An off-duty policeman has opened fire on a train in Egypt, killing a Christian man, but it is unclear whether the attack was sectarian.It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian! We learn that "Officials said at least four of those hurt [there were five wounded altogether] were Coptic Christians" and we learn that "Witnesses said hundreds of Christians later clashed with police outside the hospital where the wounded were taken" and we are reminded that "Tensions between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high following a bomb attack on a Coptic church in Alexandria at the new year that killed 23 people." But! It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian!
As unbelievable as it sounds, it may be entirely true that the attack might turn out to have nothing (or little) to do with religion — Indeed, we (lucky) readers are (blessed to be) provided with a (welcome) warning:
The BBC's Jon Leyne reports from Cairo that it is difficult to see how the gunmen would have known he could target Christians by boarding the train.Perhaps, but still, what with the rush to judgment regarding Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona case, you get a slight feeling for the double standards of the West's mainstream media…
Update: "We don’t want to jump to conclusions" adds Instapundit (shookhran for the link, Professor Reynolds). "That might promote hatred."
Update 2: That was quick! Only a day or two ago, Joe Kovacs was reporting on Rush Limbaugh's posing a new question.
"Just ask yourself this. If the shooter had been a 22-year-old named Muhammad, would we be hearing that Muslim talk radio and the Muslim Internet blamed for it?" the top-rated host asked today. "No, we'd have been told that we can't blame Muslims for the action of one kook."We didn't expect a bona fide illustration of the (all-too-obvious) answer to come all the way from the Red Sea, but now we have one, don't we?