
> The news out of Europe isn't good either from what I recall. But I'm mostly ignorant on the issue of Muslims in Europe, all I've heard about are the case of Marwa el Sherbini, the Swiss anti-immigrant/Muslim party, some Dutch politicians attacking Islam, a radical murdering a critic of Islam, the Danish cartoons... I hardly ever hear about good news on this subject. Even though in the West the majority of both communities get along fine.
> 
> I consider myself a liberal Muslim. I appreciate that the West allows Muslims freedom of religion, and I want it to always stay that way for all religions. I like the ideals of freedom of speech, religion, etc. But I think in general people only remember the bad. When you add all the negative news stories to the recent wars, drone strikes, etc., I can imagine why some Muslims have a negative view of how the West treats Muslims. I can also see why some Westerners have negative views of Muslims, based on what they see in the media and because of the actions of a tiny minority who commit violent acts in the name of Islam.
> 
> The problem is that both sides are offended by what the other considers a "natural" thing to do. Freedom of speech will always be protected, so nobody in the West will take any action to stop future offensive (to Muslims) material. Some Muslims will see this as the West openly attacking Islam, will protest etc., and thus this will keep going on until one side gets tired of it eventually I guess, and stops.
> 
> What is inexcusable and reprehensible is the use of violence, and it has lead to tragedy sadly. Moderate Muslims need to step up and try to ensure protests remain peaceful.



I have no idea what she is referring to other than she is pointing out that if the USA arrests a Muslim (she is retired police officer) then everything is done to pay respect to their religion.. halal food, Koran are given etc and yes I am sure the same is done for every religion but it is her argument not mine but ever American on her facebook is marching to the same beat.


It is about time moderate Muslims take to the streets and tell these hardcore fanatics that they are not representative of Islam. I am pretty sure that the majority of these protesters are rent a crowd


----------



## MaidenScotland

Play nice guys


----------



## Wulfstryde

I just have one question for DeadGuy. You clubbed all the muslims under the same proverbial umbrella(uncivil, intolerant, impolite and so on); If you can do that, can you really find fault with the comparatively small number muslims(I say comparatively as in relation to a worldwide population of 1.6 billion) who feel the movie produced by a sole far-right wing nutter is representative of American/Western sentiments as a whole?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of these people. It was by all means over the top melodrama. I'm just saying you're making the same mistake as them. The only difference is that they're cattle who follow everything their leader says and even though you are not bound by the same restriction, you make the same mistake of preposterous generalisation. I'm sure you know Salafis are just as big a nuisance to other mainstream muslim sects. 

Maiden posted a satirical topic about political correctness, and I can only assume it was related to what happened in this thread; PC is one thing, but outright pandering to stereotypes? Please...


----------



## Lanason

MaidenScotland said:


> Play nice guys


FIGHT - FIGHT - FIGHT 

Choose your weapons :eyebrows::eyebrows::eyebrows:

:boxing::boxing::boxing:

:fencing::fencing:

:laser::laser:

:whip::whip:


----------



## aykalam

Guys this is getting really scary:

Reuters - Protesters set fire to the American School in the Tunisian capital on Friday,


----------



## Lanason

aykalam said:


> Guys this is getting really scary:
> 
> Reuters - Protesters set fire to the American School in the Tunisian capital on Friday,


My comment above only refes to the Forunimites being rude to each other and not to the protests. I am totally disgusted at the US film - there is no place for it at all.

The reaction to the film is now looking serious and horrible - there needs to be a Quick response from the US to denounce the film and quickly.


----------



## vronchen

Lanason said:


> My comment above only refes to the Forunimites being rude to each other and not to the protests. I am totally disgusted at the US film - there is no place for it at all.
> 
> The reaction to the film is now looking serious and horrible - there needs to be a Quick response from the US to denounce the film and quickly.


Obama+Clinton both denounced the movie. unfortunately, US law does not allow them to actually do anything against it.


----------



## MaidenScotland

there is a photo going around that for some reason I cant post.. it shows for want of a better word protesters at the embassy but underneath it say, these people don't pray or go to the mosque so who are they? 

There are always people who will jump on the band wagon, who enjoy a fight, who like to brag and say I was there


----------



## MaidenScotland

Hilary Clinton just spoke and I must admit it brought tears to my eyes.


----------



## Lanason

MaidenScotland said:


> Hilary Clinton just spoke and I must admit it brought tears to my eyes.


It's so sad, that at a time, when the Middle East was beginning to show some quietness.


----------



## aykalam

this is madness:



Around 5,000 protesters in the Sudanese capital angry over an anti-Islam film on Friday stormed the embassies of Britain and Germany, which was torched and badly damaged, an AFP reporter said.

Police fired tear gas to disperse the protesters as several of them scaled the roof of the German embassy and others attacked its facade and tore down the flag to replace it with a black Islamist one, the reporter said.

The mob, furious over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States that has triggered similar violence in other parts of the Arab world, then set fire to the building.

They blocked the road to prevent the arrival of firefighters, prompting the security forces to fire more tear gas.

Demonstrators also attacked the British embassy nearby, as the British Foreign Office said it was monitoring the situation.

"We can confirm an ongoing demonstration outside the British embassy in Khartoum, and Sudanese police are at the scene," a Foreign Office spokesman told AFP in London.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that staff at the country's embassy in Sudan were safe after the building came under siege by protesters.

"The German embassy in Khartoum is currently the target of attacks by violent demonstrators. The embassy staff are safe. The crisis cell at the foreign ministry (in Berlin) is meeting and is in contact with the embassy," he said in a statement.

Protests over a trailer for the anti-Islam film on YouTube first broke out Tuesday in Egypt and Libya, where the US consulate in Benghazi came under attack by an armed mob which killed the US ambassador and three other Americans.

The protests have since spread across other Arab and Muslim countries.

The low-budget movie "Innocence of Muslims," in which actors have strong American accents, portrays Muslims as immoral and gratuitously violent.

It pokes fun at the Prophet Mohammed and touches on themes of paedophilia and homosexuality, while showing him sleeping with women, talking about killing children and referring to a donkey as "the first Muslim animal."


----------



## expatagogo

Here's a google map of the protests, world wide:

Muslim Protests - Google Maps


----------



## DeadGuy

Wulfstryde said:


> I just have one question for DeadGuy. You clubbed all the muslims under the same proverbial umbrella(uncivil, intolerant, impolite and so on); If you can do that, can you really find fault with the comparatively small number muslims(I say comparatively as in relation to a worldwide population of 1.6 billion) who feel the movie produced by a sole far-right wing nutter is representative of American/Western sentiments as a whole?
> 
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of these people. It was by all means over the top melodrama. I'm just saying you're making the same mistake as them. The only difference is that they're cattle who follow everything their leader says and even though you are not bound by the same restriction, you make the same mistake of preposterous generalisation. I'm sure you know Salafis are just as big a nuisance to other mainstream muslim sects.
> 
> Maiden posted a satirical topic about political correctness, and I can only assume it was related to what happened in this thread; PC is one thing, but outright pandering to stereotypes? Please...


Let's get a few *facts *straight:

1- I did NOT _club all Muslims under the same proverbial umbrella_, Muslims did that to themselves when some of them chose to behave the way they are while the rest decided to sit back and watch, and not only watch, but trying to justify this embarrassing behavior, so you wanna blame me for noticing what Muslims are doing? Be my guest 

2- You can not compare making the movie with burning embassies and killing people, and if you wanna do that then you should probably watch the Islamic channels and see what kinda "peaceful" talks they got towards other religions, heck they even attack Muslims that got beliefs that doesn't match their own, but you don't see anyone burning Muslims' embassies or killing them for their crap do you?! 

3- You're saying they're following their leaders, and what are their leaders following? 

4- The fact that the only thing said about the matter is personal attacks shows how "strong" your argument is, if this behavior is "ok" and happening for "valid" reasons then why is it always insults or "questions" for me instead of defending Muslims/Islam against what those idiots are doing? :confused2:

5- I am NOT an European and all the political correctness BS does not work for me, I will always say what's on my mind and if anyone got a problem with it then you're free to think what you want and say what you want, even if that means insulting me cause I really don't mind an extra laugh, but don't expect me to just overlook the crap that's happening and pretend that it's "ok" just because people are "offended", cause it's NOT, and it is ONLY Muslims' fault to behave the way they do right now, not ANYONE else's fault, and if you can't live with that, then shouldn't even try to force others to do so


----------



## jemiljan

*Why the generalisation?*



hurghadapat said:


> I know this is a little out of context but it always sticks in my mind as it was said to me by an egyptian "not all muslim are terrorists but for sure almost all terrorists are muslim" it just seems to me a little bit like the question your friend has asked you.. ie no answer to it is there.


*Which of the following are Muslim?:*

The Shining Path

Tim McVeigh

Eric Rudolph

The IRA and Ulster Paramilitaries and their various spin-offs.

The Tamil Tigers

Anders Breivik

Wade Michael Page

*Much of the problem is how the term itself is so loosely defined*

An article by Juan Cole comes to mind:

*Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others*

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security  will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.


----------



## jemiljan

*Ultras and Islamists*



MaidenScotland said:


> there is a photo going around that for some reason I cant post.. it shows for want of a better word protesters at the embassy but underneath it say, these people don't pray or go to the mosque so who are they?
> 
> There are always people who will jump on the band wagon, who enjoy a fight, who like to brag and say I was there


It is very clear that the Ultras are trying their best to take advantage of the situation. 
This makes a lot of sense, as what I saw briefly on Thursday certainly weren't any Salafis.


A co-worker pointed out this image on al-Ahram. Islamist? Nah...

So it begs the question as to what is really happening here.










James Dorsey has a well-written article that explains some of these undercurrents that are woefully underreported:










Middle East protests: ultras settle scores, Islamists seek to score points

By James M. Dorsey

The anti-American protests spreading across the Middle East and North Africa may be fuelled by an obscure anti-Muslim American film but are really about domestic score settling and political maneuvering.

At the bottom line, the message from this week’s riots that killed US ambassador Christopher Stephens and 13 others in Benghazi, wrecked the US consulate in Libya’s second city and sparked attacks on US missions in Cairo and elsewhere is that the transition from autocracy to more open societies in post-revolt Middle Eastern and North African nations remains an unfinished, convoluted process. It is a message that is being expressed by protesters whose background varies from country to country and in Egypt include militant, highly politicized, well organized and street battled-hardened soccer fans or ultras.

Transition is likely to remain volatile until post-autocratic governments deliver on the demands of protesters, including social justice and reform of the former regime’s repressive machinery that in the last 21 months have toppled four Arab leaders and plunged Syria into civil war. It also will stay convolutes until populations who have only known totalitarianism become more tolerant and thick skinned as they adapt to emerging more open, pluralistic societies that embrace the principle of live and let live and freedom of expression.

Journalist Issandr El Amrani noted in The National this week that historically Islamists and autocratic governments have used perceived insults against Islam as a mobilization tool. The difference between this week’s crisis or the 2005 Danish cartoon crisis that was fomented by the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the 1988 death fatwa against Salman Rushdie issued by Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's campaign in 2000 against Syrian novelist Hayder Hayder is the Internet that puts obscure or local expressions of bigotry on the global map.

Few doubt that the devastating attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was pre-planned and that the manipulation of emotions over a film that would have best been ignored allowed militant Islamists bent on revenging the death of an Al Qaeda leader, Sheikh al-Libi, to execute their plan in a country that is struggling to build institutions, disarm a multitude of armed groups and build unified military and law enforcement forces. In Egypt, the initial driver of the protests appears to be Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri’s brother Mohammed who heads a small group of Salafists that saw an opportunity to commemorate in its own way the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and score points against the Muslim Brotherhood which has largely out maneuvered the country’s more radical Islamists.

Nonetheless, the Islamists have put post-revolt governments on the spot forcing them to walk a tightrope between condemning the violence as well as the insult of the Prophet Mohammed. In Egypt, the emotions evoked and the central role of the ultras, one of the country’s largest and best organized civic groups, forced President Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood to call for a demonstration of its own against the US film that it may not be able to control.

Amid mounting tension this month between ultras, security forces and the government over the failure to mete out justice for the 74 soccer fans killed in a politically loaded brawl in February in Port Said, the banning of fans from soccer matches and corruption in Egyptian soccer, this week’s anti-American protests offered the ultras the perfect opportunity to make good on their promise of renewed street agitation. Tension started building when ultras last week first stormed the training ground of crowned Cairo club Al Ahly SC and a day later the offices of the Egyptian Football Association (EFA). The protests won the ultras the support of the Brotherhood which now hopes to keep a lid on the brewing conflict by attempting to take control of the anti-American protests.

As far back as February, the ultras asserted that their issues were “bigger than football. We want to settle the score with remnants of the former regime.” In a statement last week they warned that “we remained silent for seven months, during which we were committed to peaceful ways to ask for the rights of 74 martyrs who died in the world’s worst football tragedy. Now, after seven months, we call on everybody to revolt against the football system before action is resumed. We also call on fellow Ultras groups to reunite and support us in our demands.”

That support is being manifested on the streets around the US embassy in Cairo where the anger sparked by the US film offered the ultras a renewed opportunity to settle scores with the police and the security forces – Egypt’s most despised institutions that are widely seen as the brutal enforcers of ousted President Hosni Mubarak’s repressive regime. Those scores are deep seated dating back to four years of regular clashes with police and security forces in the stadiums as well as the memory of police brutality in the poorer neighborhoods of Egyptian cities, the clashes during the 18 days of protest last year that toppled Mr. Mubarak and the vicious street battles since then that killed scores and wounded thousands.

To the ultras, defeating the police is reaffirmation of their dignity. It amounts to defeating the remnants of the Mubarak regime and what sociologist Salwa Ismail describes as ensuring that the “fear and the culture of fear that continuous monitoring, surveillance, humiliation and abuse have created” defeated with the toppling of Mr. Mubarak is maintained

To ordinary Egyptians, the state in the words of London School of Economics and Political Science historian John Calcraft was in autocratic Middle Eastern and North African regimes “in the detention cells, in the corrupt police stations, in the beatings, in the blood of the people, in the popular quarters.” What the ultras in front of the US embassy and before that on Tahrir Square and in the stadiums were performing is continued “rejection of fear and the culture of fear” in a bid to ensure that the demands that led to the toppling of autocratic leaders are achieved says Mr. Calcraft .

It was also learning the lessons – both in the run-up to Mr. Mubarak’s downfall and in the post-Mubarak transition period - of the failures of revolutionaries like prominent Syria poet Adonis and Yasin Al-Hafiz in the heyday of Arab nationalism whose Marxist thinking was at the core of the Syrian Baath Party’s ideology but was rendered impotent by autocracies that stymied critical, independent thinking.

“We aspire as revolutionary Arabs, to lay the foundations for a new era for the Arabs. We know that institutionalizing a new era requires from the very beginning a total break with the past. We also know that the starting point of this founding break is criticism, the criticism of all that is inherited, prevalent and common. The role of criticism is not limited to exposing and laying bare whatever prevents the creation of a new era but involves its destruction,” Adonis wrote. 

Al-Hafiz argued that “a critique of all aspects of existing Arab society and its traditions as well as a strict scientific, secular critique and deep, penetrating analysis is a fundamental obligation of the Arab revolutionary socialist vanguard …Exploring the traditional frames of Arab society, will accelerate the creation of a completely modern Arab society. Without such an explosion, the chances for a systematic, speedy and revolutionary development of the traditional intellectual and social structures of the Arab people will be questionable if not impossible.” 

The challenge for post-revolt governments in the Middle East and North Africa is harnessing the revolutionary energy released by people’s realization that there is power in numbers and channeling it from street into pluralistic politics of political organizations and interest groups. Building confidence in post-revolt institutions and delivering on protesters’ original demands is the key. A first step in Egypt would be long overdue reform of the police and security forces.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.


----------



## jemiljan

DeadGuy said:


> Let's get a few *facts *straight:
> 
> Sure thing. So far you have made no attempt to say "some Muslims" only "Muslims". The lack of any caveats in your English sounds like exceedingly broad generalisations. You also seem to think that "no Muslims have denounced this behaviour", but you obviously haven't tried to look for any examples before hastily jumping to conclusions. Most rational people find that type of behaviour not only dishonest, but unethical.
> 
> So do excuse some of us dare to criticise your acerbic comments as inherently juvenile, but you only brought it on yourself.


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> *Which of the following are Muslim?:*
> 
> The Shining Path
> 
> Tim McVeigh
> 
> Eric Rudolph
> 
> The IRA and Ulster Paramilitaries and their various spin-offs.
> 
> The Tamil Tigers
> 
> Anders Breivik
> 
> Wade Michael Page
> 
> *Much of the problem is how the term itself is so loosely defined*
> 
> An article by Juan Cole comes to mind:
> 
> *Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others*
> 
> 1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
> 
> 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
> 
> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security  will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
> 
> 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
> 
> 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
> 
> 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
> 
> 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
> 
> 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
> 
> 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
> 
> 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.



although I have to disagree on number 8... as I am from an Irish Catholic family I can tell you that we were often branded as IRA scum... I was even told in a forum that all Catholics are murderers...


----------



## aykalam

MaidenScotland said:


> although I have to disagree on number 8... as I am from an Irish Catholic family I can tell you that we were often branded as IRA scum... I was even told in a forum that all Catholics are murderers...


and all Basques carry machine guns


----------



## Wulfstryde

Will none of the native, English-speaking forumites come forward to explain what is wrong with DeadGuy's phrase/wording? Before I pick apart your points, let me stress that I STRONGLY condemn the embassy attacks. Perhaps that was not sufficiently clear in my last post.

