Sri Lanka massacres

Pudney said:
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.

I do like to see that you're getting triggered by the use of "Easter worshipers" though.
Click to expand...

Why do you like to see me getting triggered? I'm wondering why there was specific use of that language rather than simply stating that Christians were attacked during Easter celebrations, I mean it's obviously to avoid stirring anti-Islamic sentiment, but who told them to do it?
 
Roar87 said:
I wonder who is behind telling Obama and Hillary to use the term "Easter worshipers" rather than Christians. They both did it so there's clearly a deliberate choice of language. To me it feels like divide and conquer to push Globalism and avoid uniting groups, break up any sort of unity so there's no concerted opposition.
Click to expand...

I think that's just your weird interpretation.

It's pretty much a given that "Easter worshippers" are Christian.

No different to saying "Ramadan worshippers" as per this article on BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40343485

You are finding something that isn't even there.
 
There’s also the fact that non Christians celebrate Easter aswell, it’s hardly surprising. (Yes being a materialistic stooge and buying a chocolate egg is ‘celebrating’)

So the statement is more truthful, as it wasn’t just church’s that were attacked and it would be highly offensive not to at least attempt to include others in a manner that still respects Christians which both Obama and Clinton are.
 
Pudney said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you know any of those attending were 'part timers'?
 
VincentHanna said:
No different to saying "Ramadan worshippers" as per this article on BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40343485
Click to expand...

Glad to see you didn't actually read that article, which states many times that those effected were Muslim, whereas the term "Ramadan worshippers" is only used once in the headline.

VincentHanna said:
You are finding something that isn't even there.
Click to expand...

Yet people showed actual proof with twitter posts showing "it is there". After Christchurch the people highlighted in those twitter posts made specific mention of the religion of the victims (I've no issue with that) yet after this attack those same people didn't do the same and instead used exactly the same phrase which removes the religion of the victims - why?

I mean was it that the attacks weren't just on churches and were instead spread throughout the area targeting both Christians and foreigners so those twitter posts were meant to cover everyone? Was it done to specifically down-play the "Muslims attacking Christians" angle? Those are the sort of questions people are asking and the only people who could answer, aren't - so people are asking why!
 
ianh said:
I mean was it that the attacks weren't just on churches and were instead spread throughout the area targeting both Christians and foreigners so those twitter posts were meant to cover everyone?
Click to expand...

Possibly.

The New Zealand attack was specifically on one Mosque, and clearly the target was Muslims.

The targets in Sri Lanka seem to be Christians and Tourists. It's a lot harder to make a blanket statement on twitter, when there's different people involved.
 
Some of you are so busy argueing you don't even bother to read the news which is posted in the thread. The Sri Lankan government has said it appears the attack was down to revenge for what happened in NZ.ISIS has said they were behind them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48019189
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sri-la...istchurch-death-toll-live-updates-2019-04-23/

doodah said:
Different circumstances but not the first time we have heard warnings falling on deaf ears, though this does sound like a worrying amount of people didn't receive it/act on it in time.
Click to expand...

It does. There seems to be a lot of political problems which have reared their ugly head.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
Or you are just ignoring something that is very clearly there. The left despises Christianity.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a left/right issue with you guys?

Innocent people died. If it was Muslims (likely) then that is not a left-wing religion. The same as Christianity is not a right-wing religion.

Why are you dividing people in to groups over a terror incident?
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Some of you are so busy argueing you don't even bother to read the news which is posted in the thread. The Sri Lankan government has said it appears the attack was down to revenge for what happened in NZ.ISIS has said they were behind them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48019189
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sri-la...istchurch-death-toll-live-updates-2019-04-23/



It does.
Click to expand...

From the BBC:

The Islamic State (IS) group claimed the attack on Tuesday via its news outlet. Sri Lanka's government has blamed the blasts on local Islamist group National Thowheed Jamath (NTJ).

A BBC correspondent in Sri Lanka says the IS statement should be treated cautiously. As with previous attacks that the group says it carried out, it has provided no evidence for the claim.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to think the Government are more reliable than ISIS (though obviously still an Islamic terror attack)

ISIS claim responsibility for everything. Surprised they haven't said they killed JFK.
 
StriderX said:
There’s also the fact that non Christians celebrate Easter aswell, it’s hardly surprising. (Yes being a materialistic stooge and buying a chocolate egg is ‘celebrating’)

So the statement is more truthful, as it wasn’t just church’s that were attacked and it would be highly offensive not to at least attempt to include others in a manner that still respects Christians which both Obama and Clinton are.
Click to expand...

You won't find many "non Christians" in a church on Easter Sunday, get real.
 
VincentHanna said:
From the BBC:



I'd tend to think the Government are more reliable than ISIS (though obviously still an Islamic terror attack)

ISIS claim responsibility for everything. Surprised they haven't said they killed JFK.
Click to expand...

The SL government said a "foreign network" assisted them:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48012085

Mr Senaratne said that authorities believed the bombers had international support. "We do not believe these attacks were carried out by a group of people who were confined to this country," he said, adding: "There was an international network without which these attacks could not have succeeded."
Click to expand...

Not even the LTTE who did those kinds of attacks,did something to the scale seen with these ones. The NTJ apparently were not a big group,so the scale of the attacks were what surprised so many.
 
VincentHanna said:
Why does it have to be a left/right issue with you guys?

Innocent people died. If it was Muslims (likely) then that is not a left-wing religion. The same as Christianity is not a right-wing religion.

Why are you dividing people in to groups over a terror incident?
Click to expand...
What term will you use to describe muslims next time they are targeted? It is blatantly obvious this was an attack targeting Christians. Are people only supposed to be outraged when it's muslim victims?
 
Attacking Christians in Sri Lanka "for revenge" is as stupid/evil as the Australian guy who targeted Muslims in New Zealand.

Both sets of victims are completely innocent people who had nothing to do with their own deaths.
 
Uther said:
What term will you use to describe muslims next time they are targeted? It is blatantly obvious this was an attack targeting Christians. Are people only supposed to be outraged when it's muslim victims?
Click to expand...

It's blatantly obvious yes. Have I said otherwise? If you blow up a Church you are clearly targeting Christians.

BUT they also attacked 4 hotels, so they had multiple targets - Christians and tourists.

So you can't just state on twitter "This was an attack against Christians" because you then ignoring 4 of the targets weren't anything to do with that religion.
 
VincentHanna said:
Why does it have to be a left/right issue with you guys?
Click to expand...

Because people spend too much time on the internet and get sucked into the 'culture wars' rabbit hole and then think they can make ludicrous delusional statements such as 'the left despises christianity' despite the fact that millions of people on the left are christians.

These types are not worth discussing anything with, they are too far gone.
 
VincentHanna said:
It's blatantly obvious yes. Have I said otherwise? If you blow up a Church you are clearly targeting Christians.

BUT they also attacked 4 hotels, so they had multiple targets - Christians and tourists.

So you can't just state on twitter "This was an attack against Christians" because you then ignoring 4 of the targets weren't anything to do with that religion.
Click to expand...
Yeah and considering the biggest source of tourists to Sri Lanka is western europe, they're far more likely to be Christians in the hotels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom