Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
The attack at Shangri La hotel was carried out by suicide bomber Zahran Hashim, while Abu Mohammad has been identified as the attacker at the Batticalao church.
Sri Lanka massacres
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
The attack at Shangri La hotel was carried out by suicide bomber Zahran Hashim, while Abu Mohammad has been identified as the attacker at the Batticalao church.
There was a series of warnings 2 weeks ago associated with a known Islamic terror group. The police made multiple arrests today of known islamists resulting in the deaths of at least 2 officers.
The bombings were suicide bombings.
The name of one of the attackers was Abu Muhammad.
Sometimes you just have to kinda say if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...well it's a duck.
I might be wrong on this but I don't believe that the other bunch of nutjobs that sri Lanka harbours have ever gone after Christians before either.
Given the violence against Muslims in the country though I can certainly see why the Sri Lankan authorities are keeping a tight lid on things.
I wonder if Muslim world leaders will now wear the cross to show solidarity with Christians?
No but you do have Muslim leaders condemning the attack across the globe.
Caring about the cause of massacres is at least as important as caring about the massacres. A few minutes of maybe caring about victims in an abstract way (because you don't know them) and maybe just making socially expected noises about "thoughts and prayers" does nothing. That should be obvious after the first few hundred times.
Caring about the cause is probably useless too when the cause is a powerful religion, since there is neither the will nor the ability to do anything about it, but you're wrong to try to stop it.
Like all the non Muslims didn't mean it when they expressed their condolences for New Zealand?
What's wrong with them? They're religious. They too are practising their faith.
Religion is utterly amoral and almost(*) all religions are extremely political, highly authoritarian and extremely geared towards obtaining power. The Abrahamic religions are the worst for that and Islam is the worst of the Abrahamic religions for that. Islam was created specifically for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining absolute power by fear and violence (and was and is very successful at that). The idea that it's incomprehensible that there are Muslims who are practicing their faith in the way it was created for and for the reason it was created for is weird. There are plenty of Muslims who impose their own morality on their religion and are decent people, but that's in spite of their religion and not because of it. Christianity is about as power-hungry, but it was created for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining absolute power by more subtle political manipulation. Same goal, different methods and there's a lot of crossover.
* I'm being generous by including the word "almost", allowing for the possibility of some minor religion or religions that aren't like that. Aboriginal Australian ones, maybe. If their mythologies are a religion.
You asked for an example of Buddhist suicide bombing; I gave you one. It now appears to be a Muslim attack, and I'm quite happy to be proved wrong. Good ol' religion of peace again.
No. Which part do you think is a joke?
It's regularly mentioned in Western news.
Speaking as someone who has studied early Christian history at university, I can tell you with total confidence that this is absolutely false.
Christianity emerged directly from Judaism, and has its roots in the Old Testament. Its adherents were persecuted and marginalised for several centuries, and it did not gain access to political power until the conversion of Constantine in AD 312. Until that time, it was little more than a mildly irritating cult that most people were happy to ignore.
Last edited:
Is religion inseparable from nationalism? I mean almost every time it seems to be about isolation from others or domination of others in pursuit of ethnostates.
If religion is separable from it, this would surely be resolvable?
If it isn’t, it’s impossible, and society has to make a choice. There is no happy middle ground where you can have monolithic religion and no extremism.
Why wouldn’t they mean it?? Or like other faith leaders who condemned the NZ attacks, you think their words are meaningless.
That’s your opinion, one that I disagree with though.
Islam is not about absolute power and to think that is at best silly. Of course there are Muslims out there that will use Islam as a tool for power but normally it’s nothing to do with power rather living with each other peacefully. Which I will point out majority of Muslims do so with ease.
Not going to get into a discussion about this either due to you being adamant about your opinion and me being of mine.
It's sad times but im just not surprised or shocked by news like this anymore.
Really feel for the families now missing people. But i feel the most that will happen will be Facebook pictures changed, a vigil will be held and nothing will really change while we wait for the next attack to happen somewhere on the world.
Really feel for the families now missing people. But i feel the most that will happen will be Facebook pictures changed, a vigil will be held and nothing will really change while we wait for the next attack to happen somewhere on the world.
Yes. Historically, Christianity had no affinity to any nation.
The thing is, massacres, infighting, religious crusades, atrocities, etc, etc have happened since before books about it were written. It's just now painted all over the media and so we see it everyday. It might seem like it's now more common than ever but I suspect the world is a much more peaceful place than ever before. On a positive note, despite the media exposing people more to these kind of events, we're generally quite outraged by them. Whereas in times past I guess violence and daily fear of death was just a routine affair and way of life.
Taqiya
Some people are outraged.
Islam was "created" by a Warlord.
Its message, right from the start, was always "Join us, Be enslaved, or die"
Most religions are somewhat edgy about other religions (Even within themselves)
But in the main, Islam is utterly intolerant of any other cosmological viewpoint.
(In the great scheme of things, I regard religion as a subset of cosmology, In particular, relating to events prior to T+5.39 × 10 ⁻⁴⁴ s after creation. For all our cleverness. I dont think we are ever going to figure out scientifically what happened before then
)Not quite.
There is good evidence that Muhammad did not become a warlord until after his expulsion from Mecca, and the version of Islam that he subsequently developed was far more militant than the original.
The message 'join us, be enslaved, or die' emerged during Muhammad's time in Medina, largely as a response to his expulsion from Mecca and the opposition of the Jewish leaders he encountered in Medina.
I see the point of religion many years ago - a way to keep the lower echelons of society in check ie work hard and you will be rewarded in your heaven etc. To some extent i see it of use today, i use religion as a moral compass, don't kill etc. But is there really a need in this day and age for believing that sky pixie invited life and the Universe etc?
What would happen if all religion became outlawed? Would the world be peaceful in years to come, or would we trigger more violence?
@Yas would you give up your religion if it led to world peace?
What would happen if all religion became outlawed? Would the world be peaceful in years to come, or would we trigger more violence?
@Yas would you give up your religion if it led to world peace?