Sri Lanka Bombings 150+ dead

Sweetemotion

dreamliner wrote: »

Danzy wrote: »

Not at all an accurate comparison.

An accurate comparison would've been calling them 'friday worshippers' - which to be fair they often are called that!

Anyway is this really a relevant topic? 300+ people are blown to bits and we're talking about a term some papers did or didn't use? Talk about missing the point

I have to say, I didn't see one article about the NZ shootings mention the victims as "Friday worshipers".

riffmongous

The guy who posted it here was just wumming, clear as day. It's pretty disrespectful to the victims but well so is it here

Danzy

riffmongous wrote: »

The guy who posted it here was just wumming, clear as day. It's pretty disrespectful to the victims but well so is it here

He didn't come up with.

Odhinn

Danzy wrote: »

He didn't come up with.

It's nonsense, regardless of the origin.

bilston

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Reckon that's a bit of a cop-out, can't see something like this being organised in 5 weeks or whatever its been. Surely something this organised would take months?

Yeah thought that myself.

There are claims the Sri Lankans are trying to deflect criticism of their failure to act on intelligence.

riclad

i looked at video,s on daily mail uk, today theres security video of a man walking into a hotel getting onto a lift with a large backpack on.
Maybe pubs, church,s hotels need to employ security at the doors,
front entrance at least in certain countrys .
and search anyone who is carrying a large bag or a backpack
before they enter the building.

Danzy

Odhinn wrote: »

It's nonsense, regardless of the origin.

Obama, Clinton and a slew of global liberal and left leaning influencers.

It's horrendous nonsense but it has powerful backing.

riffmongous

Danzy wrote: »

He didn't come up with.

Yeah but he posted it here just to wind people up

Obama and Clinton are a million miles away from being left wing anyway, for whatever it's worth. Very little in this thread anyway

Snow Garden

riclad wrote: »

i looked at video,s on daily mail uk, today theres security video of a man walking into a hotel getting onto a lift with a large backpack on.
Maybe pubs, church,s hotels need to employ security at the doors,
front entrance at least in certain countries .
and search anyone who is carrying a large bag or a backpack
before they enter the building.

...or maybe we could start looking at root cause before making life so complex.
Additional security everywhere is not the solution. Where will it end? Wouldn't the terrorists find a workaround? For example what would the security man do a guy with a gun and a backpack?

Sweetemotion

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah but he posted it here just to wind people up

Obama and Clinton are a million miles away from being left wing anyway, for whatever it's worth. Very little in this thread anyway

This thread maybe small but speaks volumes of the left wing leaning posters on boards.

It's like tumble weed in here.

Snow Garden

Witchie wrote: »

I live in a predominantly Muslim country, my boyfriend is technically a Muslim but really an atheist. ( I say technically coz as an ethnic Malay he HAS to be a Muslim but he doesn't practice, just pretends so he isn't jailed!) He says that technically these bombers are doing the work of Allah and will see it as such. As I say though, thankfully the majority don't want to harm others and are happy to live side by side with us infidels.

But don't the Muslims in Malaysia have a lot more perks compared to the non-ethnic/non-Muslim Malays from China/India/Thai immigrants etc? I learned that they get better access to 3rd level education, better access to money/finance (Muslim banks etc) and its far easier to own/run a business if you are Muslim. Aren't there rules for employers on the % of Muslims employed? I know Muslim/Malays are 60%+ of the population but I believe the rest of the population are somewhat 2nd class citizens.

volchitsa

dreamliner wrote: »

Not at all an accurate comparison.

An accurate comparison would've been calling them 'friday worshippers' - which to be fair they often are called that!

Also I think the point being made was that they weren't just Sunday worshippers (which is a common and perfectly inoffensive term AFAIAA) they were there in larger numbers than usual for the biggest (or second biggest, depending) religious celebration Christianity has.

