Sri Lanka Bombings 150+ dead

James Brown

Danzy wrote: »

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

It's horrendous nonsense but it has powerful backing.

How many hats do you get out a roll of tinfoil these days?

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

It's a load of crap though. It's overly sensitive privileged folk lapping up ignorant propaganda. People fear change and accepting the world evolves and Bunny Carr isn't hosting Quick Silver anymore, well it frightens them. 'Maybe it we halt anything new things might stay the same' kind of thinking.

Zorya

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I do understand what you are saying and I appreciate that you replied in a measured way One usually expects ones throat to be savaged on this site!

But I don't see how your idea of non-manipulation of reaction is playing out evenly in the world at the moment. There is already a clash of civilisations going on - has been for some time - and it is horrifying. But it is being spun by the media and many other forces already. And constantly.

To take your idea of the danger of forces manipulating - which I agree with, but think is on many sides, with many angles, not just one - to its ultimate implication or conclusion then, do you think that the religion of any people targeted specifically should not be mentioned, be they Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, whatever, or is it only the religion of only some groups that should not be mentioned? Do you think that the way the massacre of Muslims was covered was inflammatory by using the word Muslims or Islam? Or is only the use of the depiction Christian inflammatory? In the North - which I have lived alongside for decades - should the different sectarian groups not be mentioned in the reports of killings to avoid a manipulation of reaction? If we apply such circumspection to one group, then surely it must apply to all?

volchitsa

I haven't time to go into this in detail just now, (need to get some work done) but one quick point is that you seem to have missed where I said that it was absolutely appropriate to mention that Christians were specifically targeted.

I wasn't saying that there should be censorship, I was saying that each of us needs to be responsible and not allow ourselves to fall into that dangerously easy "us and them" simplification of what is a complex issue. Precisely because the truly evil people behind the killings want us to react in that way, and because it is seductively easy to do so, and terribly dangerous.

Amd you're still actually trying to explain why we should do it anyway. But we shouldn't. It can get worse, you know, it really can.

Cienciano

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Complain all you want, but expect to be called out on your bullshít. In a thread about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds in Sri Lanka, the real victim is the white middle class "catholic" people in countries like Ireland because a couple of bad men like Obama didn't say the word "Christian" in a tweet, and a newspaper article used a phrase you didn't like. It's pathetic to be honest.

Gimme A Pound

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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



Is Rudolph part of your faith? We're talking Christmas here not the rosary.
You really need to understand, Israel is a place with a regime. Jews are a people of a particular faith. Israel is not even the equivalent of Vatican city. Cop on.

Huh? The Christian component of Christmas is obviously nothing to do with Santa or Rudolph.

Incidentally, the Santa and Rudolph side to Christmas is secular and inclusive of anyone.

I don't know if the "Easter worshippers" thing means anything when there were people of various beliefs affected but you have done what people are talking about - dismissed aspects of Christianity as shyte, while stating those of other religions should be respected.

jmayo

Cienciano wrote: »

Complain all you want, but expect to be called out on your bullsh In a thread about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds in Sri Lanka, the real victim is the white middle class "catholic" people in countries like Ireland because a couple of bad men like Obama didn't say the word "Christian" in a tweet, and a newspaper article used a phrase you didn't like. It's pathetic to be honest.

Don't come that shyte.
Typical disingenuous shyte is to be expected from posters of your mindset.

I have never said the victim is anything other than poor people slaughtered be they christian, buddhist, hindu, sikh or muslim.

On the other hand your fellow thinkers were very quick to start pedaling that muslims would be victims of this because the blame would be left at the door of muslims.

I didn't hear you labeling those posters any fooking thing or challenging them.

All we ever fooking hear is how muslims are victims.

Well they often are, but it isn't due to bad evil white men or western men, but more often than not because of fellow muslims.

I, and others, have continously called out the craven attitude when it comes to one particular religion and the double standards adopted when speaking about it in comparison to other religions.