1. To address your first point, "other" Muslims who have even an ounce of rationality HAVE condemned the attacks and violence. See the following links. There you go. Three sources of "high-profile"Muslims since you don't think the average moderate Muslim counts.

2. Your second point is mostly addressed above where the violence has been condemned. I only used the comparison to make a point, but it seems it went over your head. If I were to equate two things, I would put making the movie and protesting against it on equal footing. Just as Terrry Jones has "right to free speech" to make the movie, Muslims have a right to protest it too. They should've been peaceful though and the far right extremists blew it out of proportion. Yet you insist on having ALL the Muslims be the bad boogeyman. The Islamic channels you speak of, are all run by Salafis. You agree that Salafis oppose all other sects of Islam but you keep talking about Salafis not opposing other moderate Muslims with hostile aggression. I'm sure you follow world news; have you not heard about the demolition of shrines venerated by Sufis in Libya, Mali etc.? The Indian subcontinent in particular has violent clashes between Salafis and Sufis and other moderates that emerge every couple of months. 

3. Their leaders are following misguided ideals of radical Islam. They are essential one step short of Al Qaeda levels of irrational ideology. Living in Egypt, you should be fairly familiar with ideological differences between radical Salafis and other moderate sects who are themselves persecuted. Please don't feign ignorance my good man, it ill becomes you.



DeadGuy said:


> 4- The fact that the only thing said about the matter is personal attacks shows how "strong" your argument is, if this behavior is "ok" and happening for "valid" reasons then why is it always insults or "questions" for me instead of defending Muslims/Islam against what those idiots are doing? :confused2:


4. I didn't so much as insinuate a personal attack against you, yet you assumed the opposite. Maybe you've been victimized in Egypt as a Copt for so long that you're overly paranoid, or your grasp of English is not as good as you think or there's some other possibility that I can't possibly fathom. And again, If you read my previous post, I've already "defended Muslims/Islam against what those idiots are doing"



DeadGuy said:


> 5- I am NOT an European and all the political correctness BS does not work for me, I will always say what's on my mind


5. Political Correctness has nothing to with being Egyptian. It is a flawed concept and one that shouldn't really paid much attention to. But your broad generalization of Muslims as a whole goes beyond Political INCorrectness into alarming levels of bigotry. Try this on for size; If were to say ALL Copts want to anger Muslims and defame their beliefs based on the fact that a couple of the people involved in the film were Coptic, would you begrudge me? Would you not be "offended"? Let me give you another example; If I said all Americans believe that a woman is capable of stopping pregnancy in case of "legitimate"rape, would most Americans not be "offended"? I think there's a thin line between telling it like it is, and resorting to mass generalization, don't you think?

Please don't take these as personal acts based on nothing but a prejudice against what SOME Muslims do. I am merely asking you to rethink your wording that this incident is reflective of the sentiments of every single Muslim in the World.


----------



## Wulfstryde

Wasn't aware there was a 15 minute window for editing posts, but just wanted to add this to the 4th point since you seem to keep overlooking it.

I've already "defended Muslims/Islam against what those idiots are doing". Attacking embassies based on nothing but a whim is preposterous and outrageous. Though who indulged in this are complete morons and a menace to society. All rational Muslims(predominantly non-Salafis, lol) share this sentiment. How many times do I have to say this before you're satisfied that stereotypes should not be encouraged?


----------



## MaidenScotland

As an expat I do not think for one moment that the majority of Muslims want what has happened however I am not in the position to know what the majority think I just hope that my guess is right. 

This is what happens when you have a government that was voted in on religion.. they cannot be seen to go against the "vote" not if you want to be honestly and legally re elected. Morsi should have condemned this act the minute it happened but he didn't and that is maybe the message the world sees.

Where are the silent majority of Egyptians? Will we see a peace march next Friday?


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> *Which of the following are Muslim?:*
> 
> The Shining Path
> 
> Tim McVeigh
> 
> Eric Rudolph
> 
> The IRA and Ulster Paramilitaries and their various spin-offs.
> 
> The Tamil Tigers
> 
> Anders Breivik
> 
> Wade Michael Page
> 
> *Much of the problem is how the term itself is so loosely defined*
> 
> An article by Juan Cole comes to mind:
> 
> *Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others*
> 
> 1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
> 
> 2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
> 
> 3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security  will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
> 
> 4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
> 
> 5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
> 
> 6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
> 
> 7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
> 
> 8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
> 
> 9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
> 
> 10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.




and of course no 4... when the UK was bombed with home grown terrorists the parents and wives were in fact interviewed and they all wept and wondered where they went wrong and why they didn't see it coming.


----------



## MaidenScotland

There is today on Egypt Now facebook a thread Seek the truth about 9/11 

Why?


----------



## expatagogo

MaidenScotland said:


> There is today on Egypt Now facebook a thread Seek the truth about 9/11
> 
> Why?


I wonder if it's because, after much drilling down, it's been discovered that TWO EGYPTIANS are behind the movie?

Christian charity, ex-convict linked to controversial film on Muslims - latimes.com


----------



## MaidenScotland

expatagogo said:


> I wonder if it's because, after much drilling down, it's been discovered that TWO EGYPTIANS are behind the movie?
> 
> Christian charity, ex-convict linked to controversial film on Muslims - latimes.com




I had heard it was an Egyptian a couple of days ago... 
but why drag up 9/11 unless it is to keep the fight going


----------



## expatagogo

MaidenScotland said:


> I had heard it was an Egyptian a couple of days ago...
> but why drag up 9/11 unless it is to keep the fight going


Because the (&&^% hit the fan on 9/11? I don't know. What I do want to know is what the "10/10" I keep seeing is all about.


----------



## MaidenScotland

I was in Giza today with 3 young Egyptian women who are taking their knowledge, education out of the country never to return. 
I have a friend whose son is going to do his masters at a uni in the UK, he has stated he will never return to Egypt on a full time basis, 
Another friend has two well educated daughters one in France the other in Dubai.. with no intention of ever returning. 

They say things will only get worse and there is nothing for us in this country

The brain drain this country is experiencing is horrifying


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> although I have to disagree on number 8... as I am from an Irish Catholic family I can tell you that we were often branded as IRA scum... I was even told in a forum that all Catholics are murderers...


NO!! That's horrible! 

I grew up around radical leftist Irish Catholic pacifists. One family had a history of activism. They had a particular penchant for requesting tours at military bases, and then proceeding to pour "blood" on nuclear missile cones, or chaining themselves to bombers. The grandmother (R.I.P.) was especially adept at this, carrying her "blood" in her purse, revealing it to the clueless tour guide at the opportune moment. Don't think that they'd get away with it now due to security. 

They also formed "The Tasteful Ladies for Peace", and wrote to syndicated columnist Miss Manners asking questions like "Should a tasteful lady present her card before or after being arrested for civil disobedience?"

Were there more such 'tasteful ladies' among the protesters here and now. They could teach these boys a thing or two.


----------



## jemiljan

Wulfstryde said:


> Will none of the native, English-speaking forumites come forward to explain what is wrong with DeadGuy's phrase/wording? Before I pick apart your points, let me stress that I STRONGLY condemn the embassy attacks. Perhaps that was not sufficiently clear in my last post.


I attempted to address this but was far more succinct. Thanks for taking the time to go into further detail. 

I would only add that Shaykh al-Tayeb has also now given a statement in a similar vein. I found another one for Shaykh Ali Goma'a but it was on an Indian site and gave no source, so I don't quite trust it. 

Someone named Joe Bradford posted this on FaceBook today, which I've posted together with his comments. I think it's some food for thought:










- Percentage was wrong, is 0007% instead of .01% Thanks to those that caught this.
- Some countries were left out, this was not intentional, this chart is only a guesstimate based on last Thursday's new reports.
- How did I come up with these numbers? Please read below.
- Numbers have now changed. Let's Run the numbers agains, 
-- but this time multiply by ten due to the many more people came out to protest and riot. Instead of 9000 (which is a guesstimated number based on new reports from Thursday 9/12) lets say instead that the numbers are closer to 90,000 people. Ten times as much. With 90,000 people protesting, that is still a nominal amount .0074%
-- Multiply by 100. At 900,000, thats only .07% still less than 1% of the entire Muslim population in the Middle East and South Asia. This does not include most of Africa, East, Asia, the Americas and Europe.
- The point here is not the entire Muslim world is not rioting. Offended? Yes. Blood thirsty and enraged? No. Let's push for responsible media coverage.
- Let's also push for responsible communities! If Muslims want to honor the Prophet Muhammad, then they should follow his example, not riot, protest and project their failures on others. Want something to get worked up about? Has everyone forgotten abour Syria? (For Syrians, Frustration Over Outrage About Film, Not Assad?s Horrors - The Daily Beast)
- These percentages do not in anyway lessen the damage of things people have done, nor make their attacks on innocent lives any less atrocious. What it should be telling the Muslim Community world-wide is that to get respect you have to give, and that the silent majority needs to take a stand.


