Sri Lanka massacres

Yas786 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you explain the passage in the Koran where it states "if your wife disobeys you beat her"?

Sounds like a very peaceful religion.
 
200sols said:
Why couldnt they just call them Christians? They dont have a problem saying Muslims after the far right attacks?
Click to expand...

They could have called them Christians. Or Easter worshipers. It's not really a big deal.

Roar87 said:
Why do you like to see me getting triggered?
Click to expand...

Because it must be emotionally hard for you not to have something to be enraged about with the lefties and the fake news and whatever other things seem to matter so much to you.

Dis86 said:
How do you know any of those attending were 'part timers'?
Click to expand...

I feel this explains it:

Double07 said:
All other things aside we all know that there a significant amount of people, of all faiths, who attend churches/mosques/etc on holy days who would otherwise not be bothered is all that this means.
Click to expand...

It's why a holy day bombing is potentially so much worse in terms of consequences.
 
VincentHanna said:
Yas didn't write it, why does he need to explain it?
Click to expand...

"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."

they always state it's a religion of peace. when it's far from it. those that live peacefully are those that don't follow it like commanded to do so.
 
VincentHanna said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they specifically said "Easter Worshippers" in their twitter posts and a separate mention about foreigners/tourists, so if they're mentioning "Worshippers" i.e. Religious people in a Church, i.e. Christians then why not just change that to "Christians" (less letters too)? That lack of an answer is whats causing people to cast doubt onto the two identically worded statements from leading Democrat politicians (ex Prez and ex Sec State). I mean if you look through Clintons twitter she doesn't use "Christian", even a tweet 22hrs ago about a Christians rebuilding a burndown church in Louisiana calls them "Worshippers" and doesn't mention their religion - that's just plainly odd when she doesn't also call Muslims "worshippers" but specifically calls them Muslims. It's just odd and I think thats what "sticks out" in this situation, why use more characters and (as has been shown) sow more discontent by refusing to acknowledge the victims religion when you don't do the same when the victim is Muslim? Only they can answer but they don't.

Clinton - "On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."

Obama - "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka."
 
Who the **** cares about exactly how it's worded? It's the intent behind the statement you should be focusing on.

Why do you think Obama, a Christian man, would be avoiding the word Christian? What's the conspiracy here?
 
Specifically because Obama, a Christian man, said "Easter Worshipper" instead of "Christian" - thats extremely odd, and everyone can see that, thats why people are asking why.
 
ianh said:
But they specifically said "Easter Worshippers" in their twitter posts and a separate mention about foreigners/tourists, so if they're mentioning "Worshippers" i.e. Religious people in a Church, i.e. Christians then why not just change that to "Christians" (less letters too)? That lack of an answer is whats causing people to cast doubt onto the two identically worded statements from leading Democrat politicians (ex Prez and ex Sec State). I mean if you look through Clintons twitter she doesn't use "Christian", even a tweet 22hrs ago about a Christians rebuilding a burndown church in Louisiana calls them "Worshippers" and doesn't mention their religion - that's just plainly odd when she doesn't also call Muslims "worshippers" but specifically calls them Muslims. It's just odd and I think thats what "sticks out" in this situation, why use more characters and (as has been shown) sow more discontent by refusing to acknowledge the victims religion when you don't do the same when the victim is Muslim? Only they can answer but they don't.

Clinton - "On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."

Obama - "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka."
Click to expand...


Because it gets complicated with Christians and the celebration of Easter. Not all Christians celebrate Easter, so it'd be wrong.

But yeah. Who cares what they get called.
 
Uther said:
It's fine, next time there's an attack on a mosque shall we just not mention the word 'Muslim' and call them something else? 'Friday Worshippers' be ok?
Click to expand...

Well that would depend on if there is an attack on just a mosque, or there are other non-religious targets also.

In this case, 3 Churches and 4 hotels.

I'm not sure the "Tourists tend to be Christians" narrative holds up either.

Of course Christians were targeted, nobody is even disputing that but they weren't the only target.
 
Even if there was attacks in other places, the focus was still on disrupting a Christian holiday, so essentially an ideological attack on Christianity. The timing of the attacks wasn't an accident obviously.
 
VincentHanna said:
what reason do you think he said "Easter Worshipper"?
Click to expand...

I don't know why, that's why I and many others are asking the question, but as has been said many times, the only people with the answer aren't giving one, which leads to some wildly absurd theories, all of which would be nullified if those involved said "here's why..........".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom