Clashes erupt around Cairo's US embassy

[DJKeefy]

Clashes at the US embassy in Cairo erupted late Wednesday and continued till the early hours of the next day, as around 200 protesters and Central Security Forces (CFS) stoned each other in another melee.

Some of the demonstrators – most of whom are young and not bearded like many of the protesters who had participated in Tuesday's rally at the US mission – also hurled fire bombs at the CFS, who in return used tear gas in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

Earlier on Wednesday, crowds of angry, mainly Muslim, protesters gathered before the US embassy to denounce a short film, which critics say demeans Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

It is not clear, however, what ignited the confrontations afterwards.

State-run news agency MENA reported that the protesters are from the football Ultras fan groups, who tried to "break into the headquarters of the embassy" but the CSF protected the premises against the attack. Backed by many armored vehicles, police have cordoned off the site.

On Tuesday, Egyptian protesters took down the American flag from the walls of the US embassy as a thousands-strong demonstration held to condemn the film, which is reportedly produced by a California-based American-Israeli filmmaker called Sam Bacile.

The Ultras White Knights – Zamalek Club's hardcore football fans – claimed that members of their group had brought down the US flag. While group members have since retreated from the scene, they say they are planning additional rallies to protest the film.

“Our members are not present around the US embassy now. We stress that our participation in the demonstrations was peaceful, we just wanted to send a message (to authorities),” Ultras White Knights said in a statement on their Facebook page in the midst of the clashes.

“We condemn and reject the continuation of the same repressive and unfruitful tactics used by security forces in dealing with such situations.”

The battle on Wednesday, which lasted till after dawn, was moved away from the headquarters of the US embassy after the security personnel forced the frenzied crowd to move back towards the nearby Tahrir Square.

A police vehicle was reportedly set on fire.

Initial reports also said that several protesters were injured, most of whom suffered the effects of tear gas. An official injury toll has yet to be revealed.

The security forces, who according to MENA have arrested a number of protesters, also used loudspeakers to warn the demonstrators against approaching the now heavily-fortified embassy.

"We would sacrifice our blood and soul for the prophet," chanted protesters, most of whom did not carry banners or placards, every now and then during the clashes.

Demonstrators have demanded since Tuesday an apology from the US government for the film, saying that if no such apology was issued by Friday they would stage an open-ended sit-in.

On this Friday, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist parties and others are planning a million-man rally in Tahrir Square to vent their anger.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/52750.aspx

[Hafiz]

Forum members, especially those in Egypt, will know about the protests in the Islamic world against the so-called film. The international press is drenched with it and focuses on the reaction in Egypt - so forget any results to attract tourists and investment for a while.

The film contains several significant references to or links with Egypt. At this stage there are no reports of links to other Islamic countries.

The Egyptian response is interesting and positive with all leaders, including Nour, condemning violence and attacks on embassies.

How the film came to be made (over 12 months ago), by whom and why it was recently put on UTube in June http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world ... emityn.www is more curious and disturbing. The Egyptian Arabic translation was posted around September 11 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html. No other Arabic translations appear to have been posted

The same report states that part of the film includes scenes of Egyptian security forces standing idle whilst rioters pillage Coptic homes.

The self-identified maker appears to be a Jewish-Israeli Californian real estate developer (but the New York Times can find information he exists); his helpers appear (?) to be a US Copt and a mad anti-Islamic southern preacher. The cost of the film is alleged to be $US5 million (Al Ahram) and its commercial release disastrous from a financial point of view. With this controversy it may do ‘better’ business.

US law enforcement has named another individual who was involved. He was convicted of serious drug offenses and of bank fraud in 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/09 ... slimsriots

This is more than enough murky information to fuel conspiracy theories for decades. The focus on Egypt (an alleged Coptic backer, Egyptian Arabic and the shots of Egyptian pillaging) is strange and disturbing at a time when the new government has been trying to repair relations with Copts. Relations with Israel and the US won't be improved by this.

[Teddyboy]

"demeans Islam and the Prophet Mohammed."

Religions and religious figures are being 'demeaned' all the time, all over the world! Can anyone tell me why it is that it's only Muslims who react in such a 'frenzied' and violent manner, and it's only they who seem to believe that this sort of slight is a valid reason for killing people whose only connection is to be of the same nationality?

(It's just occurred to me that Samsung might have American or Jewish shareholders, how would that pan out?)

[Hafiz]

Islam isn’t the only religion where people react aggressively. Most people react badly if you can find the right nerve and these film makers must have been well aware of the trouble they would cause. Everyone knows that these slights would produce a volcanic reaction in the Islamic world (whether you think the reaction reasonable or not).

However, other religions haven’t been backward in being aggressive.

Don't Indian Hindus and Sikhs also go at hammer and tongs over religious issues?

What about 'European' Christian Serbs and their treatment of Muslims?

More recently, hasn't the 'deeply religious' Putin jailed the rock group for their disrespect for Russian Orthodoxy?

Don't the orthodox Jewish Israelis force others (with violence) to strictly observe the Sabbath and prevent unaccompanied women from using buses?

Weren't the Norwegian killings (in part) anti Islamic and done by a 'Christian' out of 'Christian' rage?

Religious extremism violence and repression isn't confined to the Muslim world and if you want to stir people up religion is a sure fire way of doing it - wherever you live and whatever your religion. However violent reaction to religious slights does seem to be more prevalent in the Muslim world - but they are a third (?) of humanity so their reactions are going to be more prevalent (and more frequent) than say the Church of England.

If I was a believer I wouldn't want some California scum-bags demeaning my beliefs with falsehoods and getting away with it - although a violent reaction is probably just what these sb's want - and they've got it.

Some people hide behind freedom of speech (like these film makers) when what they are on about is a calculated plan to cause trouble. Defending these people and blaming the Muslims misses the point - you can’t call ‘fire’ in a cinema and not be responsible for the mayhem that follows.

[Teddyboy]

"Weren't the Norwegian killings (in part) anti Islamic and done by a 'Christian' out of 'Christian' rage?"

I wouldn't have thought so, but even so, I cannot accept your comparisons in general. The childhood rhyme comes to mind; "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never harm me!"

If a third of the world's population is so insecure as this current spat would make us believe, then heaven help us all!

[TonyC]

If I was a believer I wouldn't want some California scum-bags demeaning my beliefs with falsehoods and getting away with it - although a violent reaction is probably just what these sb's want - and they've got it.

Some people hide behind freedom of speech (like these film makers) when what they are on about is a calculated plan to cause trouble. Defending these people and blaming the Muslims misses the point - you can’t call ‘fire’ in a cinema and not be responsible for the mayhem that follows.

Spot on, sir. The scum-bags out to cause mayhem, and with luck, bloodshed, know exactly which button to push to start it all off. "Demeaning" Islam is not the issue – that happens all the time in the western world (and has happened many times on this forum!). The tipping point is reviling the Prophet, so they will do this every so often to enrage people who wouldn't normally be "frenzied", and that gives the cue to troublemakers bent on violence.

"Weren't the Norwegian killings (in part) anti Islamic and done by a 'Christian' out of 'Christian' rage?"

I wouldn't have thought so

You wouldn't have thought so? Astonishing!

[hatusu]

When my husband returned from the mosque yesterday I asked him what he'd been told by the Imam. The answer - "God is strong, He doesnt need anyone to fight for Him".

[Who2]

When my husband returned from the mosque yesterday I asked him what he'd been told by the Imam. The answer - "God is strong, He doesnt need anyone to fight for Him".

Like!....

[Teddyboy]

I'm sorry that I've astonished you TonyC! I don't actually know anything about these 'Norwegian killings' (other than seeing the headlines at the time) but to suggest that they were a Christian action, or possibly, more correctly, the action of a Christian, is to display a certain level of ignorance regarding Christianity. Although I am aware that a great many atrocities have been committed, supposedly, 'in the name' of Christianity, but that is an entirely different thing!

If I may offer an analogy, which I believe might help readers to understand what I mean by the above:
A 'vegetarian' is primarily described as one who 'abstains from animal food', but is a description also sometimes used by people who choose not to eat only beef, or meat, or who don't class fish as animals, or eggs. The name can mean whatever the user wants it to, likewise with the name 'Christian'.

You obviously believe (judging by the comments which you have made from time to time on L4U) that Christianity is a very different animal, and in many cases the exact opposite of, that which I know my sort of Christianity to be!

Likewise the title 'Muslim'! Some can take it that to mean an adherent of the 'religion of peace' which follows Muhammad's precepts, while others understand it to be a religion of conquerors who kill and destroy anyone or anything which does not tally with their own interpretation of how humans should live their lives!

Seeing as I have never, nor will ever, see this film; I've no idea what it contains which passes for 'reviling the prophet', but I do know that Muslims (although possibly unwittingly) are continually 'reviling' Jesus, by referring to Him as a 'prophet' while Christians believe Him to be the flesh and blood revelation of God Himself! But we don't get into a murderous frenzy over it, God is well capable of fending for Himself.

Nevertheless, I don't expect anyone who writes on L4U to understand, never mind agree with, this point of view. (And that is judging by the deafening silence experienced whenever matters of this sort are brought up!)

[TonyC]

I'm sorry that I've astonished you TonyC! I don't actually know anything about these 'Norwegian killings' (other than seeing the headlines at the time) but to suggest that they were a Christian action, or possibly, more correctly, the action of a Christian, is to display a certain level of ignorance regarding Christianity. Although I am aware that a great many atrocities have been committed, supposedly, 'in the name' of Christianity, but that is an entirely different thing!

Ignorance of the case is no defence! Breivik's manifesto clearly stated that he was one of the modern Knights Templar, the Christian soldiers who in medieval times, with the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church, fought "Islamisation". I do not think that his actions in the island massacre or the Oslo bombing were connected with the charitable/Freemason aspect of "Knights" today. He killed to prevent the "Islamisation" of Norway, part of the wider fight against "Islamising" Europe.

I'm afraid I regard the rest of the post as just verbiage, though the reference to Muslims "reviling" Jesus because they respect him as a great prophet rather than the Son of God raises an eyebrow.

[Teddyboy]

"Raises an eyebrow"?

[HEPZIBAH]

I'm sorry that I've astonished you TonyC! I don't actually know anything about these 'Norwegian killings' (other than seeing the headlines at the time) but to suggest that they were a Christian action, or possibly, more correctly, the action of a Christian, is to display a certain level of ignorance regarding Christianity. Although I am aware that a great many atrocities have been committed, supposedly, 'in the name' of Christianity, but that is an entirely different thing!

If I may offer an analogy, which I believe might help readers to understand what I mean by the above:
A 'vegetarian' is primarily described as one who 'abstains from animal food', but is a description also sometimes used by people who choose not to eat only beef, or meat, or who don't class fish as animals, or eggs. The name can mean whatever the user wants it to, likewise with the name 'Christian'.

You obviously believe (judging by the comments which you have made from time to time on L4U) that Christianity is a very different animal, and in many cases the exact opposite of, that which I know my sort of Christianity to be!

Likewise the title 'Muslim'! Some can take it that to mean an adherent of the 'religion of peace' which follows Muhammad's precepts, while others understand it to be a religion of conquerors who kill and destroy anyone or anything which does not tally with their own interpretation of how humans should live their lives!

Seeing as I have never, nor will ever, see this film; I've no idea what it contains which passes for 'reviling the prophet', but I do know that Muslims (although possibly unwittingly) are continually 'reviling' Jesus, by referring to Him as a 'prophet' while Christians believe Him to be the flesh and blood revelation of God Himself! But we don't get into a murderous frenzy over it, God is well capable of fending for Himself.

Nevertheless, I don't expect anyone who writes on L4U to understand, never mind agree with, this point of view. (And that is judging by the deafening silence experienced whenever matters of this sort are brought up!)

Teddyboy, you have written what I have been trying to express in a number of conversations I have had over the last week. Interestingly, the ones that understood me best were a a couple of my male muslim friends. I found it was those who showed less interest in personaly religion normally that had the most (negative) to say!

[Teddyboy]

Watch out Hepzibah, you'll be being referred to as my 'sidekick' if you're not careful!!!!

[HEPZIBAH]

Watch out Hepzibah, you'll be being referred to as my 'sidekick' if you're not careful!!!!

I've no doubt been referred to as worse!

[Who2]

When my husband returned from the mosque yesterday I asked him what he'd been told by the Imam. The answer - "God is strong, He doesnt need anyone to fight for Him".

I liked what you posted so much, i posted it on my FB page, here is one response from a 'waggish mate:...
quote: "Provocative *******..... you should have smacked him one George!

[TonyC]

Teddyboy's comment about me earlier...

You obviously believe (judging by the comments which you have made from time to time on L4U) that Christianity is a very different animal, and in many cases the exact opposite of, that which I know my sort of Christianity to be!

prompted me to think again! I still can't get a handle on the waffle (vegetarian Christian or vegan Christian!) but I will say I don't "obviously believe" anything in particular about Christianity. I'm not Christian, nor an adherent of any religion. But as a human being I should be trying to counter, if I see it, the promotion of division, mistrust, hatred, violence, bloodshed and death.

[Teddyboy]

Ok, TonyC, it would seem that I was wrong to attribute you with a belief that you might know, and therefore have, anything worthwhile to contribute regarding Christianity, I'm sorry.

I'm quite intrigued by your term "reviling the prophet". Could you perhaps enlighten us as to how he is reviled in this film?

Also, why should the actions of any (non-violent) provocateur ever be accepted as justification for reactions of violence and murder?

As I've no idea whatsoever of what the film makers intentions were, I could not, neither would I, attempt to defend them from any criticism, but to excuse the resulting bloodshed and disruption is madness in my opinion.

[timetraveller]

Actually Teddyboy, although I almost feel that I have to don a helmet and flak jacket in order to do so, I am bound to say that I agree with you. A film, no matter how provocative should never be seen as grounds for widespread violence and murder. Particularly the murder of people who have had no hand in it.

As none of us have actually seen the film we are in no position to judge how provocative it actually is. I understand however, that one of the scenes is of Coptic homes being ransacked and looted. If this is happening, then it amounts to religious persecution and I personally see no reason why it should not be publicised.

As for the protesters chanting 'We would sacrifice our blood and our soul for the prophet', well, I take no issue with that. They are entitled to sacrifice as much of their blood as they choose. But I cannot, for the life of me, see that they are entitled to spill the blood of other people!

And Hafiz, whilst I take your point that Islam is not the only faith with adherents ever moved to violence in it's defence I wonder what your analysis of the situation in Southern Thailand would be? Buddhist Monks and civilians have been beheaded, bombed and butchered by Islamic separatists at an alarming rate in that region since 2004. Including young children. Buddhists are pacifists and although they are trying to defend themselves they do not retaliate.

And what would your opinion of the Christmas Church burnings in Nigeria be? It wasn't just the Churches that were burned, but the Christian families worshipping in them as well. Whichever way up I look at it I just cannot see that atrocities like these are justifiable on any grounds or in the name of any religion.

Of course the majority of Muslims are peaceable people who would (and should) be appalled at these heinous crimes being committed and bringing their faith into disrepute. Perhaps they need to come together and raise their voices against the havoc caused by a destructive minority.`

And as for the Norwegian massacre? That was the work of just ONE religious fanatic!

[Hafiz]

For timetraveller I take your point about Thailand and Nigeria but these are insurgencies about land and politics as much as about religion. This current mess (with violent protests in the west) is about a more 'purely' religious issue of Muslims across the world protesting the attack on the founder of their religion. I don't see any evidence of an attempt to gain military, land of political objectives in all this - or the deliberate killing of Christians.

Your point on the majority of Muslims not being involved is a good one. This event has not led to million man marches in Tahir.

Interestingly, the PM has stated that some of the protesters in Cairo were paid http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... re-pa.aspx which puts a slightly different complexion on the whole thing.

That the violence in Cairo was more than it seems is supported by others including the excellent John Leyne for BBC radio who has reported on the spot that some of the US embassy protesters were Ultras settling old scores with the police and security services (no link). He also reported that many of those at the embassy carried posters unrelated to the current issue, were dressed in western clothes, did not have beards etc. He contrasted this group with the more obviously (and non-violent) Salafist's in Tahir.

My point is that as regards Egypt the surprising thing is that it was not a lot worse, that all the major parties were for restraint, that Imams have called for silent protests outside local mosques etc.

Also surprising is the reaction of the government. Six months ago most would have said that the government would have sided with the religious extremists in such a situation – or played up the Jewish/Copt connection with this film. They haven’t and that is as unexpected as it is commendable. There have been no accusations against Israel or the US governments and most amazingly of all no burning of Coptic churches in Egypt. It might seem grim humor but it has (thus far) worked out pretty well – considering the alternative. Whatever the press say this is a relatively small but violent event in central Cairo. For example, there are no posts of trouble on this issue in (predominately Salafi/NJP) Upper Egyp.

Other forces may have used this film to stir up trouble for their own purposes in Egypt. The previous regime comes to mind.

All this could not have come at a worse time for investment, the IMF loan, the Egyptian pound etc. Morsi has also won no bunny points from the US for his slow and soft response when this first kicked off and has had a few, less than pleasant, calls from Obama and Clinton. The US is really angry about this, particularly the Libyan end of the problem, and some of that anger is likely displaced on Egypt. It will make the debt forgiveness (several billions) difficult to get through Congress and creates ammunition for Romney. Maybe Morsi should have returned from Rome?

A sober summary of the film, who made it, what's in it is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19606155

[TonyC]

A film, no matter how provocative should never be seen as grounds for widespread violence and murder. Particularly the murder of people who have had no hand in it.

I agree entirely – no need to don helmet and flak jacket on my account! But one fact is inescapable: Insulting Mohammed is seen as grounds for violent reaction, no matter whether it should or should not be. Most Muslims will be deeply offended by this film but they'll take it in their stride. A sizeable minority won't. So I say that critics of Islam should self-censor when it comes to that one specific topic ... insulting their Prophet, the very core of their religion. There is plenty of room for freedom of expression about the religion, so why deliberately light a fire and fan the flames, fully knowing what will follow?