60 dead in suicide attack on a church in Pakistan

bumper234

It would seem it's never ending.


http://news.yahoo.com/attack-pakistani-church-kills-over-60-people-103514992.html


PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A pair of suicide bombers detonated their explosives outside a historic church in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday, killing over 60 people in the deadliest-ever attack on the country's Christian minority, officials said.

Wibbs

Christ.

PirateShampoo

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the human race when we can inflict so much pain and suffering upon each other over what a 2000 year old book says.

The way we are progressing I can imagine in another 2000 years (if we make it that far) it will be Harry Potter followers going toe to toe with the cult of Twilight all because cult of Potter killed Twilight's god in the 3rd book.

bumper234

PirateShampoo wrote: »

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the human race when we can inflict so much pain and suffering upon each other over what a 2000 year old book says.

The way we are progressing I can imagine in another 2000 years (if we make it that far) it will be Harry Potter followers going toe to toe with the cult of Twilight all because cult of Potter killed Twilight's god in the 3rd book.

I wish those men who years ago wrote the bible and the quaran could see the trouble their words have caused. If they could see the mayhem and murder and heartache they have caused for billions of people over thousands of years would they still write them?

cletus van damme

bumper234 wrote: »

I wish those men who years ago wrote the bible and the quaran could see the trouble their words have caused. If they could see the mayhem and murder and heartache they have caused for billions of people over thousands of years would they still write them?

you think it's the books that cause this or are people hijacking of said books for their own agendas?

Plus the wars/ attacks are rarely about religion itself , it's all a smokescreen, it always about power and religion is just a rallying cry to get followers.

MadsL

Sectarian conflicts are always never ending.

All that changes is the balance of power.

mike65

The Islamic nutters do seem to be making some sort of point right now, is there some sort of anniversary to mark?

Manach

Hopefully the local authorities may get a lead on whoever ordered this atrocity.

BlaasForRafa

More muslim extremists, quelle surprise.

MRnotlob606

religion isnt the problem and im a religious person ,the problem is people misinterpreting their own beliefs and taking things litterally

Terry1985

More morality porn for AH...

BeerWolf

bumper234 wrote: »

I wish those men who years ago wrote the bible and the quaran could see the trouble their words have caused. If they could see the mayhem and murder and heartache they have caused for billions of people over thousands of years would they still write them?

Well, when you taking into account of the amount of "shall be put to death for [whatever]" in them... I really doubt they'd care.

krudler

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

religion isnt the problem and im a religious person ,the problem is people misinterpreting their own beliefs and taking things litterally

No true Scotsman yadda yadda.

wp_rathead

horrific loss of life - thoughts with their families

seamus

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

the problem is people misinterpreting their own beliefs and taking things litterally

I love how you managed to contradict yourself so neatly in a single sentence.

"They shouldn't take things literally. Nor should they interpret things"

You either take it literally or make up your own interpretation. The problem is that they don't take religious texts literally. If religious texts were taken literally, they would die quickly and go away as people realise that the text bears no resemblance to reality.

bumper234

wprathead wrote: »

horrific loss of life - thoughts with their families

And being overshadowed by the tragic situation in Nairobi.

MRnotlob606

i do not accept that religion is the fault,its human ignorance

DrumSteve

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

i do not accept that religion is the fault,its human ignorance

To paraphrase,"All it takes for good men to do evil things, is religion"

o1s1n

bumper234 wrote: »

And being overshadowed by the tragic situation in Nairobi.

When it comes to which horrible incident gets more coverage, the one where gunmen are going around a shopping centre executing people is always going to get more than a suicide bomber.

It doesn't come down to fatality rate but rather the one which is more uncommon will get more people tuning in/buying papers.

bumper234

o1s1n wrote: »

When it comes to which horrible incident gets more coverage, the one where gunmen are going around a shopping centre executing people is always going to get more than a suicide bomber.

It doesn't come down to fatality rate but rather the one which is more uncommon will get more people tuning in/buying papers.

Plus westerners killed in Nairobi.

seamus

o1s1n wrote: »

When it comes to which horrible incident gets more coverage, the one where gunmen are going around a shopping centre executing people is always going to get more than a suicide bomber.

It doesn't come down to fatality rate but rather the one which is more uncommon will get more people tuning in/buying papers.

bumper234 wrote: »

Plus westerners killed in Nairobi.

Yeah, it's a bit of both.
When you see extremists blowing up their own countrymen, people obviously abhor it, but it's seen as an internal conflict, and war is ****. And it's probably a reprisal attack for something that had been done to the extremists.
And you think, "Well I would never be there, I'm neither a local nor a member of that religion. That's the kind of thing that happens to other people".

But then you have the thing in Kenya, which is a fairly discriminate attack on non-Muslims in a relatively westernised country in a non-sectarian setting. And you think, "I could be one of those people. I could foreseeably be on holidays in Kenya, just minding my own business shopping, and be killed by extremists". And people connect with that fear, and so it becomes more newsworthy.

meemeemee

Perhaps there is such a thing as "News Fatigue". In the same way that murder has appeared to have become more commonplace, and less likely to capture the public's attention unless it is a child, an attractive young woman, a policeman or involving a level of drama and intriugue; similarly post Band Aid / Live Aid the images of African famine victims no longer seemed to shock, and charities found it harder to get people to donate, there are certain horrific stores which happen so often, and appear to be so commonplace that after the initial big coverage, the public almost become desensitized and no longer are shocked by such events that either the coverage of similar events falls further down the news agenda, until it is relegated to a news in brief, or the public tend to turn the page or not take too much interest.

The bombings in Iraq with dozens killed, did used to attract greater coverage. But so many have happened that unless their is something "out of the ordinary" about them, such as the significance of a particular victim, or a particular location, they seem to pass the media by.

In Pakistan the murder and persecution of Christians seems so regular that unless it is carnage on the level of what happened over the weekend, these incidents hardly make the news.

I guess some people who don't like "offend others" might not like the link posted below, which is a chronological list of particular incidents, but it certainly gives food for thought. Given the alleged loss of life documented in certain events, I was amazed how little coverage I had seen of certain events. For example 161 people killed in Nigeria last week.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks

ScumLord

PirateShampoo wrote: »

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the human race when we can inflict so much pain and suffering upon each other over what a 2000 year old book says.

The way we are progressing I can imagine in another 2000 years (if we make it that far) it will be Harry Potter followers going toe to toe with the cult of Twilight all because cult of Potter killed Twilight's god in the 3rd book.

2000 years ago, slavery, women property, constant tribal violence. By all accounts in another 2000 years we'll all be gandhi's. As science and understanding takes over people are getting much nicer to each other.

bumper234 wrote: »

I wish those men who years ago wrote the bible and the quaran could see the trouble their words have caused. If they could see the mayhem and murder and heartache they have caused for billions of people over thousands of years would they still write them?

After the quran got spread initially there was a time of peace and learning brought on by that book. While we now live in a world where two religions are at loggerheads with each other, two sides is probably an improvement on hundreds of different cults that all hated each others believes. Isn't that an improvement?

This is basic, ignorant, old school, tribal hatred using idealistic views to justify their actions. The only difference between this violence and what happened 2000 years ago is the weapons involved.

meemeemee

Two religions are NOT at loggerheads with each other. That sort of cultural relativism falls into the hands of some of the protagonists and they sympathisers.

No, a worryingly large number of followers of ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION is very much at loggerheads with everybody and everything which is not their religion.

The attitudes, the discrimination, the antagonism, the terrorism are pretty much the same in various hotspots all over the world, all that differs is the victims of this behavior. Christians in one place, Hindus in another, Bhuddists in another, Sihks in another, Jews in another, people of no particular religion but a certain lifestyle in another, and where there are no people of other religions, a massive amount of infighting between the two major flavours of that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION.

To suggest the problems we are seeing in Pakistan is two religions are at loggerheads with each other is really slanderous.

BlaasForRafa

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

i do not accept that religion is the fault,its human ignorance

Religion IS human ignorance.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

Two religions are NOT at loggerheads with each other. That sort of cultural relativism falls into the hands of some of the protagonists and they sympathisers.