If the Christchurch attack had happened during one of the big Muslim festivals such as the end of Ramadan, would it really have been considered offensive to have referred to them as Eid Al Fitr celebrants? I think it's the opposite, it's pointing out that they were targetted.

dreamliner wrote: »

Anyway is this really a relevant topic? 300+ people are blown to bits and we're talking about a term some papers did or didn't use? Talk about missing the point

Indeed.

markodaly

So there is talk that this was in retaliation for the Christchurch Mosque attacks, but unlikely as the attack in Sri Lanka appears to be highly coordinated and would require a bit more planning than 4 weeks.

gaelwave

Remember guys it's the right wing extremists that are the real problem.

Zorya

This was a horrific attack, I have been watching occasional videos from people who were bereaved, it's beyond terrible.

There has definitely been a different response from ''world leaders'' and the media to this attack, as opposed to say the Christchurch attack, or Bataclan, or so on.

Maybe it is because the global media is western-centric? That's likely, and if so, it's a bit awkward in a supposedly globalised world.

There has been different language used, without a doubt, and this is odd. People like Clinton and Obama for example using Easter Worshippers, which is not a phrase I have heard before. People who tweeted repeatedly about Christchurch not tweeting much about this, just a general lack of the same kind of electric response such as we saw in regards to Christchurch.

I cannot see why it is racist or bigoted or conspiratorial or weird to point this out.

The social media censorship of extremist white supremacy was mooted and then pursued immediately in the wake of Christchurch - and bloody rightly so.
But there is a failure to acknowledge that for years, decades maybe even at this stage, Islamist extremists have been promoting hatred online via social media channels. There is also hate preaching going on in Mosques. The guy who inspired these dreadful attacks - Zahran Hashim - has been freely preaching hate online, including calls to kill all non-Muslims - on the usual platforms - for several years. Even though this has been known to those platforms.

Why has this not been censored?


It is time for the double standards to stop.

I condemned and condemn the dreadful slaughter of Muslims by an evil white supremacist in Christchurch. I condemn this barbaric violence and appalling massacre of Christians by Islamist jihadists.

no.8

We can't trust that this won't happen here some day in the future. A relatively small percentage of Sri Lankins are Muslim, yet look at the devastation and unrest that can make when the cancer of extremism grows (with outside assistance).
Intelligence forces will need to be on the mark for many years to come.

jiltloop

This is a really shocking and barbaric act, it's so sad to see the death toll rising further. Sri Lankans have seen more than their fair share of tragedy between the civil struggles, Tamil Tigers and the tsunami which hit them hard.

I had an amazing holiday there in 2016 and it seemed like the country was on the cusp of a new era of tourism and economic revival so it's especially hard hitting to see this happen to such a beautiful and friendly people that really deserve a break.

jmayo

gaelwave wrote: »

Remember guys it's the right wing extremists that are the real problem.

There is another thread on baords discussing anti semitism on the rise in Europe.

The usual suspects are on it, actually the same usual suspects very conspicuous in their absence on this thread, but very vocal on the thread on Christchurch.

They are very quick to tell us about how the Far Right are cause of the anti semitism on the rise and yes there is some truth to that.

But of course they rubbish or plain ignore the fact over 50,000 Jews have fled France since the turn of the century because of the rise of anti semitism from muslims.
They completely ignore the murder of Jews in France, like the murder of a holocaust survivor, the slaughter of Jews in a kosker supermarket, the killing of three kids in a Jewish school, the attacks on synagogues.

And one of the usual suspects actually showed a picture of desecrated graves in a Jewish cemetery as evidence of far right anti semitism on the rise in Eastern Europe even though it was from a cemetery north of Strasbourg and it was discovered a couple of days before an islamist terrorist attack in the city.

When poster was pulled up on this I got silence.
Obviously fake news only applies to the "right wingers". :rolleyes:

Cienciano

jmayo wrote: »

nah it is just the typical p*ss all over anything christian, particularly catholic, but don't you dare say anything bad about you know who.

Jews have also been thrown under the bus as after all, Israel. :rolleyes:

Everyone has to be a victim. White middle class "christian" men living in western countries: "We're oppressed!" Pretending to be annoyed because Obama didn't use a word you wanted to hear.

suicide_circus

"Easter Worshipers"....have these people no control over the level of Orwellian Newspeak they allow to come out of their mouths? What is the equivalent euphemism for Jews? Muslims?

jmayo

Cienciano wrote: »

Everyone has to be a victim. White middle class "christian" men living in western countries: "We're oppressed!" Pretending to be annoyed because Obama didn't use a word you wanted to hear.

