There was a piece in the Washington Post by David Ignatius about how Egypt needs a culture of tolerance. The piece has been distributed far and wide. I found it on Real Clear Politics.
I don't particularly recommend reading it. I only want to highlight one sentence, actually one clause of one sentence, that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about David Ignatius. And everything you need to know about him is that he is a craven liar.
Here is the sentence with the clause in question in bold italic:
The ugly old politics of division surfaced last week in Egypt in three dramatic confrontations: Participants in a women's march reportedly were "groped" by male bystanders; Coptic Christians clashed with Muslims following the burning of a church, leaving 13 dead; and protesters ransacked the files of the hated security police, looking for dirt on the old regime, and perhaps on their neighbors.Let's start with the grammar. the clause in question is an interesting mix of active and passive voice. "Coptic Christians clashed with Muslims". Not, you will note "Coptic Christians and Muslims clashed" but "Coptic Christians clashed with Muslims". So we know who to blame? Or, to be more precise, we know precisely whom Ignatius does not want us to blame.
Which brings us to the oddly passive language of the next phrase, "following the burning of a church". Was this fire caused by an accident perhaps? Or did someone do the burning? And did these someones belong to an identifiable group?
And finally, we get, "leaving 13 dead". It may come as a surprise to you to learn that all thirteen dead were Coptic Christians. The sentence isn't constructed in a way that makes it very likely that you will figure that out does it? In fact, the sentence is constructed in a way that makes it extremely unlikely that you will guess that what actually happened is that a mob of Muslims attacked the Copts. And you might not also guess that the Egyptian Army was present in large numbers and did nothing to stop this attack. Some observers say the army helped the mob.
The way Ignatius writes about these clashes is intentionally deceiving. He writes in a way that gives us the impression that a bunch of different groups are equally responsible for the intolerance. That's not true and he knows it.
And yet he chose to lie. And he will always choose to lie. You can take that to the bank.