Sri Lanka massacres

[Dis86]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48001720

Names are in the hat over who did it but yet another country that tragically can't get a break from the killing of innocents.
Celebrating what to many is the most holy day in the Christian calendar.
Thankfully not seen anything to say the perpetrators filmed this one.

 

[Dis86]

Its probably not Muslim's, if that's your angle. Buddhists have been behind most of the violence on Sri Lanka.

The trouble is they're heavily protected within the country and are rarely held responsible for negative actions they commit. Hence my name's in hat bit.

 

[Dis86]

All you can do is try and balance it out.

Too many people try and balance it out in the wrong way though.

 

[Dis86]

Terrorism, who ever causes it, is an evil which needs stamping out. Maybe if we focused our energies on removing the biggest killer first, rather than one of the most minor, the world would be a safer place for everyone.

That's been my point on here for years.

 

[Dis86]

Seeing the death toll is over 200 now. Poor sods.

 

[Dis86]

Have I missed something? Someone has claimed responsibility?

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.

 

[Dis86]

How does this moron exist?

Cos the gun wielding morons that normally take a pop at people in the States all support him!

 

[Dis86]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48011075

Christ

 

[Dis86]

@dowie just look at the reactions on here. They pretty much fit what maajid is pointing out.

 

[Dis86]

In my experience Christmas and Easter are two of the busiest times at churches, with many only really going to church around those times. So a distinction between regular attendees and, let's say "part time" attendees, isn't an outrageous notion.

How do you know any of those attending were 'part timers'?

 

[Dis86]

Keep in mind as well that Easter worshipper is a complete misnomer. They don't worship Easter so it's an utterly absurd phrase to use.

 

[Dis86]

They were worshipping and it was at Easter.

Derp Derp Derp

If I go to church on Thursday am I a Thursday worshipper?

 

[Dis86]

Sunday worship is incredibly common terminology. There's even a BBC Radio 4 program called it.

Yes, and the title implies the worship takes place on a Sunday. Not that they worship Sunday. Unlike saying they are Sunday worshippers.

Why not just call them what they were, Christians?

 

[Dis86]

and the thread has gone full idiot, again.

As someone said earlier in the thread, the attacks were on both churches and hotels/restaurants, at a time of year when the locals are celebrating non christian holidays as well as christian ones.

They were, and both called that out in their tweets. Obama for example said "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers". So clearly, the hotel/restaurant point is irrelevant in that regard as they weren't being grouped in with the others.

Rather like "happy holidays" isn't anti christian, but rather recognises that Christians aren't the only ones celebrating in December/January.

True, but could you explain who else might have been celebrating in those churches that day? The locations attacked. Was it Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Pastafarians? No, no it wasn't. It was one group with a shared identity.
I bet they certainly don't refer to themselves as "Easter worshippers'. In fact, strangely, they actually have a widely used term. Oh yes, Christians.

Actually, does this mean because some people are clearly offended by it that the mods will now ban the term 'Easter Worshippers' like they did 'Person of Colour'?

 

[Dis86]

It's just terminology! There are rather more important things to worry about, but if it makes you feel better here's a random selection of articles where "Sunday worshipers" has been used without offence, so why should Easter worshipers somehow create some dubious attempt by whatever blah blah blah CT nonsense going on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-35150670/church-of-england-could-close-thousands-of-churches

https://international.la-croix.com/...s-of-pakistan-terror-attacks-remembered/7170#

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/...n-london-as-traditional-denominations-decline

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-burn-churches-in-latest-Nigeria-attack.html

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-5th-2018/how-to-save-the-english-church/

Sorry Pudney, that's not how it works. For example I posted many many links to the mods showing them that the term 'person of colour' isn't offensive but they still deemed otherwise. So if people find it offensive, it's offensive. Simple as.

 

[Dis86]

Why do people think (hope?) that some sort of Muslims vs the world conflict is coming?

Because conflict goes wherever they do. Have a look at every significant war zone in the world right now.

 

[Dis86]

By that metric, Europeans are the most war mongering people of all time.

What metric? The current world warzones? Europe is damn peaceful at the minute. Ireland are annoyingly upsetting that status with the recent murder by the new IRA however.

 

[Dis86]

Wait what? Since when is "person of colour" banned? That's a politically correct term.

You're telling me! I tried to explain that but was told that I was wrong, despite providing multiple links and dictionary definitions. I was told it doesn't matter and that if they decide it's offensive, it's offensive.

 

[Dis86]

Wouldn't that be a Thursday-worshipper rather than a Thursday worshipper?

I have vague recollections of my O level English teacher explain the grammatical differences when using hyphens with the example between a dog lover (someone who loves dogs) and a dog-lover...and not to mix the two

Hmm...I'd say no as the example playing in my mind was Satan worshipper. No hyphenation is required.

 

[Dis86]

I'm well aware of the terror attacks, which is far away from calling it a "global conflict", by which people mean World War III

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Have a look at the list of locations attacked in the last 9 years and tell me it's not global.