----------



## jemiljan

In case you haven't seen it, here is some footage of the...




Also further still shots.

*Some translations:*
No, no, no to Al Qaida
No to Al Qaida, no to terrorism; this is a young people's revolution
Arrest the killers [lit. armed men] today
No place for Al-Qaida here
The flavor of terrorism is not for Libya
Enough retaliation, we want [cut off, probably "peaceful"] reactions
Islam is innocent, the traitors are spoiling our [cut off]
Do you reward for good other than good?
Whoever has no conscience, remember that God waits but does not neglect
Benghazi shall not be a new Kabul
Benghazi does not endorse these criminal acts

*Then this Syrian Acitivist in Idlib:*












> *"Question for the Free World: Is the prophet being insulted in the US different than the one being insulted in Syria?" *



*Also, this poem from Syrian Domary Facebook page:*(translated by LA TIMES):



> الشعب العربي شعب عاطفي ..
> فلم بيضحكو ..
> فلم بيزعلو ..
> فلم ببكي ..
> فلم بعصبو و بيخلي يجن و يقتل ..
> اما لما يشوف المساجد و الكنائس عم تنقصف بسوريا ..
> و المصاحف عم تنحرق ..
> و الحرمات عم تنتهك ..
> هاد كلو ما بيحركو ..!!
> طبعا لانو هاد مو فلم ..
> حقيقة ..!!
> 
> ليت الذي يحدث في سوريا فلم ..
> على الاقل كان تحرك العرب لاجلنا ..!!





> "The Arab people are emotional.
> 
> Films make them laugh.
> 
> Films make them upset.
> 
> Films make them cry.
> 
> Films make them angry and let them go crazy and kill.
> 
> But when they see in Syria mosques and churches getting shelled.
> 
> Koran books getting burned.
> 
> Women being insulted.
> 
> It doesn't move them.
> 
> Because it is not a film.
> 
> It's reality.
> 
> We wish that what is happening in Syria was a film.
> 
> At least Arabs would do something for us."


*Hopefully this will generate a dialog. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time I've seen much criticism of these 'offended' incidents?*


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> There is today on Egypt Now facebook a thread Seek the truth about 9/11
> 
> Why?


These 9-11 "truthers" are like the "birthers"; they will never give up their addiction to conspiracy theories, and will use any pretext to reiterate their nonsense.


----------



## aykalam

jemiljan said:


> In case you haven't seen it, here is some footage of the... protest against the embassy attack in Benghazi...
> 
> Also further still shots.
> 
> *Some translations:*
> No, no, no to Al Qaida
> No to Al Qaida, no to terrorism; this is a young people's revolution
> Arrest the killers [lit. armed men] today
> No place for Al-Qaida here
> The flavor of terrorism is not for Libya
> Enough retaliation, we want [cut off, probably "peaceful"] reactions
> Islam is innocent, the traitors are spoiling our [cut off]
> Do you reward for good other than good?
> Whoever has no conscience, remember that God waits but does not neglect
> Benghazi shall not be a new Kabul
> Benghazi does not endorse these criminal acts
> 
> *Then this Syrian Acitivist in Idlib:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, this poem from Syrian Domary Facebook page:*(translated by LA TIMES):
> ​
> 
> 
> *Hopefully this will generate a dialog. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time I've seen much criticism of these 'offended' incidents?*


Not much of that protest against extremism generating in Egypt then. I think the silent majority MS was referring to earlier is far too quiet.


----------



## jemiljan

aykalam said:


> Not much of that protest against extremism generating in Egypt then. I think the silent majority MS was referring to earlier is far too quiet.


Subdued, perhaps, but not exactly "quiet". I wouldn't be racing to Tahrir in these circumstances either. Egypt Independent has had quite a few comments critical of these events. Shaykh al-Tayeb's condemnation of the embassy attack is hardly "silent" either.


----------



## DeadGuy

jemiljan said:


> Sure thing. So far you have made no attempt to say "some Muslims" only "Muslims". The lack of any caveats in your English sounds like exceedingly broad generalisations. You also seem to think that "no Muslims have denounced this behaviour", but you obviously haven't tried to look for any examples before hastily jumping to conclusions. Most rational people find that type of behaviour not only dishonest, but unethical.
> 
> So do excuse some of us dare to criticise your acerbic comments as inherently juvenile, but you only brought it on yourself.





DeadGuy said:


> 1- I did NOT _club all Muslims under the same proverbial umbrella_, Muslims did that to themselves when *some *of them chose to behave the way they are while the rest decided to sit back and watch, and not only watch, but trying to justify this embarrassing behavior, so you wanna blame me for noticing what Muslims are doing? Be my guest



Read my last post and you'll see that I did use the word "some", only *ONCE*, where it was necessary to do so.

I did not say that _no Muslims have denounced this behavior_, I said that the very few ones who did were subjected to insults and their faithfulness and loyalty to Islam was questioned:



DeadGuy said:


> Also the VERY FEW MUSLIM people that actually came out condemning what the REST OF THE MUSLIMS are doing were subjected to comments like yours, their faith was questioned, and in many occasions, their life was threatened, that should show you that HYPOCRISY is the real problem, it's not the religion of anyone commenting on the issue :spit:


I am NOT a native English speaker and my English is less than average, and I will spend the rest of my life trying to learn more about English and work on improving mine, simply cause I love the bloody language, however I do my best to choose my words carefully, as much as possible anyway, and I would never be ashamed of admitting my mistakes and/or trying to correct them whenever needed, but I do not need to correct/edit myself in any of the posts that I've made earlier in this thread.

And fact remains, the original post of mine that caused all this "defensive/questioning" behavior has been proved to be RIGHT by all the [email protected] that's been happening at the time when I typed it 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the language barrier is the real problem in here, but if you believe so, then I'll suggest you to try and read what I said once more, but carefully this time 

Nice try though :clap2:


----------



## DeadGuy

Wulfstryde said:


> Will none of the native, English-speaking forumites come forward to explain what is wrong with DeadGuy's phrase/wording? Before I pick apart your points, let me stress that I STRONGLY condemn the embassy attacks. Perhaps that was not sufficiently clear in my last post.
> 
> 1. To address your first point, "other" Muslims who have even an ounce of rationality HAVE condemned the attacks and violence. See the following links. There you go. Three sources of "high-profile"Muslims since you don't think the average moderate Muslim counts.
> 
> 2. Your second point is mostly addressed above where the violence has been condemned. I only used the comparison to make a point, but it seems it went over your head. If I were to equate two things, I would put making the movie and protesting against it on equal footing. Just as Terrry Jones has "right to free speech" to make the movie, Muslims have a right to protest it too. They should've been peaceful though and the far right extremists blew it out of proportion. Yet you insist on having ALL the Muslims be the bad boogeyman. The Islamic channels you speak of, are all run by Salafis. You agree that Salafis oppose all other sects of Islam but you keep talking about Salafis not opposing other moderate Muslims with hostile aggression. I'm sure you follow world news; have you not heard about the demolition of shrines venerated by Sufis in Libya, Mali etc.? The Indian subcontinent in particular has violent clashes between Salafis and Sufis and other moderates that emerge every couple of months.
> 
> 3. Their leaders are following misguided ideals of radical Islam. They are essential one step short of Al Qaeda levels of irrational ideology. Living in Egypt, you should be fairly familiar with ideological differences between radical Salafis and other moderate sects who are themselves persecuted. Please don't feign ignorance my good man, it ill becomes you.
> 
> 
> 4. I didn't so much as insinuate a personal attack against you, yet you assumed the opposite. Maybe you've been victimized in Egypt as a Copt for so long that you're overly paranoid, or your grasp of English is not as good as you think or there's some other possibility that I can't possibly fathom. And again, If you read my previous post, I've already "defended Muslims/Islam against what those idiots are doing"
> 
> 
> 5. Political Correctness has nothing to with being Egyptian. It is a flawed concept and one that shouldn't really paid much attention to. But your broad generalization of Muslims as a whole goes beyond Political INCorrectness into alarming levels of bigotry. Try this on for size; If were to say ALL Copts want to anger Muslims and defame their beliefs based on the fact that a couple of the people involved in the film were Coptic, would you begrudge me? Would you not be "offended"? Let me give you another example; If I said all Americans believe that a woman is capable of stopping pregnancy in case of "legitimate"rape, would most Americans not be "offended"? I think there's a thin line between telling it like it is, and resorting to mass generalization, don't you think?
> 
> Please don't take these as personal acts based on nothing but a prejudice against what SOME Muslims do. I am merely asking you to rethink your wording that this incident is reflective of the sentiments of every single Muslim in the World.


1- Of course "average moderate Muslims" do count, in fact that's the actual problem, the "average" or "odrinary" Muslim in the street is supporting the violent behavior! However I did say that a few Muslims did come out condemning it, but how did people react to that? And what did that change? As for the "high profile" ones, they did come forward AFTER things got out of control and turned into a worldwide embarrassing disgrace, but why waiting till everything's turned into a mess if it's not "acceptable"?

2- Your question to me was:


Wulfstryde said:


> can you really find fault with the comparatively small number muslims(I say comparatively as in relation to a worldwide population of 1.6 billion) who feel the movie produced by a sole far-right wing nutter is representative of American/Western sentiments as a whole?


So pardon my broad stupidity but it seemed like you weren't only trying to justify their behavior, but also comparing being "offended" by a movie to getting killed over it! Do they have the right to protest? No one ever denied ANYONE that right, in fact some of the Copts, that you and many others seem to hold so much against for some reason, did protest against it, but do they have the right to act the way they were/are acting?

As for trying to "explain" the differences between Salfi MUSLIMS and Sufi MUSLIMS, sorry but can you tell me why do I need to worry about Muslims' problems with eachother again? Would the differences between Coptic CHRISTIANS , Catholic CHRISTIANS , Orthodox CHRISTIANS etc. be Muslims' problem if a "Catholic" killed a "Salafi"? They got differences yes, but that's Muslims' problem to worry about and to work on, not everyone else's problem!

3- Again that's Muslims' problem, Muslims keep saying that the whole Bible is "edited/manipulated" and say Christianity as a religion is fu*ked up, yet whenever it's mentioned, it's described as CHRISTIANS' Bible, so which "type" of Islam anyone's using as their guide is only Muslims' problem!

4- And there you are falling into the very same "generalization" accusation that you're trying to fit for me, yes I am an Egyptian Copt, and the majority of Copts are subjected to different kinds of persecution yes, and I am disgusted and ashamed of how the majority of Copts are letting themselves be abused in most occasions, but I NEVER been the "victim" through my whole life, and let's put it this way, but I will never let anyone put me there, not Muslims or Copts or anyone of any faith, so trust me, when I say someone's chose to insult me or ask questions instead of facing the subject discussed that's not cause I'm being the "victim", but cause it did happen, you asked questions, others took the personal insults route, and I am saying it again, it shows nothing but how "solid" your/their arguments are 

5- What you described as _a flawed concept and one that shouldn't really paid much attention to_, that is Muslims' winning card in Europe and the West in general, just like being a majority in the Arab world is their winning card in here, in Europe? It's PC, at least for now, and soon it will be both PC and being the majority, and those are FACTS, whether it suits anyone, or not.

If "my" statements offend you or you find them too "generalizing" or anything like that then I'll have to repeat myself in here, so, and again: 


DeadGuy said:


> I will always say what's on my mind and if anyone got a problem with it then you're free to think what you want and say what you want, even if that means insulting me cause I really don't mind an extra laugh


But you, and many others obviously, might need to understand that it is possible for people to have opinions that may *NOT *match yours, how you or anyone reacts towards that difference in opinions is left to each individual, some people choose to ignore it, some choose to accept it, some simply don't hear anyone else's opinions, and some choose to do their best to force their own opinions down everyone's throat! And trust me, I have no problem with any of those possibilities apart from the last one, cause it makes me wanna uke:


----------



## expatagogo

What about the part Sheikh Khaled Abdallah played in this? 

After all, he was the person who took an anonymous, 12 minute, poorly constructed youtube clip and aired it on Egyptian television. He, in fact, promoted it. Had he not done so, nobody would have ever heard of it.

He called it "an American-Coptic plot." Copt is a religion. 

Is he not, too, defaming religion? Or does that just work one way?

Will he be called to task? 

And, with all of the anti-Islam clips on youtube to choose from (and there are plenty), why did he choose that particular clip?


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> Subdued, perhaps, but not exactly "quiet". I wouldn't be racing to Tahrir in these circumstances either. Egypt Independent has had quite a few comments critical of these events. Shaykh al-Tayeb's condemnation of the embassy attack is hardly "silent" either.




Why not race to Tahrir and condemn these attacks.
. the majority surely would outnumber the minority.. there is a thought among many people if your not for me your against me, which of course could also be if your not against me then your for me...


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> In case you haven't seen it, here is some footage of the... protest against the embassy attack in Benghazi...
> 
> Also further still shots.
> 
> *Some translations:*
> No, no, no to Al Qaida
> No to Al Qaida, no to terrorism; this is a young people's revolution
> Arrest the killers [lit. armed men] today
> No place for Al-Qaida here
> The flavor of terrorism is not for Libya
> Enough retaliation, we want [cut off, probably "peaceful"] reactions
> Islam is innocent, the traitors are spoiling our [cut off]
> Do you reward for good other than good?
> Whoever has no conscience, remember that God waits but does not neglect
> Benghazi shall not be a new Kabul
> Benghazi does not endorse these criminal acts
> 
> *Then this Syrian Acitivist in Idlib:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, this poem from Syrian Domary Facebook page:*(translated by LA TIMES):
> ​
> 
> 
> *Hopefully this will generate a dialog. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time I've seen much criticism of these 'offended' incidents?*




There can be no dialogue on Syria on the Egypt page, if you want to start one then please start one in the cafe or on the rest of the world section.


----------



## jemiljan

DeadGuy said:


> Read my last post and you'll see that I did use the word "some", only *ONCE*, where it was necessary to do so.


Not when you first posted. 



> I did not say that _no Muslims have denounced this behavior_, I said that the very few ones who did were subjected to insults and their faithfulness and loyalty to Islam was questioned:


Gee, was the loyalty of Shaykh al-Tayeb 'questioned'? How about Nader Bakker, the spokesman for the Salafi Nour Party, who condemned the initial attack shortly after it happened. Did he received such treatment?

A word of advice: ethical, objective, mature adults are able to argue the positions of people they don't agree with in a congenial and accurate manner. What you've been saying is neither accurate nor very congenial at all.



> I am NOT a native English speaker and my English is less than average, and I will spend the rest of my life trying to learn more about English and work on improving mine, simply cause I love the bloody language, however I do my best to choose my words carefully, as much as possible anyway, and I would never be ashamed of admitting my mistakes and/or trying to correct them whenever needed, but I do not need to correct/edit myself in any of the posts that I've made earlier in this thread.


Then take the feedback to heart; your tone was deplorable, self-righteous, and as I said before, juvenile. Your frequent use of the "rolls eyes" emoticons in particular only accentuated the juvenile nature of your remarks. Seriously, you sounded like a whiny 14 year old. 



> And fact remains, the original post of mine that caused all this "defensive/questioning" behavior has been proved to be RIGHT by all the [email protected] that's been happening at the time when I typed it


Funny, but it's pretty apparent that you're only looking at what you choose to see, else you would have bothered to mention it. Or you were doing your best to ignore it. So it seems to me that you don't bother to search for information before jumping to conclusions, running your mouth, and posing hasty generalizations. 



> I could be wrong, but I don't think the language barrier is the real problem in here, but if you believe so, then I'll suggest you to try and read what I said once more, but carefully this time
> 
> Nice try though :clap2:


The above is PRECISELY what I mean by "juvenile remarks". Seriously dude, if you want others to take you seriously, then revise your tone and grow up.


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> There can be no dialogue on Syria on the Egypt page, if you want to start one then please start one in the cafe or on the rest of the world section.


Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't intending that at all. I was merely suggesting that the sort of criticism seen in Syria and Lybia might be used to jump-start a general dialogue in Egypt in general, not here on this forum. I'm sure we'll see some op-eds from more sober minds very soon.


----------



## jemiljan

expatagogo said:


> What about the part Sheikh Khaled Abdallah played in this?
> 
> After all, he was the person who took an anonymous, 12 minute, poorly constructed youtube clip and aired it on Egyptian television. He, in fact, promoted it. Had he not done so, nobody would have ever heard of it.
> 
> He called it "an American-Coptic plot." Copt is a religion.
> 
> Is he not, too, defaming religion? Or does that just work one way?
> 
> Will he be called to task?
> 
> And, with all of the anti-Islam clips on youtube to choose from (and there are plenty), why did he choose that particular clip?


Very good points. The fact that he fanned the flames should be criticised. Hardly anyone in the US knew about this movie. Two agitators blew up the issue from something no one cared about into violent protests: Maurice Sadek and Khaled Abdullah. Clearly Maurice Sadek was "trolling" when he decided to post the Arabic "translation" and Khaled Abdullah took the bait and ran with it. Clearly Copts have denounced what Sadek and Bacile- or whatever his name is. 



> And the Copts of Egypt, who have long regarded Sadek with bemused contempt, are right in the middle of the whole toxic mess, forced by people with an Islamophobic agenda constantly to assert their patriotism and sense of belonging in Egypt, much as Muslims have to do in the United States.


Copts Denounce Islamophobia | Middle East Research and Information Project

Time for Muslims to criticize Abdullah for aggressively taking offense and fanning the flames. If they can criticize Okasha for being outrageous, so too, can they Abdullah. I do think that the criticism of the affair is indirect criticism of him, but we'll see if more appears on this matter.


----------



## aykalam

jemiljan said:


> Subdued, perhaps, but not exactly "quiet". I wouldn't be racing to Tahrir in these circumstances either. Egypt Independent has had quite a few comments critical of these events. Shaykh al-Tayeb's condemnation of the embassy attack is hardly "silent" either.


I stand by what I said. Egyptians (not high profile figures) were not afraid to rise against a regime that had oppressed them for 60 years but are not willing to challenge a bunch of extremists and their rent a mob. That's incredibly sad.


----------



## aykalam

Prime Minister Hesham Qandil claimed Saturday that protesters who clashed with security forces at the US Embassy in Cairo were paid to do so, and emphasized striking a balance between freedom of speech and respect for religion.

PM: Some US embassy protesters were paid, respect for religion essential | Egypt Independent


----------



## Sonrisa

aykalam said:


> I stand by what I said. Egyptians (not high profile figures) were not afraid to rise against a regime that had oppressed them for 60 years but are not willing to challenge a bunch of extremists and their rent a mob. That's incredibly sad.


I've got a feeling that most egyptians (ordinary ones) are hostile towards americans, perhaps precisely because they have been oppresed for 60 years, and would much rather cheer the extremists than challenge them.

This is the new Egypt, I fear


----------



## aykalam

Sonrisa said:


> I've got a feeling that most egyptians (ordinary ones) are hostile towards americans, perhaps precisely because they have been oppresed for 60 years, and would much rather cheer the extremists than challenge them.
> 
> This is the new Egypt, I fear


exactly


----------



## DeadGuy

jemiljan said:


> Not when you first posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, was the loyalty of Shaykh al-Tayeb 'questioned'? How about Nader Bakker, the spokesman for the Salafi Nour Party, who condemned the initial attack shortly after it happened. Did he received such treatment?
> 
> A word of advice: ethical, objective, mature adults are able to argue the positions of people they don't agree with in a congenial and accurate manner. What you've been saying is neither accurate nor very congenial at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Then take the feedback to heart; your tone was deplorable, self-righteous, and as I said before, juvenile. Your frequent use of the "rolls eyes" emoticons in particular only accentuated the juvenile nature of your remarks. Seriously, you sounded like a whiny 14 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, but it's pretty apparent that you're only looking at what you choose to see, else you would have bothered to mention it. Or you were doing your best to ignore it. So it seems to me that you don't bother to search for information before jumping to conclusions, running your mouth, and posing hasty generalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is PRECISELY what I mean by "juvenile remarks". Seriously dude, if you want others to take you seriously, then revise your tone and grow up.


When you mentioned it, you said:


jemiljan said:


> Sure thing. *So far* you have made *no attempt to say "some Muslims"* only "Muslims".


And I did show you that you were wrong, as for when I first posted, it was not necessary to use the word "some", and I did say that I did not need to correct/edit myself, and I will not, specially when the only reason for editing it is just cause you think I need to 

Was the loyalty of Shaykh al-Tayeb 'questioned'? You're not being serious in here are you???  Cause it was questioned, more than ONCE, in TOO many occasions! And Bakkar's statement, would you please define "*shortly*"? Cause he didn't say anything till 2/3 days after the whole mess started, and to be more "accurate", police has been negotiating HIM to convince people to leave the embassy's premises, which took some extra time obviously 


Not accurate and not very congenial at all? Just because it does not match your "side" of the story? Or because it's "too generalizing"? Or because it's concerning Muslims?

There we go again with the personal attacks! And there you are making another mistake! I'm not a 14 years old, only 12! :lol: 

With everything that happened during this whole movie/embassies situation, and your empty distracted posts that's either going personal, discussing Syria, or questioning accuracy/credibility, you are another proof for the FACT that Muslims are the *ONLY *ones responsible for their image all over the world, so keep it up! 

The above is _PRECISELY _why I said that it's not the language barrier, how anyone takes my "remarks" or me as a "person" is not something that I worry about, and regardless of how anyone may come across, some people simply fail to see other opinions of other people! (Sorry, other juvenile 14 years old's opinions I mean :lol and that's *NOT *a language problem, dude 

And just cause it shows you _the juvenile nature of my remarks_, there:      :spit:


----------



## DeadGuy

expatagogo said:


> What about the part Sheikh Khaled Abdallah played in this?
> 
> After all, he was the person who took an anonymous, 12 minute, poorly constructed youtube clip and aired it on Egyptian television. He, in fact, promoted it. Had he not done so, nobody would have ever heard of it.
> 
> He called it "an American-Coptic plot." Copt is a religion.
> 
> Is he not, too, defaming religion? Or does that just work one way?
> 
> Will he be called to task?
> 
> And, with all of the anti-Islam clips on youtube to choose from (and there are plenty), why did he choose that particular clip?


He's innocent 

Middle East protests: meet the hardline 'tele-Islamist' who brought anti-Islam film to Muslim world's attention - Telegraph


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> Not when you first posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, was the loyalty of Shaykh al-Tayeb 'questioned'? How about Nader Bakker, the spokesman for the Salafi Nour Party, who condemned the initial attack shortly after it happened. Did he received such treatment?
> 
> A word of advice: ethical, objective, mature adults are able to argue the positions of people they don't agree with in a congenial and accurate manner. What you've been saying is neither accurate nor very congenial at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Then take the feedback to heart; your tone was deplorable, self-righteous, and as I said before, juvenile. Your frequent use of the "rolls eyes" emoticons in particular only accentuated the juvenile nature of your remarks. Seriously, you sounded like a whiny 14 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, but it's pretty apparent that you're only looking at what you choose to see, else you would have bothered to mention it. Or you were doing your best to ignore it. So it seems to me that you don't bother to search for information before jumping to conclusions, running your mouth, and posing hasty generalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is PRECISELY what I mean by "juvenile remarks". Seriously dude, if you want others to take you seriously, then revise your tone and grow up.




No more... any further personal attacks will lead to your post being deleted and an infraction issued


----------



## MaidenScotland

DeadGuy said:


> When you mentioned it, you said:
> 
> And I did show you that you were wrong, as for when I first posted, it was not necessary to use the word "some", and I did say that I did not need to correct/edit myself, and I will not, specially when the only reason for editing it is just cause you think I need to
> 
> Was the loyalty of Shaykh al-Tayeb 'questioned'? You're not being serious in here are you???  Cause it was questioned, more than ONCE, in TOO many occasions! And Bakkar's statement, would you please define "*shortly*"? Cause he didn't say anything till 2/3 days after the whole mess started, and to be more "accurate", police has been negotiating HIM to convince people to leave the embassy's premises, which took some extra time obviously
> 
> 
> Not accurate and not very congenial at all? Just because it does not match your "side" of the story? Or because it's "too generalizing"? Or because it's concerning Muslims?
> 
> There we go again with the personal attacks! And there you are making another mistake! I'm not a 14 years old, only 12! :lol:
> 
> With everything that happened during this whole movie/embassies situation, and your empty distracted posts that's either going personal, discussing Syria, or questioning accuracy/credibility, you are another proof for the FACT that Muslims are the *ONLY *ones responsible for their image all over the world, so keep it up!
> 
> The above is _PRECISELY _why I said that it's not the language barrier, how anyone takes my "remarks" or me as a "person" is not something that I worry about, and regardless of how anyone may come across, some people simply fail to see other opinions of other people! (Sorry, other juvenile 14 years old's opinions I mean :lol and that's *NOT *a language problem, dude
> 
> And just cause it shows you _the juvenile nature of my remarks_, there:      :spit:



No more... any further personal attacks will lead to your post being deleted and an infraction issued


----------



## jemiljan

aykalam said:


> I stand by what I said. Egyptians (not high profile figures) were not afraid to rise against a regime that had oppressed them for 60 years but are not willing to challenge a bunch of extremists and their rent a mob. That's incredibly sad.


I think you've posed a false analogy. Was there any sort of evidence that anyone other than the security forces went into the streets to confront angry youth? 

Also, I might ask whether Shaykh al-Tayeb's tactic of demanding condemnation of all forms of religions defamation, is not only a condemnation of the film, but also of the Salafis who thrive on such rhetoric? Could it be that Shaykh al-Tayeb knows very well whom he is speaking to, and he has chosen his words very carefully? Could such a less explicit yet dignified and morally and ethically sound tactic possibly be more persuasive to most Egyptians than an overtly explicit and confrontational approach that Westerners are accustomed to? Could a more explicit approach as you suggest further exacerbate tensions rather than discredit polemicists? 

Just a thought. 

Someone once told me "It's all in the delivery". Criticism is often uttered to make a critic feel better, but it often doesn't necessarily persuade others very effectively at all. Achieving a desired outcome is usually more important than the mode of delivery.


