Sri Lanka massacres
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,590
They were "Easter worshippers" a few days ago, what changed?
Honk honk,
Since when are they Christian men??? surely they mean male Easter Worshippers right? RIGHT!?
Religion of peace seriously when are we going to stop with that ridiculous title and how many more attacks need to happen before enough wake up. The double standards being shown on this attack after the Christchurch attack are sickening nobody mentions the word "christian" in relation to the victims but remember the word to use in a story about a muslim being attacked. With the disgusting pleasure quite a few muslims took at the burning down of notre dame and my personal experience in the past i'm under no illusion about islam and the end goal of more of it's followers then anyone will admit to. They are so fortunate that the quality of governments in the west is as pathetic as it is right now or stronger responses would have happened before now and as more and more people asking more questions about islam get shutdown with the boringly routine accusations of bigot, ignorant and xenophobe amongst others which is just causing anger and resentment it's only a question of time before things get really bad.
Nice paragraph...
It’s been answered numerous times, while the main target was Christian, there was a non zero element of random people, it would be misleading to ignore the latter. Indeed it would demote the conflict from something affects everyone to mere religious disagreement.
You’re ruining your own argument by trying to demote it.
Until you people start seriously petitioning government to cut off ties to Saudi Arabia, you have nothing to stand on. This is like supporting the USSR during the Cold War, it’s contradictory to such an extreme it simply ruins any discussion. Nothing can be done about it because you have institutionally supported the hand that feeds the extremists.
And yet I don’t see you outside Parliament, calling for sanctions on them with all the moaning there is about it. It’s inherently swift from neutral debate to bigotry, it’s impossible to keep everyone in line for a concerted political campaign against the peninsula, I mean we literally build missiles that kill Yemeni school children.
It’s going to get bad, not because of Islam, but because the west has no spine, and because it has no spine, will inevitably wait until it’s too late (destroying what made us ‘the west’ in the first place), so that we all lose.
Last edited:
If you wanted to see me petitioning against arms sale to saudi arabia you should have been around in 1992 when all the agreements that continue to this day were signed so don't get sanctimonious with me from your position of utter ignorance of myself and what i have done. If it was worthy to use the christian description for the attack on a muslim it was equally worthy to acknowledge the victims by that word as well there is no getting around it no matter how hard you try. I clearly mentioned the pathetic level of government in the west that despite continued insistence from the security and intelligence services that more needs to be done to counter islamic terrorism we have a bunch of chancers and opportunists running the country and that won't change anytime soon.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
It's different and here is why
The Christchurch attacker specifically targeted one mosque and his intent was to harm as many Muslim worshippers as possible.
However in Sri Lanka the terror attacks were more broad, they had two targets
A) Christian churches
B) Posh hotels full of international tourists
I saw a guy and one of his sons being interviewed on the news last night. He had lost his 19 year old son and 15 year old daughter who were at the breakfast buffet getting him some food. They were not Christians. Local people of all faiths who worked at the hotel died as well.
So blanket calling all the victims in Sri Lanka "Christian" isn't correct, even though Christians were one of the primary targets.
But in Christchurch, it's fairly safe to assume that worshippers in a mosque are Muslim. Plus the guy had a whole manifesto about why he did what he did.
Because the term Easter worship exists, and it doesn’t wholly ignore others as non Christians take advantage of the time as well. I have no idea why they jumped on this descriptor and not something more balanced, but they did and language tends to self propel.
It’s really splitting hairs just to justify a bigoted crusade, without looking at the situation with anything more than a cursory glance before forgetting it happened, thus ignoring a chance to actually learn instead of posting quick jibes that literally do nothing but antagonise.
Last edited:
But as myself and others pointed out the tweets and statements specifically called out the hotel victims separately.
"The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers"
So your argument collapses as it's fairly safe to assume the people in the churches were Christians...
1 mosque targetted 3 churches targetted describing at the very least the church victims as christian would be both accurate and applicable and the tourists killed and wounded at the hotels have been differentiated from the church bombings by politicians so addressing both groups by applicable titles is wholly appropriate. This favour that islam enjoys in the west really puzzles me because if there was ever anything more unsuited to what the west has stood for it's islam and yet no matter what it's followers do or how often they commit terrorist acts they are constantly defended by politicians and the media as well as members of the public who are often very quick to condemn non muslims for some of what they do.
Both are wrong and both should be treated equally in reporting and if that offends some people tough because it does not offend a far larger majority. With the way the west is dealing with islam the phrase "beggers to our own demise" comes strongly to mind.
Both are wrong and both should be treated equally in reporting and if that offends some people tough because it does not offend a far larger majority. With the way the west is dealing with islam the phrase "beggers to our own demise" comes strongly to mind.
Soldato
"One sect of religionists attacks and kills another sect of religionists and collateral targets."
However recent evidence tends to indicate one sect goes the deranged singleton mode and the other a deranged pack mode. Maybe nothing in it.
I note that they are saying an imam was killed taking part in the Sri Lanka gang.
However recent evidence tends to indicate one sect goes the deranged singleton mode and the other a deranged pack mode. Maybe nothing in it.
