Sri Lanka massacres

Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
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.

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

Sounds like a very peaceful religion.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
Why couldnt they just call them Christians? They dont have a problem saying Muslims after the far right attacks?

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

Why do you like to see me getting triggered?

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.

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

I feel this explains it:

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.

It's why a holy day bombing is potentially so much worse in terms of consequences.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Yas didn't write it, why does he need to explain it?

"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.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,913
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
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.

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."
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,907
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?
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,913
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2004
Posts
26,508
Location
....
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."


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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,907
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?

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,062
Location
Leeds
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,913
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
what reason do you think he said "Easter Worshipper"?

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..........".
 
Back
Top Bottom