And yes CNN and Fox and other news outlets did mention christians when it came to labeling one of the primary targets of these attacks, but an ex US president, an ex Us secretary of state did not, but hid behind the crapology of Easter celebrants or some such nonsense.

El_Bee

wow the Islamic extremist apologists are out in force today. Remember the Crusades guys and Christchurch (even though an attack of this magnitude would have been in planning way before the NZ attack took place, it's part of the official narrative now so stop questioning you racists).

MrFresh

El_Bee wrote: »

wow the Islamic extremist apologists are out in force today. Remember the Crusades guys and Christchurch (even though an attack of this magnitude would have been in planning way before the NZ attack took place, it's part of the official narrative now so stop questioning you racists).

Could you quote a post you consider to be apologist for extremism?

DelaneyIn

The two brothers that committed this atrocity were from wealthy backgrounds. The house where the wife blew herself and 2 children up when the Police raided was worth £1 million. They had the opportunity to study in Europe and in Australia; one of them had a law degree. This is the level of commitment that these people have. One common thread tying all Muslims together is their utmost fundamental belief that they are so much better than every non Muslim and they genuinely believe that one day Islam will control a world where every non Muslim has to be subservient to them.

It’s a scary ideology.

donaghs

Cienciano wrote: »

Complain all you want, but expect to be called out on your bullshít. In a thread about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds in Sri Lanka, the real victim is the white middle class "catholic" people in countries like Ireland because a couple of bad men like Obama didn't say the word "Christian" in a tweet, and a newspaper article used a phrase you didn't like. It's pathetic to be honest.

Nice distraction. But the point still remains that this was an attack which targeted Christians. Same as the 2016 Easter bombings in Pakistan. Avoiding mentioning this is avoiding the truth, and the truth about this radical Islamic ideology. Other non-Christians died, but this is of little concern to them, as long as they can reach their primary target.

Same as the Islamic attacks as Sikhs in Germany. They were targeted because they were Sikhs. You can't stop this sort of thing without understanding what it is.

WinnyThePoo

Cienciano wrote: »

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Complain all you want, but expect to be called out on your bullshít. In a thread about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds in Sri Lanka, the real victim is the white middle class "catholic" people in countries like Ireland because a couple of bad men like Obama didn't say the word "Christian" in a tweet, and a newspaper article used a phrase you didn't like. It's pathetic to be honest.

Well said.
Its important to call out irrational nonsense like that.

Mad_maxx

volchitsa wrote: »

I haven't time to go into this in detail just now, (need to get some work done) but one quick point is that you seem to have missed where I said that it was absolutely appropriate to mention that Christians were specifically targeted.

I wasn't saying that there should be censorship, I was saying that each of us needs to be responsible and not allow ourselves to fall into that dangerously easy "us and them" simplification of what is a complex issue. Precisely because the truly evil people behind the killings want us to react in that way, and because it is seductively easy to do so, and terribly dangerous.

Amd you're still actually trying to explain why we should do it anyway. But we shouldn't. It can get worse, you know, it really can.

How do you know know what IS " wants us to do"?

riffmongous

DelaneyIn wrote: »

. One common thread tying all Muslims together is their utmost fundamental belief that they are so much better than every non Muslim and they genuinely believe that one day Islam will control a world where every non Muslim has to be subservient to them.

It’s a scary ideology.

Nonsense, I'm guessing you don't know many muslims in real life

jmayo

donaghs wrote: »

Nice distraction. But the point still remains that this was an attack which targeted Christians. Same as the 2016 Easter bombings in Pakistan. Avoiding mentioning this is avoiding the truth, and the truth about this radical Islamic ideology. Other non-Christians died, but this is of little concern to them, as long as they can reach their primary target.

Same as the Islamic attacks as Sikhs in Germany. They were targeted because they were Sikhs. You can't stop this sort of thing without understanding what it is.

The usual whatabouterys love the distraction because it takes away from the salient point that once again islamist fanatics went out and slaughtered innocent men, women and children.

Of course the usual refrain is "not all muslims" or it has nothing to do with islam at all.

And then it is rinse and repeat.

Of course every now and then you get an equally vicious despicable attack from right wing nutjobs like Christchurch or Quebec and the ones distinctly absent from this thread are out blaming all of us "islamaphobes" i.e. people who can actually see islam as a disturbingly incompatable backwards ideology.

How come these people can see the wrongs with right wing christians, right wing hindus, orthodox jews, right wing athesists, but not with a sizable proportion of muslims ?

Danzy

Middle class and up followers of a religion tend to study it in greater depth.

Poor people often just have time to pray, not go deep in to Mohameds command or example.

RobertKK

I said I would not post here on AH so apologies but I feel this needs to be said.
But what happened in Sri Lanka to Christians in their place of worship and to hotels to attack the tourists and the tourist industry is something every decent person condemns and mourns, and which is really brought home when we see pictures of the victims and hear stories of those who needlessly lost their lives.

I listened to Maajid Nawaz on LBC radio earlier this week when he was presenting the James O'Brien show on Monday which was a public holiday.
He spent an hour talking about Christians being persecuted around the world. He spoke with compassion and condemnation of it and how it needs to be fought. He spoke as a Muslim.
I think it is very unfair when people throw everyone into the same bracket for whatever because they might have one thing in common with someone else.Then look at the worst aspect and label everyone with the worst aspect as it everyone operates off a hive mind operated by the person with the worst intentions.
Everyone is different, yes we know there are extremists in the Muslim community, but I would argue there are far more decent people who don't want extremism and like most people just want to get on with their lives and want to see the lives of those around them to be peaceful too.

I noticed a number of Democrats in the US used the terms "Easter worshippers and tourists' together as if they received some message in how to respond. They responded unlike some of our own political figures.
That said the people in the churches were not 'worshipping Easter' which 'Easter worshippers' suggests. They were celebrating Easter, as in the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, rather than worshipping they were celebrating the holiest day in the Christian calendar. A church is a place of worship of God the father, the son and holy spirit. It is also a place where certain significant events in the Christian calendar or the life of a Christian are celebrated.
'Christians celebrating Easter' would be the correct term for those who died in the churches, no one in those churches were worshipping Easter.

MrFresh

RobertKK wrote: »

I said I would not post here on AH so apologies but I feel this needs to be said.
But what happened in Sri Lanka to Christians in their place of worship and to hotels to attack the tourists and the tourist industry is something every decent person condemns and mourns, and which is really brought home when we see pictures of the victims and hear stories of those who needlessly lost their lives.

I listened to Maajid Nawaz on LBC radio earlier this week when he was presenting the James O'Brien show on Monday which was a public holiday.
He spent an hour talking about Christians being persecuted around the world. He spoke with compassion and condemnation of it and how it needs to be fought. He spoke as a Muslim.
I think it is very unfair when people throw everyone into the same bracket for whatever because they might have one thing in common with someone else.Then look at the worst aspect and label everyone with the worst aspect as it everyone operates off a hive mind operated by the person with the worst intentions.
Everyone is different, yes we know there are extremists in the Muslim community, but I would argue there are far more decent people who don't want extremism and like most people just want to get on with their lives and want to see the lives of those around them to be peaceful too.

I noticed a number of Democrats in the US used the terms "Easter worshippers and tourists' together as if they received some message in how to respond. They responded unlike some of our own political figures.
That said the people in the churches were not 'worshipping Easter' which 'Easter worshippers' suggests. They were celebrating Easter, as in the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, rather than worshipping they were celebrating the holiest day in the Christian calendar. A church is a place of worship of God the father, the son and holy spirit. It is also a place where certain significant events in the Christian calendar or the life of a Christian are celebrated.
'Christians celebrating Easter' would be the correct term for those who died in the churches, no one in those churches were worshipping Easter.

They were Easter worshipers in that they were worshiping at Easter, not because they were worshiping Easter itself. You seem to be of an opinion that that phrase somehow acts to reduce their Christianity when it really enhances the fact that they were innocent people attacked at their most holy of days. It's baffling why ye are choosing to read so much into the phrase. They same emphasis would be put on Ramadan and Passover, and has been in the past.

WinnyThePoo

jmayo wrote: »

donaghs wrote: »

Nice distraction. But the point still remains that this was an attack which targeted Christians. Same as the 2016 Easter bombings in Pakistan. Avoiding mentioning this is avoiding the truth, and the truth about this radical Islamic ideology. Other non-Christians died, but this is of little concern to them, as long as they can reach their primary target.

Same as the Islamic attacks as Sikhs in Germany. They were targeted because they were Sikhs. You can't stop this sort of thing without understanding what it is.

The usual whatabouterys love the distraction because it takes away from the salient point that once again islamist fanatics went out and slaughtered innocent men, women and children.

Of course the usual refrain is "not all muslims" or it has nothing to do with islam at all.

And then it is rinse and repeat.

Of course every now and then you get an equally vicious despicable attack from right wing nutjobs like Christchurch or Quebec and the ones distinctly absent from this thread are out blaming all of us "islamaphobes" i.e. people who can actually see islam as a disturbingly incompatable backwards ideology.

How come these people can see the wrongs with right wing christians, right wing hindus, orthodox jews, right wing athesists, but not with a sizable proportion of muslims ?

So many strawmans in one post. Also hilariously using the hive mind myth which has no place in reality.

Fun fact: the majority of people on the ground fighting isis are Muslims.

RobertKK

MrFresh wrote: »

They were Easter worshipers in that they were worshiping at Easter, not because they were worshiping Easter itself. You seem to be of an opinion that that phrase somehow acts to reduce their Christianity when it really enhances the fact that they were innocent people attacked at their most holy of days. It's baffling why ye are choosing to read so much into the phrase. They same emphasis would be put on Ramadan and Passover, and has been in the past.

I am just pointing out the incorrect term was used as the people were not worshipping Easter, they were celebrating it in the churches.
I just think the correct term should be used, we should not aim to make people ignorant by using the wrong word to say what these people who lost their lives were doing in the churches.
They were there to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, not worship it.

Grayson

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

So many strawmans in one post. Also hilariously using the hive mind myth which has no place in reality.

Fun fact: the majority of people on the ground fighting isis are Muslims.

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

Zorya

RobertKK wrote: »

I listened to Maajid Nawaz on LBC radio earlier this week when he was presenting the James O'Brien show on Monday which was a public holiday.
He spent an hour talking about Christians being persecuted around the world. He spoke with compassion and condemnation of it and how it needs to be fought. He spoke as a Muslim.
I think it is very unfair when people throw everyone into the same bracket for whatever because they might have one thing in common with someone else.Then look at the worst aspect and label everyone with the worst aspect as it everyone operates off a hive mind operated by the person with the worst intentions.


'Christians celebrating Easter' would be the correct term for those who died in the churches, no one in those churches were worshipping Easter.

Maajid Nawaz works specifically to counter extremism in his own religion of Islam, via Quilliam. He is a former islamist who spent time in prison for his own activities and saw the error of his ways. He also says that the justifiable criticism of Islam should not be labelled Islamophobia. He criticises the default position of liberals who are loathe to be culturally insensitive because he says this enables radicalisation of Muslim youth. And so on. he is an unusual voice in Islam.

Certainly the people massacred in church should have been referred to as Christians celebrating Easter. The other phrase is some kind of pagan depiction.

Zorya

Grayson wrote: »

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

The majority of innocent people killed by terrorists worldwide are Muslims, and the vast majority of those terrorists are Muslims themselves.
The massacres in Sri lanka was the biggest massacre of civilians outside of a war zone since 9/11. It should be treated with direct language.

jmayo

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Fun fact: the majority of people on the ground fighting isis are Muslims.

Grayson wrote: »

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

No one is arguing that.
The vast majority of people killed by muslim extremists are fellow muslims.

Often because they are wrong shade of muslim for the extremists.

The vast majority of people living under the oppressive yoke of islam are muslims. Others tend to get to hell out.

And I am not just talking about the sharp most recent and fundamentalist ISIS or Boko Haram, but all the others like Al-Shabaab, al-qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas right on down to those following Wahhabist doctrine.

The thing is a sizable very well funded cohort of muslims want to spread that oppression.
It is very evident in Europe and the mask slipped in Ireland when Ali Selim openly spoke of what they would like in future.

Hell one poster mentioned how their partner, even though really non believer he has to go practice otherwise he would be in big trouble.
And this is in what a lot use as an example of a more enlightened democratic muslim country.
Look where Turkey is going.

What is often thrown out as a moderate friendly face of islam would have views akin to members of The Free Presbyterian church members or Opus Dei.
Sometimes a lot worse actually.

People make fun of those last two, but dare not say anything against those of islam with a backward view.

DelaneyIn

Grayson wrote: »

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

Simply because there are very few non Muslims in the regions ISIS were concentrated in. They were mostly driven out or killed well beforehand.

WinnyThePoo

jmayo wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Fun fact: the majority of people on the ground fighting isis are Muslims.

Grayson wrote: »

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

No one is arguing that.
The vast majority of people killed by muslim extremists are fellow muslims.

Often because they are wrong shade of muslim for the extremists.

The vast majority of people living under the oppressive yoke of islam are muslims. Others tend to get to hell out.

And I am not just talking about the sharp most recent and fundamentalist ISIS or Boko Haram, but all the others like Al-Shabaab, al-qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas right on down to those following Wahhabist doctrine.

The thing is a sizable very well funded cohort of muslims want to spread that oppression.
It is very evident in Europe and the mask slipped in Ireland when Ali Selim openly spoke of what they would like in future.

Hell one poster mentioned how their partner, even though really non believer he has to go practice otherwise he would be in big trouble.
And this is in what a lot use as an example of a more enlightened democratic muslim country.
Look where Turkey is going.

What is often thrown out as a moderate friendly face of islam would have views akin to members of The Free Presbyterian church members or Opus Dei.
Sometimes a lot worse actually.

People make fun of those last two, but dare not say anything against those of islam with a backward view.

You think Muslims are going to take over Europe. That is laughable.

No one wants extremists. They are always in the minority.

There is not going to be an invasion. There is not going to be sharia law allowed on this island.

Grayson

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Simply because there are very few non Muslims in the regions ISIS were concentrated in. They were mostly driven out or killed well beforehand.

except there were people like the yazadi there.

Mad_maxx

jmayo wrote: »

The usual whatabouterys love the distraction because it takes away from the salient point that once again islamist fanatics went out and slaughtered innocent men, women and children.

Of course the usual refrain is "not all muslims" or it has nothing to do with islam at all.

And then it is rinse and repeat.

Of course every now and then you get an equally vicious despicable attack from right wing nutjobs like Christchurch or Quebec and the ones distinctly absent from this thread are out blaming all of us "islamaphobes" i.e. people who can actually see islam as a disturbingly incompatable backwards ideology.

How come these people can see the wrongs with right wing christians, right wing hindus, orthodox jews, right wing athesists, but not with a sizable proportion of muslims ?

Muslims are a sacred cow of the PC Left, Christians aren't

Mad_maxx

Grayson wrote: »

And the majority of people being killed by ISIS are muslims.

A fact with no value of any kind yet a dopey line trotted out by liberals ad nauseum

Stalins victims were overwhelmingly Soviet yet the risk to Western Europe was no less because of that fact

Complete red herring

James Brown

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Muslims are a sacred cow of the PC Left, Christians aren't

Who is this PC left and if they control so much how do we have any billionaires and the likes of Fox and Trump?

WinnyThePoo

Nonsense. I get it makes you angry that Muslims are on the front line fighting isis.. That must terribly confuse you.