48 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's the same as Thailand, really. All dictums are in the interests of those in power, never in the interests of those they hold power over.

This is very true. It happens all over this planet in varying degrees where beings called humans are involved. It is a fact.

Such a peace loving religion, islam !

15 hours ago, Thainesss said:

Hell of alot of christian attacks lately. I expect the same treatment and defense from liberals as they give for their muslim friends. 

 

Dont worry though, unlike the religion of peace the Christians wont be calling for revenge, beheadings, and stoning. 

Revenge, beheadings, stoning. That's so medieval. The modern path practiced and perfected by Christians is to occupy countries, massacre and exterminate indigenous people, drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations. And they do attach a noble cause for all the mass murder they commit.

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by Kasane

So apparently the talking points coming out of the American Democrat party on the Christian church massacres is calling the victims "Easter Worshippers" and refusing to acknowledge their faith or bring themselves to mention it. What the hell is an "Easter Worshipper" and "Travelers".

 

What an embarrassment, and its a clearly coordinated one. Its so weird that they got together and determined that this is how they want to frame it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several Americans now reported killed in the blast. "Easter Worshippers" apparently ????

 

 

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

So apparently the talking points coming out of the American Democrat party on the Christian church massacres is calling the victims "Easter Worshippers" and refusing to acknowledge their faith or bring themselves to mention it. What the hell is an "Easter Worshipper" and "Travelers".

 

 

Normal people understand what is meant by "Easter worshippers".  If you don't then that's your problem.

Just now, attrayant said:

 

Normal people understand what is meant by "Easter worshippers".  If you don't then that's your problem.

 

Nobody worships 'easter' and no amount of turd-polish is going to change that. Wanna see how all three addressed the NZ massacres? Hint: They addressed and acknowledged their faith directly. 

Any to whomever was so incensed that some politicians were more focused on the buildings than the people, I give you Trump:

 

 

Those poor churches and hotels.

 

I have no doubt that Trump is referring to the people, but it just shows what you can "find" if you squint hard enough.

 

 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by attrayant
deleted dup image

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Nobody worships 'easter' and no amount of turd-polish is going to change that. Wanna see how all three addressed the NZ massacres? Hint: They addressed and acknowledged their faith directly. 

Shhhh, don't tell them - let them find out the hard way at the polls that normal people are being turned away by their [Liberals] totally false narrative. THEY elected Trump.

3 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Nobody worships 'easter' and no amount of turd-polish is going to change that. Wanna see how all three addressed the NZ massacres? Hint: They addressed and acknowledged their faith directly. 

 

 

Doesn't matter.  You're being politically correct now, in asserting that we need to use specific words to coddle and comfort persecuted groups of people.  A google search for "easter worshippers" yields more than 72,000 results, so get over it.

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Those poor churches and hotels.

 

I have no doubt that Trump is referring to the people, but it just shows what you can "find" if you squint hard enough.

 

They were churches and they were hotels, and the 'million' was clearly a stupid typo. 

 

My post is a clear coordination within party lines do downplay an entire religion, while previously giving dignity and respect to muslims by mentioning them after the NZ attacks. 

 

So, no, not the same thing at all. 

19 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Normal people understand what is meant by "Easter worshippers".  If you don't then that's your problem.

 

I understand what it might mean, but it is curious that that particular turn of phrase is used. "Christians celebrating Easter" would seem more appropriate. No axe to grind here as I'm an atheist.

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I understand what it might mean, but it is curious that that particular turn of phrase is used. "Christians celebrating Easter" would seem more appropriate. No axe to grind here as I'm an atheist.

 

Not sure what the curious part is.  The vatican even uses the term "worshippers", abbreviating it even further.

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

Not sure what the curious part is.  The vatican even uses the term "worshippers", abbreviating it even further.

The Vatican would say that as they are talking about their own devotees, so mentioning that they are "Christian" would be superfluous. It was curious to me that these heavyweight Democrats would use the exact same language. Like it was a "talking point". Or, maybe I've got it wrong. Are their other religions besides Christian that also celebrate Easter? If so, maybe they spoke correctly.

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The Vatican would say that as they are talking about their own devotees, so mentioning that they are "Christian" would be superfluous. It was curious to me that these heavyweight Democrats would use the exact same language. Like it was a "talking point". Or, maybe I've got it wrong. Are their other religions besides Christian that also celebrate Easter? If so, maybe they spoke correctly.

 

It was a talking point. Its clear as day, all three mentioning that exact turn of phrase? A coincidence would be impossible.

 

And Easter is a christian holiday. For some weird reason they decided that was going to be their collective framing of the incident. 

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The Vatican would say that as they are talking about their own devotees

 

They also used "worshippers" when referring to the NZ victims, without mentioning their religion.  This is a really strange thing to want to pick-apart.  Everybody should know how to read in context.  Worshippers at a mosque are almost certainly all muslim, and easter worshippers are almost certainly all christian.  

10 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

They also used "worshippers" when referring to the NZ victims, without mentioning their religion.  This is a really strange thing to want to pick-apart.  Everybody should know how to read in context.  Worshippers at a mosque are almost certainly all muslim, and easter worshippers are almost certainly all christian.  

 

And yet no one else would characterize it in the same way. I understand that language evolves, particularly if one is speaking to an international audience, but it's not what I'd have said, nor, I'm pretty sure, many of the clergy members who I am friends with. 

 

I think it is more likely that all of these people have press liaisons who speak for them and all speak a common language.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by lannarebirth

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Worshippers at a mosque are almost certainly all muslim, and easter worshippers are almost certainly all christian.  

 

Exactly. 

 

So why did they acknowledge muslims when NZ happened, but not christians when this happened?

 

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

So why did they acknowledge muslims when NZ happened, but not christians when this happened?

 

 

Because their target audience has an average IQ that is higher than room temperature, so they were able to figure it out.  As you yourself pointed out three posts up, people understand that "Easter is a christian holiday" (your words).  That means "worshippers" is perfectly well understood in that context.  Lengthening that to "easter worshippers" is kind of a redundancy, and tacking on yet another adjective to make "christian easter worshippers" is doubly redundant.

 

Hey, if it's good enough for Fox News:

 

 

This really feels like you trying to score political points from a tragedy.  The phrase "easter worshippers" is not actually controversial, but people in bad faith are acting like it is.

Despite the start of the hysteria campaign by posters on here blaming one group or the other, at time of posting , no one has claimed responsibility , so no ones know who for sure,  but for all of those poor people who have died then RIP.
 
I suspect as usual, irrespective of the perpetrators of the many who died there will be Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims and all innocents.   Not of course religion matters, they were all human beings, now dead due to the acts of the lunatic fringe who hang out in this world under many guises unfortunately.
 
Sri Lanka is a lovely country with lovely people and I have visited there and worked with many throughout my life, but now they have just something else to rebuild from.

Of course it could have been Christians,of another sect or Bhuddists or even Atheists ,i mean they are always bombing and carrying out suicide attacks ,now arnt they.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 minute ago, ivor bigun said:

Of course it could have been Christians,of another sect or Bhuddists or even Atheists ,i mean they are always bombing and carrying out suicide attacks ,now arnt they.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Well  I think if you research a bit of history you will discover that Muslims are not the only fanatics who have undertaken indiscriminate bombings, suicide missions,  mass murders and shooting of innocent people etc. etc  in order to "further their cause" .  Irrespective of whom are to blame in this latest appalling tragedy ,  then as I said in my first post on this subject it is always the innocents who suffer.

Well  I think if you research a bit of history you will discover that Muslims are not the only fanatics who have undertaken indiscriminate bombings, suicide missions,  mass murders and shooting of innocent people etc. etc  in order to "further their cause" .  Irrespective of whom are to blame in this latest appalling tragedy ,  then as I said in my first post on this subject it is always the innocents who suffer.

Yes but judging by worldwide reports ,i agree you get the odd nutter that does this ,but its Muslims that are to blame mostly ,Isis springs to mind

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Yes but judging by worldwide reports ,i agree you get the odd nutter that does this ,but its Muslims that are to blame mostly ,Isis springs to mind

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

As I said  please research history.  I would not consider that indiscriminate bombings, mass shootings that occurred last century and continued into this one and this are by the "odd nutter".  Or for that matter in times gone by under the name of Christianity.  However to discuss who is the worst mass murderers in the name of religion there has been previously  is rather a sick issue considering that on this occasion it is reported that the death toll is now 290. You may consider that Muslims may be the worst but as I said check your history books. 

 

It does not make it right but it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest one religion or another is to blame. They are all to blame as history proves and don't forget it was the Buddhist community that instigated riots etc against the Muslim community last year in Sri Lanka.  Extremists of any ilk only want an excuse to cause mayhem, rightly or wrongly.

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Or perhaps the names of those who dropped the ball with what seemed like some pretty good intelligence.

Nope read the media reports as to why the policy was implemented i.e. lessons learnt from prior Buddhist riots against local Muslims. One would assume the lessons learnt would be equally applied with further social disorder e.g. if Islamists are confirmed as responsible for the evil in the OP. god only knows what these people were thinking, the Sri Lanka government are not known for holding back with reprisals. 

16 hours ago, metisdead said:

 

In that article it said this:  "No-one has yet claimed responsibility for the attacks but the defence minister said they were probably carried out by one group."

 

 

Until it is officially revealed as to who that one group was that carried out these attacks, let's keep the speculative speculations to a minimum. 

 

Thanks.

 

One can understand the Sri Lankan authorities wishing to keep a lid on speculation which might lead to retaliation and increase civil unrest.

 

However, the evidence from news channels outside the country point to this being the latest jihadist outrage in a much wider war of religions. This ongoing conflict is given little coverage in Western mainstream media, despite claiming the lives of an average of eleven Christians every day and forcing thousands to seek asylum - usually without success - in countries like the UK.

 

According to a report in today's Sun, the Sri Lankan police chief warned of suicide bombers planning to hit "prominent churches" 10 days before today's attack.

 

Pujuth Jayasundara reportedly said: "A foreign intelligence agency has reported that the NTJ (National Thowheeth Jama'ath) is planning to carry out suicide attacks targeting prominent churches as well as the Indian high commission in Colombo".

 

The NTJ is a radical Muslim group linked last year to the destruction of Buddhist statues.

 

In countries around the world where, unlike Sri Lanka, social media has not been blocked, Muslims in their thousands have been joyfully celebrating what they clearly regard as a justified revenge attack for the recent New Zealand mosque massacre by a lone Australian gunman.

 

This makes interesting reading: https://religionnews.com/2019/03/15/a-look-at-attacks-on-houses-of-worship-over-last-decade/

 

 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by Krataiboy

3 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

As I said  please research history.  I would not consider that indiscriminate bombings, mass shootings that occurred last century and continued into this one and this are by the "odd nutter".  Or for that matter in times gone by under the name of Christianity.  However to discuss who is the worst mass murderers in the name of religion there has been previously  is rather a sick issue considering that on this occasion it is reported that the death toll is now 290. You may consider that Muslims may be the worst but as I said check your history books. 

 

It does not make it right but it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest one religion or another is to blame. They are all to blame as history proves and don't forget it was the Buddhist community that instigated riots etc against the Muslim community last year in Sri Lanka.  Extremists of any ilk only want an excuse to cause mayhem, rightly or wrongly.

 

Currently, in the modern day, Muslims carry out attacks in the name of their religion by far more than any other religion. They are still doing things to people in the modern age that was done in the stone age. 

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Nope read the media reports as to why the policy was implemented i.e. lessons learnt from prior Buddhist riots against local Muslims. One would assume the lessons learnt would be equally applied with further social disorder e.g. if Islamists are confirmed as responsible for the evil in the OP. god only knows what these people were thinking, the Sri Lanka government are not known for holding back with reprisals. 

 

Not mutally exclusive. In fact I'd say the reprisals are likely to be even greater given that people in power had intelligence it was coming , yet did nothing to stop it.

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Exactly. 

 

So why did they acknowledge muslims when NZ happened, but not christians when this happened?

 

<deleted> stop the right wing extreme partisan nonsense, it is really unnecessary. Obama has already commented on the mass murder in Sri Lanka. An example...

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/439904-obama-condemns-attacks-in-sri-lanka-as-an-attack-on-humanity

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Currently, in the modern day, Muslims carry out attacks in the name of their religion by far more than any other religion. They are still doing things to people in the modern age that was done in the stone age. 

Err, lost sight of your history books have we from the last century, or perhaps you never read them, or else consider that the atrocities carried out then were a "stone age" act ? 

 

 

Edited April 22, 20197 yr by geoffbezoz

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

<deleted> stop the right wing extreme partisan nonsense, it is really unnecessary. Obama has already commented on the mass murder in Sri Lanka. An example...

And he didnt mention christians. He gave muslims the dignity and respect of mentioning them by name but couldn't bring himself to do it for christians. 

 

Im gonna call that hypocrisy out every time I see it.