----------



## MaidenScotland

jemiljan said:


> I think you've posed a false analogy. Was there any sort of evidence that anyone other than the security forces went into the streets to confront angry youth?
> 
> Also, I might ask whether Shaykh al-Tayeb's tactic of demanding condemnation of all forms of religions defamation, is not only a condemnation of the film, but also of the Salafis who thrive on such rhetoric? Could it be that Shaykh al-Tayeb knows very well whom he is speaking to, and he has chosen his words very carefully? Could such a less explicit yet dignified and morally and ethically sound tactic possibly be more persuasive to most Egyptians than an overtly explicit and confrontational approach that Westerners are accustomed to? Could a more explicit approach as you suggest further exacerbate tensions rather than discredit polemicists?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Someone once told me "It's all in the delivery". Criticism is often uttered to make a critic feel better, but it often doesn't necessarily persuade others very effectively at all. Achieving a desired outcome is usually more important than the mode of delivery.




Perhaps it would be better if you re read what was posted,


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> Perhaps it would be better if you re read what was posted,


I did. I stand my remarks.


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> No more... any further personal attacks will lead to your post being deleted and an infraction issued


I just saw this, after posting short response, but if you wish to construe it as a "personal attack", so be it.


----------



## Qsw

@aykalam: I think Egyptians are willing to confront extremists, but I'm guessing the majority see this as a security matter, and simply don't see this as akin to the uprising against Mubarak. The sheer quantity of protests over the last year has probably dulled people's interest in joining them, and I'm not sure what it would take to get the majority moving again.

Something like this should be seen as a government failure in my opinion. I think if you ask most Egyptians whether embassies should be protected, they will say yes. 

It would be great if people got involved and forced these protesters to go home and stop trespassing etc., but I think it may be asking too much. Regular people shouldn't have to take personal risks to ensure the security of their country. If the people have to get involved in basic security matters, then we have a big problem. I think in most countries, when things like this happen, regular people wouldn't be interested in getting involved, but they would expect their government to step up.


----------



## MaidenScotland

Qsw said:


> @aykalam: I think Egyptians are willing to confront extremists, but I'm guessing the majority see this as a security matter, and simply don't see this as akin to the uprising against Mubarak. The sheer quantity of protests over the last year has probably dulled people's interest in joining them, and I'm not sure what it would take to get the majority moving again.
> 
> Something like this should be seen as a government failure in my opinion. I think if you ask most Egyptians whether embassies should be protected, they will say yes.
> 
> It would be great if people got involved and forced these protesters to go home and stop trespassing etc., but I think it may be asking too much. Regular people shouldn't have to take personal risks to ensure the security of their country. If the people have to get involved in basic security matters, then we have a big problem. I think in most countries, when things like this happen, regular people wouldn't be interested in getting involved, but they would expect their government to step up.



Yes the government was at fault, big time, Morsi didn't even make a statement until he was prompted by a phone call. I have said I don't believe Egyptians wanted this to happen but then again shouldn't the Egyptian people be telling us this and not just us making assumptions? Why would they not want to distance themselves from these thugs that broke into the embassy.. peaceful protest showing the world the average man on the street doesn't approve of violence being the answer to everything.


----------



## DeadGuy

MaidenScotland said:


> Yes the government was at fault, big time, Morsi didn't even make a statement until he was prompted by a phone call. I have said I don't believe Egyptians wanted this to happen but then again shouldn't the Egyptian people be telling us this and not just us making assumptions? Why would they not want to distance themselves from these thugs that broke into the embassy.. peaceful protest showing the world the average man on the street doesn't approve of violence being the answer to everything.


Maybe the simple answer to that is that your assumptions are wrong?  :eyebrows:

The government's reactions to the whole crisis was not a surprise to be honest considering its performance in the last few weeks 

What was "surprising" was the ruling party members' statements though, I mean boycotting Google and trying to convince people that the White House is "happy" with FJP's performance during the crisis? If those are the people surrounding the "president"..............Then thank God it didn't get worse with these mentalities in charge............


----------



## Wulfstryde

I wasn't going to bother with a reply since you seem to have come to the conclusion that there can't possibly be anything wrong with your wording, but I feel impelled to write this last post, in the hope that you will understand my intentions better.



DeadGuy said:


> it seemed like you weren't only trying to justify their behavior, but also comparing being "offended" by a movie to getting killed over it!


You keep saying I'm trying to justify the violent actions and made comparisons with making the film and killing people over it. Do you honestly not see what is wrong with this accusation? I even wrote a seperate post repeating the exact same words condemning any sort of violent behaviour, lol.


Wulfstryde said:


> Attacking embassies based on nothing but a whim is preposterous and outrageous. Though who indulged in this are complete morons and a menace to society.


As for the comparison I made; it was entirely different. Here, have another look at my words, before I explain it;


Wulfstryde said:


> You clubbed all the muslims under the same proverbial umbrella(uncivil, intolerant, impolite and so on); If you can do that, can you really find fault with the comparatively small number muslims(I say comparatively as in relation to a worldwide population of 1.6 billion) who feel the movie produced by a sole far-right wing nutter is representative of American/Western sentiments as a whole?


Irrational Angry Mob: They see/hear of a film made by a very *SMALL* number of Americans that demafes their religious beliefs; They assume that *ALL* Americans/Western Citizens absolutely hate Muslims and want nothing more than to insult them.

Yourself: You see/hear about a *SMALL* number of Radical Muslims attacking embassies. You assume... No, you ASSERT that *ALL* Muslims are [/QUOTE]

THIS is the comparison I was making. It was a rhetorical question. Forgive me if I sound condescending, but either you dont understand my words completely or you don't read my posts completely and just skim over them before replying. And I WILL give you the benefit of the doubt by offering a third possibility that you may have simply overlooked it by mistake.



DeadGuy said:


> why do I need to worry about Muslims' problems with eachother again?


YOU asked the question if Salafis treat other Muslim sects with violence, and I replied in the affirmative, giving examples. And all this talk about "questioning their loyalty"; Salafis question the Sufi's loyalty over a lot less, lol.



DeadGuy said:


> They got differences yes, but that's Muslims' problem to worry about and to work on, not everyone else's problem!


This is a valid point and one that we agree on. BUT, if a Catholic killed a Salafi and I said a statement like you did, only changing the label


DeadGuy said:


> And once again *Christians* manage to show that they don't need any help showing how civil, tolerant, polite, respectful, forgiving, peaceful they are


 Would the vast majority of Christians not be offended? THIS is the point I'm trying to make my good fellow.



DeadGuy said:


> And there you are falling into the very same "generalization" accusation that you're trying to fit for me





DeadGuy said:


> I NEVER been the "victim" through my whole life


I never said you were victimised as a Copt. Just like I didn't make quick assumptions about your language proficiency. I was just trying to understand why you kept thinking my posts were personal attacks when there was nothing there. So I thought these *MAY* be possible reasons and I DID leave the room open for other reasons I couldn't possibly know. Here's the part in question;


Wulfstryde said:


> *Maybe* you've been victimized in Egypt as a Copt for so long that you're overly paranoid, *or* your grasp of English is not as good as you think *or* there's some other possibility that I can't possibly fathom.


 Yes, I used the word "maybe"; I think you MAY have missed that. 



DeadGuy said:


> you asked questions, others took the personal insults route, and I am saying it again, it shows nothing but how "solid" your/their arguments are


Wow, you took a rhetorical question as a personal insult? See what I'm saying about the language barrier? Please don't even deny it. Do I feel offended by all these questions you're asking? No. I welcome them since they open up discussion. I only feel uncomfortable with your initial generalizing statement. If they WERE personal attacks, why haven't I been issued a notification by a Mod? Why haven't they deleted any of my posts? Its simple really; I've remained civil the whole time.



DeadGuy said:


> But you, and many others obviously, might need to understand that it is possible for people to have opinions that may *NOT *match yours


I never denied that you're free to say what you want. By all means, go right ahead. But please, will you not reconsider speaking in absolutes? It isn't all black and white. Please try to see the gray. I can't FORCE you to rethink your stance, and I haven't tried to either. I've always used polite words when I implored you to reconsider your words. Here;


Wulfstryde said:


> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of these people.





Wulfstryde said:


> I think there's a thin line between telling it like it is, and resorting to mass generalization, don't you think?





Wulfstryde said:


> Please don't take these as personal acts based on nothing but a prejudice against what SOME Muslims do. I am merely asking you to rethink your wording that this incident is reflective of the sentiments of every single Muslim in the World.


If you still can't see that I'm merely offering friendly advice, I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

Good day.


----------



## jemiljan

MaidenScotland said:


> Yes the government was at fault, big time, Morsi didn't even make a statement until he was prompted by a phone call. I have said I don't believe Egyptians wanted this to happen but then again shouldn't the Egyptian people be telling us this and not just us making assumptions? Why would they not want to distance themselves from these thugs that broke into the embassy.. peaceful protest showing the world the average man on the street doesn't approve of violence being the answer to everything.