I note that they are saying an imam was killed taking part in the Sri Lanka gang.
Exactly. It doesnt seem hard to understand this simple point, but they just dont grasp what your saying.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
What is this, the Christian forum? I still don't understand why it matters that they said Easter Worshippers instead of Christians.
I'm literally referring to Obama and Clinton, as I don't know who else you are referring to (I don't use twitter)
Clinton is a methodist Christian and Obama is a Christian. So you're complaining about two Christians using the term Easter Worshippers instead of Christians?
I'm literally referring to Obama and Clinton, as I don't know who else you are referring to (I don't use twitter)
Clinton is a methodist Christian and Obama is a Christian. So you're complaining about two Christians using the term Easter Worshippers instead of Christians?
So because people take umbrage with something this must be the Christian forum? When people speak in defence of Islam does that make this the Muslim forum?
The point is that Christianity is widely accepted as being the most persecuted religion in the world. This has been highlighted by this event where the reactions of those who wield significant power are seen to be very different in comparison to the recent attacks in NZ. The very fact that 2 of the most influential people on the planet can't even bring themselves to refer to the victims as Christians speaks volumes. You then have others who made a large amount of noise about the NZ attacks who have remained completely silent on these. The international reaction between the 2 events has had such a disparity it's unreal. People such as Milo Yiannopoulos were condemned for their 'right wing' viewpoints yet are we seeing condemnation of supporters of Islam? Which, let's face it, is the connecting thread in the majority of worldwide terrorist attacks (a couple of years ago just 4 of the many islamic terror groups were responsible for 75% of all terror related deaths in the world!). No, what we see instead is a defence of Islam and the teachings associated with it.
Take even this forum. Have a look at the attitudes and responses of some people in the NZ thread compared to this one. Where is Crazy for example with his spamming of graphs, charts and links about Islamic terror? I don't believe he's even commented on this thread.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
Quick search for @C.R.A.Z.Y reveals he's not really been active since 19th April, 2 days before the attack happened.
Splitting hairs over the use of 'Easter worshipers' - what a coincidence it's the same talking point Tucker Carlson is using to attack Clinton and Obama - because as always this is the important thing/always the victim.
It's good that sites who now complain about the term (or similar) such as the Daily Caller (founded by Carlson) or Washington Post don't use the same term....
You have to be a special kind of person to adopt this talking especially from the outlets who are clearly trying to get a rise out of people with trash reporting like this, or willfully highlighting nascence like this as a distraction.
Next it will be Obama (who left office in 2017 by the way) hasn't used the term 'radical Islam', oh wait......
I honestly despair at some people on this planet and this forum. Have we lost the war on Christmas yet?
Edit - is CRAZY out there now? Hope they're OK!
It's good that sites who now complain about the term (or similar) such as the Daily Caller (founded by Carlson) or Washington Post don't use the same term....
You have to be a special kind of person to adopt this talking especially from the outlets who are clearly trying to get a rise out of people with trash reporting like this, or willfully highlighting nascence like this as a distraction.
Next it will be Obama (who left office in 2017 by the way) hasn't used the term 'radical Islam', oh wait......
I honestly despair at some people on this planet and this forum. Have we lost the war on Christmas yet?
Edit - is CRAZY out there now? Hope they're OK!
Last edited:
Yet he was last seen 2 days ago so he's clearly logging in and checking on things. Considering this thread has been at or near the top of gd since it was created it's pretty hard to miss...
Most persecuted? Not even a century ago was there a concerted effort to wipe out all Jews, are you joking?
The only thing that has changed and only just barely so, is that people can see the unmitigated glory of the entire world from within the palm of their hands, whether they care or not is irrelevant (they don’t, unless their neighbourhood).
So when you say persecuted, you mean the very same people that have been persecuted for centuries, with not an ounce of tribulation from the west, yet somehow now ‘cares’?
Ask yourself why, it can’t be some higher purpose as we’re happy to indirectly kill them ourselves (Yemeni, Kurdish for a couple examples) it must therefore be politically motivated... to be seen to do something for the home crowd.
And no one is defending Islam, they’re defending innocent Muslims who don’t deserve to be singled out of the crowd for the actions of others.
You want to know the reason why Christians in high places might not care enough? It’s because they’re safe and have been safe for centuries, ignoring the odd Catholic-Protestant issues. It’s extremely cynical, but why should they care about Sri Lankan’s as opposed to Muslims being murdered in a safe western nation?
Last edited:
How did I miss this? This is sig worthy. By what metric are you going by for this? I didn't realise they were such a downtrodden religion.
Are alter boys not the most persecuted group of people for a while over the last 5 or so decades?
It's amazing how your world view lines up with the likes of Fox News - us whites/Christians are the victims boohoo.
By the metric that more Christians are murdered for their faith than any other in the world. Glad you think that that's hilarious and sigworthy though!
A recent source for you
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...acks-christians-worldwide-persecution-silence
"It is ignored in the west, but Christianity is the most persecuted religion. Why is there such silence on the issue?"
Last edited: