At least 156 dead, hundreds injured in multiple blasts at churches, hotels on Easter Sunday

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Err, lost sight of your history books have we from the last century

 

 

That's why he had to include "in the modern day" in his post.  It's called cherry-picking your dates to support your conclusions.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

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 ?

 

So youre going to justify muslims carring out attacks and terrorism in the name of their religion in the modern day by invoking things that were done by other religious groups throughout history? 

 

Thats quite the take. 

[geoffbezoz]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

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.

Yes a good point and if that is proven to be true then one has to question the motive of those in power not acting earlier. Perhaps it suited their political goals not to act. To diverse, and my apologies for doing so, if Bush was aware of the potential actions that resulted in 9/11, then there are parallels. Throughout history there has been some debate as to whether politicians inaction on advice is deliberate in order to provide justification for their own aims.

[simple1]

15 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

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.

At this stage we don't know the reasons for govt not acting earlier, but the govt has already initiated an investigation. We will see if anything comes of the investigation or not. Any violence against govt will without doubt be violently suppressed. 

[geoffbezoz]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

So youre going to justify muslims carring out attacks and terrorism in the name of their religion in the modern day by invoking things that were done by other religious groups throughout history? 

 

Thats quite the take. 

You must have a big problem if you consider anything I said justify this barbaric act whichever group is responsible.  Just suggesting you educate yourself on recent history, you may learn something. 

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

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. 

My god, you really are immersed in right wing extremist ideology.

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

At this stage we don't know the reasons for govt not acting earlier, but the govt has already initiated an investigation. We will see if anything comes of the investigation or not. Any violence against govt will be without doubt be violently suppressed. 

And I hope the parallels are not drawn as to why some of the government actions this time justified what they did against the Tamils. But that is to move away from this threads topic.

[thurien]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

For the moment it has not been confirmed which group carried out the terrible murders in Sri Lanka which also killed numerous children and will have caused life changing injuries for many. Social Media in Sri Lanka has been temporally closed down due to concern of rumour mongering with ramifications for civil disorder. Your post is an excellent example of why the decision was made by Sri Lankan authorities, let alone the awful sympathetic comment for a mass murderer above.

 

Once it is confirmed a particular group is responsible for this evil incident, focus on them.

The government has acknowledged that it had "prior information" of attacks on churches involving a little known local Islamist group but didn't do enough about it.

[Thainesss]

Just now, simple1 said:

My god, you really are immersed in right wing extremist ideology.

 

These thought leaders just have a hard time saying "Christians" and it boggles the mind as to why? "People in churches"? 

 

290 Christians were killed, some were even my countrymen, and they are nothing more than "People in Churches" and "Easter Worshippers" to the left.

 

 

[simple1]

1 minute ago, thurien said:

The government has acknowledged that it had "prior information" of attacks on churches involving a little known local Islamist group but didn't do enough about it.

I know, but so far as I'm aware have not yet confirmed they were the group who carried out the attack.

[Vacuum]

Religion......

[Krataiboy]

1 hour 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.

Islam, by its very nature, is an extremist ideology. It advocates the use of force to convert non-believers if friendly persuasion fails - as the Qoran, the hadith and the example of the life of Muhammed (which all Muslims are bound to follow) makes clear.

 

Unfortunately, unlike Christianity and other religions which have managed to modify and adapt to meet the needs of modern societies, Islam has not only resisted change but has become, if anything, increasingly fundamentalist in recent decades.

 

Unless and until it is reformed, this medieval and arguably totalitarian ideology will continue to produce fresh crops of fanatical jihadists to fulfil the Prophet's vision of a global caliphate - with unbelievers either converted, killed or living in second-class dhimmitude under Sharia.

[ravip]

7 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Islam, by its very nature, is an extremist ideology. It advocates the use of force to convert non-believers to its cause if friendly persuasion doesn't work, as the Qoran, the hadith and the example of the life of Muhammed (which all Muslims are bound to follow) makes clear.

 

Unfortunately, unlike Christianity and other religions which have managed to modify and adapt to meet the needs of modern societies, Islam has not only resisted change but become, if anything, increasingly fundamentalist in recent decades.

 

Unless and until it is reformed, this medieval and arguably totalitarian ideology will continue to produce fresh crops of fanatical jihadists to fulfil the Prophet's vision of a global caliphate - with unbelievers either converted, killed or living in second-class dhimmitude under Sharia.

The surprising factor is why such behaviour is not considered as terrorism and appropriate remedial actions not taken by the international community.

All the Humanitarian agencies and democratic governments are silent about the stoning to death, public be-headings etc.

Why is it that Human Rights are 'selective'?

[jesimps]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

For the moment it has not been confirmed which group carried out the terrible murders in Sri Lanka which also killed numerous children and will have caused life changing injuries for many. Social Media in Sri Lanka has been temporally closed down due to concern of rumour mongering with ramifications for civil disorder. Your post is an excellent example of why the decision was made by Sri Lankan authorities, let alone the awful sympathetic comment for a mass murderer above.

 

Once it is confirmed a particular group is responsible for this evil incident, focus on them.

I'm 100% sure which group's responsible for this and I'm not even clairvoyant. The bombing of Christian churches kind of provided a small clue.