No, a worryingly large number of followers of ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION is very much at loggerheads with everybody and everything which is not their religion.
The attitudes, the discrimination, the antagonism, the terrorism are pretty much the same in various hotspots all over the world, all that differs is the victims of this behavior. Christians in one place, Hindus in another, Bhuddists in another, Sihks in another, Jews in another, people of no particular religion but a certain lifestyle in another, and where there are no people of other religions, a massive amount of infighting between the two major flavours of that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION.
.

So Buddhist persecution of muslims in Burma, and Christians Muslims and (in the main) Hindu Tamils in Sria Lank don't go on?

Hindus don't attack Christians and Muslims.....?

ScumLord

meemeemee wrote: »

No, a worryingly large number of followers of ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION is very much at loggerheads with everybody and everything which is not their religion.

I'm sure that people in the middle east see this conflict as Christians from the west coming over to their land (again) and telling them what to do. It's not just a case of us going over there either, our culture is invading theirs and their fighting it. Just like the Irish Catholic establishment tried to fight off international influences invading Irish culture.

The middle east is changing and that kind of change can cause turmoil.

meemeemee

The OP was clearly making a reference two the same two religions.

All sorts of things happen in all sorts of places.

But ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to be statistically over represented in all sorts of activity in all sorts of parts of the world. There is something about this particular religion that seems to find it in conflict with every other religion, and no religion, and between sects, in a way that no other religion is. It could start a fight in an empty room.

But carry on, maybe you have a nice anecdote about "The Crusades".

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

But ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to be statistically over represented in all sorts of activity in all sorts of parts of the world. There is something about this particular religion that seems to find it in conflict with every other religion, and no religion, and between sects, in a way that no other religion is. It could start a fight in an empty room.

.

You presented a list that details only "muslim" violence - hardly an unbiased look or means by which to make an informed decision.

Secondly it includes incidents from the occupied territories, most of which are political in nature so it doesn't seem to be pushed about motivation, but whether or not muslims were involved (not to mention no links to sources).

ScumLord

meemeemee wrote: »

The OP was clearly making a reference two the same two religions.

All sorts of things happen in all sorts of places.

But ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to be statistically over represented in all sorts of activity in all sorts of parts of the world. There is something about this particular religion that seems to find it in conflict with every other religion, and no religion, and between sects, in a way that no other religion is. It could start a fight in an empty room.

But carry on, maybe you have a nice anecdote about "The Crusades".

You don't have to look to the crusades, just look at Ireland in the fifties. Christians started two of the biggest wars in history killing millions. You could see WW2 as a religious war in some senses because the Nazi's wanted to go back to a pagan religion and rewrite history altogether.

You can't expect these people to act any differently to the new global culture than we did. America and Europe had to be dragged into the modern world kicking and screaming. It's only through things like mass media and the internet that we've been able to educate ourselves enough to let go of religious superstitions. These are things these people are denied.

meemeemee

I provided a link to a site which details predominantly murder.

Interestingly enough, the biggest Islamofacist terrorist atrocity of recent years happened in Nigeria last week, and neither RTE or or the major broadsheets reported on the Islamofacist terrorist group Boko Haram murdering 161 people. ( I don't know how this was political, as they stopped cars on a major road, so it was completely random ). Astoundingly, only the BBC, Reauters and Al Jazeera seem to have reported it. But it is a good example of how certain behavior has become so commonplace it hardly makes the news anymore.

I also mentioned attitudes, the discrimination, the antagonism. These are harder to document. But I have seen plenty of examples first hand.

I took issue with the poster suggesting TWO religions are at loggerheads, and I stand by it.

I also stand by the fact that ONE PARTICULAR RELGION finds itself wildly statistically overrepresented in all sorts of inter community conflict, regardless of geographic location or the identity of the other parties.

ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to have a particular problem living in relative peace with others.

meemeemee

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't have to look to the crusades, just look at Ireland in the fifties. Christians started two of the biggest wars in history killing millions. You could see WW2 as a religious war in some senses .

I mentioned the Crusades, because many apologists for Islamofacism and Islamofacist terrorism will attempt to draw attention to the Crusades as a way to "explain" or "rationalise" the behavior of Islamofacist terrorists.

WW2 may have been started by "Christians" but it was not a religious war.

Meanwhile the stated aim of many modern day Islamofacist terrorist groups, such as The Taliban in Afghatistan and Pakistan, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Boko Haram in Nigeria and many, many more, make it quite clear what their aims are. They are engaged in Jihad, a Holy War, to enforce Islam upon populations and deal with unbelievers, who may indeed be Muslims, just not the right sort of Muslims.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

I provided a link to a site which details predominantly murder. .

Yes, and presented it as some sort of proof of Islam's violence, despite (1) it making no differentiation between the political and religious (2) it providing no comparative data and (3) its lack of sources for what it does show.

meemeemee wrote: »

Interestingly enough, the biggest Islamofacist terrorist atrocity of recent years happened in Nigeria last week, and neither RTE or or the major broadsheets reported on the Islamofacist terrorist group Boko Haram murdering 161 people. ( I don't know how this was political, as they stopped cars on a major road, so it was completely random ). Astoundingly, only the BBC, Reauters and Al Jazeera seem to have reported it. But it is a good example of how certain behavior has become so commonplace it hardly makes the news anymore..

I don't recall anyone saying it was, funny enough.

meemeemee wrote: »

I also mentioned attitudes, the discrimination, the antagonism. These are harder to document. But I have seen plenty of examples first hand...

Attitudes, discrimination and antagonism are hardly unique to Islam. Anecdotes aren't really of any interest.

meemeemee wrote: »

I took issue with the poster suggesting TWO religions are at loggerheads, and I stand by it....

A number of religions and sects are at loggerheads in a number of different areas for different reasons, some entirely religious, some not.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

I mentioned the Crusades, because many apologists for Islamofacism and Islamofacist terrorism will attempt to draw attention to the Crusades as a way to "explain" or "rationalise" the behavior of Islamofacist terrorists.

WW2 may have been started by "Christians" but it was not a religious war.

Meanwhile the stated aim of many modern day Islamofacist terrorist groups, such as The Taliban in Afghatistan and Pakistan, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Boko Haram in Nigeria and many, many more, make it quite clear what their aims are. They are engaged in Jihad, a Holy War, to enforce Islam upon populations and deal with unbelievers, who may indeed be Muslims, just not the right sort of Muslims.

...which would normally be key to somebody realising that they shouldn't generalise about a billion or so people.

meemeemee

A number of religions and sects are at loggerheads in a number of different areas for different reasons, some entirely religious, some not.

CORRECT

It is just that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION is wildly over represented.

wp_rathead

Nodin wrote: »

...which would normally be key to somebody realising that they shouldn't generalise about a billion or so people.

...ah sure that be no fun for him Nodin

meemeemee

Show me where I generalised about a billion or so people. Thanks.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

A number of religions and sects are at loggerheads in a number of different areas for different reasons, some entirely religious, some not.

CORRECT

It is just that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION is wildly over represented.

...that isn't proven. Secondly, just because there is conflict it isn't necessarily religion that's the root cause.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

Show me where I generalised about a billion or so people. Thanks.

This link, in the context of that post.....

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks

But ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to be statistically over represented in all
sorts of activity in all sorts of parts of the world. There is something about
this particular religion that seems to find it in conflict with every other
religion, and no religion, and between sects, in a way that no other religion
is. It could start a fight in an empty room.

I also stand by the fact that ONE PARTICULAR RELGION finds itself wildly
statistically overrepresented in all sorts of inter community conflict,
regardless of geographic location or the identity of the other parties.

ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION seems to have a particular problem living in relative peace with others.

ScumLord

meemeemee wrote: »

Meanwhile the stated aim of many modern day Islamofacist terrorist groups, such as The Taliban in Afghatistan and Pakistan, the Janjaweed in Sudan, Boko Haram in Nigeria and many, many more, make it quite clear what their aims are. They are engaged in Jihad, a Holy War, to enforce Islam upon populations and deal with unbelievers, who may indeed be Muslims, just not the right sort of Muslims.

It's not a very realistic goal, only an idiot or someone's who's clueless could ever believe they'd succeed. I think like with the IRA, Al Qaeda have found that the terrorism business is very profitable, running guns and drugs is a big earner. Their terrorist attacks are ineffective at doing anything other than killing innocent people, they have no coherent demands so I think like with organised crime they are profiteering out of their black market dealings and using their terrorist attacks as a publicity campaign to spread fear of their brand. They have little interest in their religion other than abusing it for cannon fodder.

I don't think those people represent Muslims, but they are jumping on general anger just like them socialist groups in Ireland tag themselves onto the tail end of any protest marches.

meemeemee

One particular religion is not over represented ?

Were we to list all the conflicts in the world to day, from national wars to civil wars to violent intercommunal strife to local spats, I think we might see one particular religion popping up with more frequency than others. Which would suggest a certain degree of over representation.

As we have seen in a conflict in Ireland, politics and identity was the root cause, not religion.

However, in far too many places in the world today, where there is conflict, certain protagonists are taking advantage of modern methods of communication, to state in their own words, that their religion is their cause. And in the instances where that ocours, one particular religion is over represented.

Nodin

meemeemee wrote: »

One particular religion is not over represented ?

.............

That's not proven.

meemeemee

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not a very realistic goal, only an idiot or someone's who's clueless could ever believe they'd succeed.

What about a religious nutjob ?

An uneducated religious nutjob ? Whose only education has come from religious nutjobs ?

One who is indoctrinated to believe that his death would secure his entry into paradise.

One who has learned the myriad words for martyrdom, and who celebrates and hero worships the "martyrs" who have gone before him.

Perhaps he will even have 72 virgins ?

The IRA was not about religion. The clue is in name. Irish Republican Army. You might wish to suggest some religious motivation, but they named themselves after their objective.

Various Islamofacist terror groups invoke their religion, or their god, or their prophet, or their religious objective into their name. You can probably not get more straightforward than that.

Boko Haram variously means a permutation on Western Culture is Islamically Forbidden.

ScumLord

meemeemee wrote: »

Were we to list all the conflicts in the world to day, from national wars to civil wars to violent intercommunal strife to local spats, I think we might see one particular religion popping up with more frequency than others.

Africa?

Nodin

ScumLord wrote: »

Africa?

Happy Kwanzaa.

meemeemee

Africa?

Sorry, I dont understand.

Amirani

What point are you trying to make exactly meemeemee? For what purpose are you pointing out these supposed "facts"?

meemeemee

The last 7 days has seen some appalling terrorist atrocities, leaving over 500 dead, across a number of countries.

On this thread one of those atrocities was being discussed.

A poster suggested that, and to paraphrase, that "Two religions were at loggerheads".

I dont subscribe to that point of view. It is clear there is more to it than that. So I took up the discussion.

A mixture of "Facts" and "Opinions" are what are generally used when you take up a discussion.

Tombo2001

Terry1985 wrote: »

More morality porn for AH...

what do you propose?

Tombo2001

NiallSparky wrote: »

What point are you trying to make exactly meemeemee? For what purpose are you pointing out these supposed "facts"?

Very interesting that just one poster on this forum seems to have any clue what they are talking about.....and everyone else just starts laying into him/her....

meemeemee is quite right about a few supposed facts......the Nigerian atrocity is a major one, and I for one had heard nothing about it despite hearing several news bulletins on the radio over recent days, and checking the guardian/ rte.ie and irishtimes.ie regularly.

Frank Lee Midere

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Very interesting that just one poster on this forum seems to have any clue what they are talking about.....and everyone else just starts laying into him/her....

meemeemee is quite right about a few supposed facts......the Nigerian atrocity is a major one, and I for one had heard nothing about it despite hearing several news bulletins on the radio over recent days, and checking the guardian/ rte.ie and irishtimes.ie regularly.

Yes. Remarkable radio silence.