Why must "distancing themselves" have to take on the form of a protest? I just think that we jaded expats (even locals like Dead Guy) are not only good at making sweeping generalizations but als projecting expectations onto others, but often don't really bother to stop and reflect on the complex reality of the situation in the way that QSW has just described. Most Egyptians I know personally are SICK of protests and feel that they have better things to do (like earn a living, improve the economy, and not risk it by exposing themselves to harm and danger). No, they don't like the film, but they didn't need to go to Tahrir and raise hell, and to be told that they need to go to Tahrir to denounce the film is more than a tad patronizing. If you ask them, though, they will not be shy about criticizing such behavior.

Protests are hardly the only way to make a statement or even effect social change. For example one can issue statements denouncing the events and one can sue.


----------



## jemiljan

Wulfstryde said:


> I wasn't going to bother with a reply since you seem to have come to the conclusion that there can't possibly be anything wrong with your wording, but I feel impelled to write this last post, in the hope that you will understand my intentions better.
> 
> 
> You keep saying I'm trying to justify the violent actions and made comparisons with making the film and killing people over it. Do you honestly not see what is wrong with this accusation? I even wrote a seperate post repeating the exact same words condemning any sort of violent behaviour, lol.
> 
> As for the comparison I made; it was entirely different. Here, have another look at my words, before I explain it;
> 
> 
> Irrational Angry Mob: They see/hear of a film made by a very *SMALL* number of Americans that demafes their religious beliefs; They assume that *ALL* Americans/Western Citizens absolutely hate Muslims and want nothing more than to insult them.
> 
> Yourself: You see/hear about a *SMALL* number of Radical Muslims attacking embassies. You assume... No, you ASSERT that *ALL* Muslims are
> 
> THIS is the comparison I was making. It was a rhetorical question. Forgive me if I sound condescending, but either you dont understand my words completely or you don't read my posts completely and just skim over them before replying. And I WILL give you the benefit of the doubt by offering a third possibility that you may have simply overlooked it by mistake.


Touché! Just to expand on this, in the study of logic, a hasty generalisation is form of irrational logical fallacy. Hasty generalisations are posed by both those so inflamed by the stupid film, thinking "Americans" support it, and by those who characterize "Muslims" as somehow generally supporting or condoning reactionaries who attack embassies.


----------



## aykalam

Qsw said:


> @aykalam: I think Egyptians are willing to confront extremists, but I'm guessing the majority see this as a security matter, and simply don't see this as akin to the uprising against Mubarak. The sheer quantity of protests over the last year has probably dulled people's interest in joining them, and I'm not sure what it would take to get the majority moving again.
> 
> Something like this should be seen as a government failure in my opinion. I think if you ask most Egyptians whether embassies should be protected, they will say yes.
> 
> It would be great if people got involved and forced these protesters to go home and stop trespassing etc., but I think it may be asking too much. Regular people shouldn't have to take personal risks to ensure the security of their country. If the people have to get involved in basic security matters, then we have a big problem. I think in most countries, when things like this happen, regular people wouldn't be interested in getting involved, but they would expect their government to step up.


The security breach is definitely a government failure, since the MoI should have protected embassies just like they did previously. I'm not advocating for civilians to go and do the police job, but the lack of response from the general public is nonetheless disappointing, regardless of how tired people are of protests. 

The few Egyptians I had the chance to speak to regarding this matter did not say embassies should be protected. What they did say is "well what did they expect"


----------



## aykalam

jemiljan said:


> I think you've posed a false analogy. Was there any sort of evidence that anyone other than the security forces went into the streets to confront angry youth?
> 
> Also, I might ask whether Shaykh al-Tayeb's tactic of demanding condemnation of all forms of religions defamation, is not only a condemnation of the film, but also of the Salafis who thrive on such rhetoric? Could it be that Shaykh al-Tayeb knows very well whom he is speaking to, and he has chosen his words very carefully? Could such a less explicit yet dignified and morally and ethically sound tactic possibly be more persuasive to most Egyptians than an overtly explicit and confrontational approach that Westerners are accustomed to? Could a more explicit approach as you suggest further exacerbate tensions rather than discredit polemicists?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Someone once told me "It's all in the delivery". Criticism is often uttered to make a critic feel better, but it often doesn't necessarily persuade others very effectively at all. Achieving a desired outcome is usually more important than the mode of delivery.


You did not understand my post. Please reread what I said. 

Once again, I am discussing the majority of Egyptians' reaction to what's been going on, not some high profile cleric's stetement.


----------



## MaidenScotland

aykalam said:


> You did not understand my post. Please reread what I said.
> 
> Once again, I am discussing the majority of Egyptians' reaction to what's been going on, not some high profile cleric's stetement.[/QUOT


----------



## canuck2010

I feel like I'm missing out somehow, being on holiday here on the beach in El gouna for a week.


----------



## DeadGuy

Wulfstryde said:


> I wasn't going to bother with a reply since you seem to have come to the conclusion that there can't possibly be anything wrong with your wording, but I feel impelled to write this last post, in the hope that you will understand my intentions better.
> 
> 
> You keep saying I'm trying to justify the violent actions and made comparisons with making the film and killing people over it. Do you honestly not see what is wrong with this accusation? I even wrote a seperate post repeating the exact same words condemning any sort of violent behaviour, lol.
> 
> As for the comparison I made; it was entirely different. Here, have another look at my words, before I explain it;
> 
> 
> Irrational Angry Mob: They see/hear of a film made by a very *SMALL* number of Americans that demafes their religious beliefs; They assume that *ALL* Americans/Western Citizens absolutely hate Muslims and want nothing more than to insult them.
> 
> Yourself: You see/hear about a *SMALL* number of Radical Muslims attacking embassies. You assume... No, you ASSERT that *ALL* Muslims are
> 
> THIS is the comparison I was making. It was a rhetorical question. Forgive me if I sound condescending, but either you dont understand my words completely or you don't read my posts completely and just skim over them before replying. And I WILL give you the benefit of the doubt by offering a third possibility that you may have simply overlooked it by mistake.
> 
> YOU asked the question if Salafis treat other Muslim sects with violence, and I replied in the affirmative, giving examples. And all this talk about "questioning their loyalty"; Salafis question the Sufi's loyalty over a lot less, lol.
> 
> 
> This is a valid point and one that we agree on. BUT, if a Catholic killed a Salafi and I said a statement like you did, only changing the label Would the vast majority of Christians not be offended? THIS is the point I'm trying to make my good fellow.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you were victimised as a Copt. Just like I didn't make quick assumptions about your language proficiency. I was just trying to understand why you kept thinking my posts were personal attacks when there was nothing there. So I thought these *MAY* be possible reasons and I DID leave the room open for other reasons I couldn't possibly know. Here's the part in question;
> Yes, I used the word "maybe"; I think you MAY have missed that.
> 
> 
> Wow, you took a rhetorical question as a personal insult? See what I'm saying about the language barrier? Please don't even deny it. Do I feel offended by all these questions you're asking? No. I welcome them since they open up discussion. I only feel uncomfortable with your initial generalizing statement. If they WERE personal attacks, why haven't I been issued a notification by a Mod? Why haven't they deleted any of my posts? Its simple really; I've remained civil the whole time.
> 
> 
> I never denied that you're free to say what you want. By all means, go right ahead. But please, will you not reconsider speaking in absolutes? It isn't all black and white. Please try to see the gray. I can't FORCE you to rethink your stance, and I haven't tried to either. I've always used polite words when I implored you to reconsider your words. Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you still can't see that I'm merely offering friendly advice, I have nothing more to add to this conversation.
> 
> Good day.




Something you said kinda confused me? Well, a few? :confused2:


Wulfstryde said:


> This is a valid point and one that we agree on. BUT, if a Catholic killed a Salafi and I said a statement like you did, only changing the label Would the vast majority of Christians not be offended? THIS is the point I'm trying to make my good fellow.


I thought this was mentioned already? But again: We do not need to ask whether the majority of Christians would be offended or not *IF* anyone made any statement, simply cause it is happening already, everywhere, by MANY people, specially Muslims, either "ordinary" ones or "high profile" ones, but no one's bothered with them or what they say, and instead of making a big deal out of it, they ignore it, and they CHOOSE to react to any offending behavior this way 

This part wasn't only confusing, but shocking too 



Wulfstryde said:


> YOU asked the question if Salafis treat other Muslim sects with violence, and I replied in the affirmative, giving examples. And all this talk about "questioning their loyalty"; Salafis question the Sufi's loyalty over a lot less, lol.


 

Sorry but now I have to ask this: Whose posts have you been reading? I did NOT ask _if Salafis treat other Muslim sects with violence_, I only wondered if Salafis were Muslims or Jews when someone said that the ones protesting and getting violent are _Salafis_, not _the Muslims_ 

As for the rest of your post, the only thing I'll do after reading all "this" is to repeat my initial post in here, maybe this time people will actually _read _it 



DeadGuy said:


> And once again Muslims manage to show that they don't need any help showing how civil, tolerant, polite, respectful, forgiving, peaceful they are


----------