Ah yes more of the typical bullcr** when people are called out on this topic.

How dare anyone complain about the way certain sectors of society are referenced nowadays by media, politicians and the muppetry usually found on social media.

And of course you have to resort to the tired barb about "white middle class christian men".
Maybe they are the ones that can see the shyteology and are prepared to call it out.
Although to be fair a large amount of middle aged women (a fair few around here even) are also seeing the shyteology coming from certain sectors.

And the laugh is most of the middle aged group are the ones that have helped create the more inclusive societies over the last decades.

suicide_circus

i dont think "Easter Worshippers" would have been called out had there not been a recent attack on Muslims in which the victims were described as Muslims. Its the double standard and clear agenda at play which irritates.

Zorya

I was just reading about it in the Daily Mail (I know, I know :rolleyes: how Plebeian of me) and there is a run down about the suspects from the Deputy Defense Minister in Sri Lanka, Ruwan Wijewardene, and from Professor Anthony Glees, the director the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at Buckingham University.

The murderers are well to do people, often wealthy, with very good educations, who likely have never seen war action. What happens to these privilieged people that they become such monsters?

Wijewardene described the bombers as middle to upper class men whose families were financially stable and said many of them held degrees.

Mr Glees, the director the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at Buckingham University, suggested the terrorist is likely to have studied at a London based university, and possibly could have completed studies in engineering or IT.

Mr Glees told MailOnline: 'I have no doubt whatsoever that the identity of this person will very soon uncovered. Everybody leaves a trail.

'MI5 know who this person is. They will be checking out where they studied, who they came into contact with, and crucially, who else was in their network.

'There are a stream of Islamist terrorists who come from higher education in the UK that are graduates, who are over represented in terrorist ranks.

'This gives you an indication of the sort of people they are, they are not homeless refugees, or unemployed, they are well educated, highly motivated, ideological fanatics, that are highly dangerous.

'This is a very significant development. It is very likely that this person would have been radicalised in the UK, or Australia.

'He may have had no personal contact with the fighting in ISIS in Syria or Iraq.

'Massive warning lights have to flash here. We can't assume this person was a jihadist from the battlefields.'

Mr Glees suggested he would have become radicalised after coming into contact with a radical preacher 'a band of brothers or sisters' that would have taken the form of 'campus associations.'

He added: 'We are likely looking at someone in the London area. This is most likely to be a London student.

'If you are in London you are close to a radical preacher. We are not talking about a quiet backwater university here.

'In my experience, the study of IT and engineering, are areas which traditionally attract the interest of people that have gone on to be Islamist terrorists.

'If you want to be a jihadist, what better education could you acquire than an IT or engineering education, to make bombs?'

Campus associations? Radical preachers radicalising foreigners in the UK? Studying their trade in the UK? It's bizarre that there has not already been a huge clamp-down on anything even remotely close to this kind of stuff.

volchitsa

Zorya wrote: »

It is time for the double standards to stop.

I condemned and condemn the dreadful slaughter of Muslims by an evil white supremacist in Christchurch. I condemn this barbaric violence and appalling massacre of Christians by Islamist jihadists.

So the Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims who were killed on Easter Sunday then - what? They don't matter? Collateral damage? Shouldn't have got in the way, is that it?

How many non Muslim civilians were killed in Christchurch? It's fair enough to say that only Muslims were the victims there, right?

That's not the case in Sri Lanka. It's absolutely fair and correct to point out that the Christian community was clearly one of the targets there. It's not correct to make out that this was a simple reprisal attack, Muslims in NZ, Christians in Sri Lanka. That's not what it was. And IMO it's playing right into the hands of people who want to plunge Sri Lanka back into another civil war to pretend that it is.

Zorya

volchitsa wrote: »

So the Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims who were killed on Easter Sunday then - what? They don't matter? Collateral damage? Shouldn't have got in the way, is that it?

How many non Muslim civilians were killed in Christchurch? It's fair enough to say that only Muslims were the victims there, right?

That's not the case in Sri Lanka. It's absolutely fair and correct to point out that the Christian community was clearly one of the targets there. It's not correct to make out that this was a simple reprisal attack, Muslims in NZ, Christians in Sri Lanka. That's not what it was. And IMO it's playing right into the hands of people who want to plunge Sri Lanka back into another civil war to pretend that it is.

I made a mistake, but intended absolutely none of the malice or mischief you imply in your post. I should have said I condemn the appalling massacre of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, and people of no-faith who were massacred by the Islamist jihadists on Easter Sunday last. I did not intend to leave out those of other faiths at all, it was not my intention. I just think that any of those world leaders/media avoiding the word Christian is disingenuous and disrespectful as this attack was focused primarily on Christian places of worship.

James Brown

Alia Billions Trolley wrote: »

Christian "shyte"? But everyone is aware when it's Christmas. That comes across as pretty mean-spirited. Would you talk about Muslim shyte or Jewish shyte? I am not religious but you're talking about decency and courtesy - why can't you afford the same to a Christian festival? (And it's still inclusive to non Christians or to atheists).

Santy Claus is hardly Lent or remembering Christ died for our sins now is it? It's shyte.

James Brown

Lackey wrote: »

Matt Barrett ..

.I already posted screen shots

Also if you google Easter worshipers there’s pages of news stories relating to the use of the term.

And I showed it wasn't all 'easter worshippers' by citing numerous news outlets. Including CNN and Fox.

volchitsa

Zorya wrote: »

I made a mistake, but intended absolutely none of the malice or mischief you imply in your post. I should have said I condemn the appalling massacre of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, and people of no-faith who were massacred by the Islamist jihadists on Easter Sunday last. I did not intend to leave out those of other faiths at all, it was not my intention. I just think that any of those world leaders/media avoiding the word Christian is disingenuous and disrespectful as this attack was focused primarily on Christian places of worship.

Oh I don't think it's deliberate, but that's exactly why it's so dangerous to allow oneself to fall into that simplistic thinking about these terrible tragedies - because it's exactly what the people behind them want and because it's terrifyingly simple to fall in behind that us vs them thinking.

I include myself in that by the way, but I grew up in the Troubles and am just old enough to have some memories of before them so perhaps that is why I am so aware of the dangers of the carnival of reaction.

It terrifies me that so many people, perhaps without my personal experience of how society can just fall apart, seem to have no notion that there is a dange of them letting themselves be manipulated by people who positively want that to happen. They seem to be queuing up to participate.

MrFresh

Hundreds murdered in churches and hotels half way around the world and the same old posters find a way to make it about how they are being attacked by the left. What kind of self centered victim complex must you have to go through the mental gymnastics required to make the phrase "Easter worshippers" an attack on your faith? Easter is the most holy part of the year for Christians. It is very relevant to the attacks just as Ramadan would be for Muslims and Passover would be for Jews.

volchitsa

Zorya wrote: »

I made a mistake, but intended absolutely none of the malice or mischief you imply in your post. I should have said I condemn the appalling massacre of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims, and people of no-faith who were massacred by the Islamist jihadists on Easter Sunday last. I did not intend to leave out those of other faiths at all, it was not my intention. I just think that any of those world leaders/media avoiding the word Christian is disingenuous and disrespectful as this attack was focused primarily on Christian places of worship.

Oh I don't think it's deliberate on your part, but that's exactly why it's so dangerous to allow oneself to fall into that simplistic thinking about these terrible tragedies - because it's exactly what the people behind them want and because it's terrifyingly simple to fall in behind that us vs them thinking.

I include myself in that by the way, but I grew up in the Troubles and am just old enough to have some memories of before them so perhaps that is why I am so aware of the dangers of the carnival of reaction.

It terrifies me that so many people, perhaps without my personal experience of how society can just fall apart, seem to have no notion that there is a dange of them letting themselves be manipulated by people and forces who positively want that to happen. So many others seem to be queuing up to help them, like marionettes.