[DrTuner]

20 minutes ago, ravip said:

Why is it that Human Rights are 'selective'?

Take a look at who works at the rights orgs. Mostly middle aged women, leftist and feminists. They like their jihadists, always the first in line in importing them to the west. Some strange suicidal tendency. My guess is it's a natural population control feedback from mother earth, need to thin the herds.

[simple1]

32 minutes ago, jesimps said:

I'm 100% sure which group's responsible for this and I'm not even clairvoyant. The bombing of Christian churches kind of provided a small clue.

You're likely to be correct. Current speculation is an Al Qaeda or ISIS aligned group. However, in the region Hindu and Buddhist extremists have attacked Christians and churches. Some info...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

 

https://www.ucanews.com/news/christian-beheaded-in-indias-odisha-state/84576

 

We have to wait for official government confirmation of the mass murderers actual affiliation/s.

 

 

[attrayant]

45 minutes ago, ravip said:

All the Humanitarian agencies and democratic governments are silent about the stoning to death, public be-headings etc.

Why is it that Human Rights are 'selective'?

 

Because there persists a misguided notion that beliefs, customs, cultures, ideologies and inanimate objects must always be respected.  "You have to respect their beliefs!", you'll often hear some well-meaning person exclaim. People deserve respect, and even they can lose that respect when they latch on to some abhorrent ideology.

 

The sooner we get rid of the silly idea that beliefs and ideologies are inherently deserving of respect, the better off we'll all be as a species.

[Thainesss]

42 minutes ago, jesimps said:

I'm 100% sure which group's responsible for this and I'm not even clairvoyant. The bombing of Christian churches kind of provided a small clue.

That and the fact that they used suicide bombs and it was committed by "one group". 

[Tropposurfer]

6 hours ago, mokwit said:

You mean Social Justice Warriors? Another totalitarian cult that seeks to force it's cult views on others.

Nope just bigots and unhappy people 

[metisdead]

A post containing a conspiracy deflection video has been removed as well as the replies. 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Thainesss said:

Calls via social for muslims to attack buddhists are also covered well in the media, well, until they cut off social media. 

There is no history of violent Muslim militants in Sri Lanka - back up your claim

[Thainesss]

Looking more and more like the religion of peace. The fact that they managed to find 7 people (or more) to kill themselves in crowded areas with explosives in a well planned and orchestrated manner is nuts. 

 

Quote

The BBC's Azzam Ameen in Colombo says the attackers are thought to be part of a "radical extremist Islamist group" according to authorities.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48008073

 

[Kasane]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Islam, by its very nature, is an extremist ideology. It advocates the use of force to convert non-believers if friendly persuasion fails - as the Qoran, the hadith and the example of the life of Muhammed (which all Muslims are bound to follow) makes clear.

 

Unfortunately, unlike Christianity and other religions which have managed to modify and adapt to meet the needs of modern societies, Islam has not only resisted change but has become, if anything, increasingly fundamentalist in recent decades.

 

Unless and until it is reformed, this medieval and arguably totalitarian ideology will continue to produce fresh crops of fanatical jihadists to fulfil the Prophet's vision of a global caliphate - with unbelievers either converted, killed or living in second-class dhimmitude under Sharia.

Christianity and Islam have a common gene. Both these religions grow by conversion. Conversion, by its very nature, is aggressive. 

[Orton Rd]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

My god, you really are immersed in right wing extremist ideology.

Criticizing the hypocrisy of Obama is now right wing extremism?????

[geoffbezoz]

5 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

The history of Islam is conversion by force and stealth jihad, I don't see any aggressive Mormons or Baptists aggressively converting people

"Theres none as blind as those that can not see". Or else choose to be delusional. Again, read your history books as "ignorance is bliss" as they say.

 

eg,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence

 

But please can we get back to the topic of the recent atrocity in Sri Lanka, not denial that other religions are non-violent.

[Krataiboy]

2 hours ago, ravip said:

The surprising factor is why such behaviour is not considered as terrorism and appropriate remedial actions not taken by the international community.

All the Humanitarian agencies and democratic governments are silent about the stoning to death, public be-headings etc.

Why is it that Human Rights are 'selective'?

Fear of reprisals from their Muslim minorities is the real reason Western governments, NGO's and the international community generally turn a blind eye to Islam's appalling human rights abuses.

 

Political leaders in the UK, for example, will go to ridiculous lengths to avoid upsetting followers of Islam, when compared to other religions.

 

In the light of recent events, one can hardly blame them. Who in their right mind would risk stirring up a hornets' nest of five million potential stingers?

[maximillian]

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Can't believe humans can do that.

 

They can. They have done atrocities ever since. Any race, any nation, any religion.

Believe it or not.

[ravip]

Billionaire ASOS tycoon who is Scotland's biggest landowner loses three of his four children in Sri Lanka Easter terror attacks that killed 290 people >>> Article

 

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

The sooner we get rid of the silly idea that beliefs and ideologies are inherently deserving of respect, the better off we'll all be as a species.

Never understood the "deserves respect". Everybody starts from zero and must earn the respect. It's not something people are born with.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Criticizing the hypocrisy of Obama is now right wing extremism?????

My comment was in regard to the usual conspiracy/ fake news which emanate from right wing extremism - trump being a proven example, ergo his supporters.