Sri Lanka blasts: 359 dead in 7 explosions in churches, hotels on Easter

[canuckistani]

12 hours ago, Kragar said:

Mostly right, as far as a reflection on my perspective.

 

Terrorism is a problem.  Ultimately, I don't care who is responsible... mass killings of innocent people are reprehensible. The ideology of Islam is not the problem... it's what some people do with it that is.  Just like there are a-hole terrorist white nationalists who deserve utter condemnation, so too are there Muslim terrorists (or, terrorists who identify as Muslims, for those wanting to play word games), who should deserve equal condemnation.

 

Recent media has shown clearly that the condemnation is not equal when it comes to many prominent Democrats, and many of their supporters.  And, I don't think that having a motive for behaving hypocritically makes one any less hypocritical.

have you actually read the ideology of islam ? can you compare and contrast it with other religions ? i'd say ideology of Islam is definitely the problem.

[Kragar]

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

have you actually read the ideology of islam ? can you compare and contrast it with other religions ? i'd say ideology of Islam is definitely the problem.

I've read some, and without getting into too many details, I am clearly not a fan.  I know that there are facets of the faith that definitely contribute to some people's participation in terrorism and other vile acts we all should decry today.

 

My point was to make clear I was not painting them all with the same brush.  The Muslims I know personally are all fine, and as good and flawed as any other person.

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I've read some, and without getting into too many details, I am clearly not a fan.  I know that there are facets of the faith that definitely contribute to some people's participation in terrorism and other vile acts we all should decry today.

 

My point was to make clear I was not painting them all with the same brush.  The Muslims I know personally are all fine, and as good and flawed as any other person.

yes, thats the case with any ideology really, even Nazis. People have differing participation/acceptance level to ideology, leading to asymetric outcome. There will always be people who will monetize & discriminate kumbayaas and there will be Nazis who do very little or no harm. People's behavior is irrelevant to the toxicity of an ideological system. 

[Kragar]

17 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

yes, thats the case with any ideology really, even Nazis. People have differing participation/acceptance level to ideology, leading to asymetric outcome. There will always be people who will monetize & discriminate kumbayaas and there will be Nazis who do very little or no harm. People's behavior is irrelevant to the toxicity of an ideological system. 

I'm not sure I agree here.  Can the toxicity not be consciously removed.  If Muslims decide to stop (among other things) stoning women, stop forcing conversions into Islam, and allow people to freely change their faith away from Islam without punishment, is the ideology of those Muslims still toxic.

 

Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine.  For the sake of derailment, maybe we should not get into it too much deeper here.

 

 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm not sure I agree here.  Can the toxicity not be consciously removed.  If Muslims decide to stop (among other things) stoning women, stop forcing conversions into Islam, and allow people to freely change their faith away from Islam without punishment, is the ideology of those Muslims still toxic.

 

Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine.  For the sake of derailment, maybe we should not get into it too much deeper here.

 

 

Well if Nazis deciede to not be Nazis, but become peace-loving vegetarians, then yes, Nazism would be awesome label. Same applies for Islam. Its not so easy to stop these things in Islam, because unlike other religions, Islam has a unique angle : its main book ( Koran) has only 1 version. Its never been modified, being the 'direct words of God himself', explicitly forbids any modification whatsoever to the holy text and has zero contradictions in the text itself. All this, makes it extremely hard to actually reform Islam. What you get in terms of moderate muslims, are muslims who reject/dont follow certain parts of the Koran. What you get in terms of fundamentalist muslims, are muslims who follow/want to follow the entirity of the text. This is different from moderate/hardline christians/jews/hindus etc. because their books have multiple versions, have been modified, have a moderate angle ( eg for bible: Jesus's teachings are moderate compared to Ezekiel) vs hardline angle, etc etc. 

 

Furthremore, if you change your faith away from Islam, you are, by definition, no longer muslim. 

[Kushman]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Well if Nazis deciede to not be Nazis, but become peace-loving vegetarians, then yes, Nazism would be awesome label. Same applies for Islam. Its not so easy to stop these things in Islam, because unlike other religions, Islam has a unique angle : its main book ( Koran) has only 1 version. Its never been modified, being the 'direct words of God himself', explicitly forbids any modification whatsoever to the holy text and has zero contradictions in the text itself. All this, makes it extremely hard to actually reform Islam. What you get in terms of moderate muslims, are muslims who reject/dont follow certain parts of the Koran. What you get in terms of fundamentalist muslims, are muslims who follow/want to follow the entirity of the text. This is different from moderate/hardline christians/jews/hindus etc. because their books have multiple versions, have been modified, have a moderate angle ( eg for bible: Jesus's teachings are moderate compared to Ezekiel) vs hardline angle, etc etc. 

 

Furthremore, if you change your faith away from Islam, you are, by definition, no longer muslim. 

 

[thedestroyerofworlds]

A little late for all the "Easter worshippers" thing.  This is the headline from an article on FOX NEWS.  I think this headline adequately retorts all the b.s. complaints by certain people.

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/tourists-easter-worshippers-lament-closure-of-notre-dame

Tourists, Easter worshippers lament closure of Notre Dame

[nuckin_futz]

Meanwhile the new total is at least 320 .

[Kushman]

1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

A little late for all the "Easter worshippers" thing.  This is the headline from an article on FOX NEWS.  I think this headline adequately retorts all the b.s. complaints by certain people.

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/tourists-easter-worshippers-lament-closure-of-notre-dame

Tourists, Easter worshippers lament closure of Notre Dame

The article was written by the Associated Press, not FOX news. It's been posted on the various mainstream media sites. 

 

Here's Tucker from FOX news talking about the left refusing to call the victims Christians.

 

 

 

[nuckin_futz]

I am a little confused about a few things. Firstly it appears some are bent out of shape about two retired politicians who will never again run for public office not calling "Easter Worshipers" "Christians", citing it as evidence of a war on Christianity.

 

When are Easter worshipers anything but Christians? Do Hindus celebrate Easter? Jews? Buddhists? I don't hear the same empathy for the victims of the hotel blasts who were more than likely Buddhist or Hindu.

 

How can people claim not calling the victims "Christian" instead of "Easter Worshipers" is evidence of a war on Christianity but not even mention or seem to give a rip about the fact that the Sri Lankan government had prior intelligence of an upcoming attack on churches and did not issue a public warning.

 

From page 2 of this thread .....

 

"Prime Minister Ranil Wickremsinghe acknowledged that the government had some "prior information of the attack", though ministers were not told.

 

He said there wasn't an adequate response and there needed to be an inquiry into how the information was used.

 

He also said the government needs to look at the international links of a local militant group.

 

Agence France Presse reported that it had seen documents showing that Sri Lanka's police chief Pujuth Jayasundara issued an intelligence alert to top officers 10 days ago, warning that suicide bombers planned to hit "prominent churches". He cited a foreign intelligence service as reporting that a little-known Islamist group was planning attacks."

 

Therefore, allowing Christians to congregate at churches on Easter. Isn't that better evidence of a war on Christianity than a tweet? Talk about misplaced outrage.

 

There may in fact be a war on Christianity however, it pales in comparison to the war on common sense.

Edited April 23, 2019 by nuckin_futz

[thedestroyerofworlds]

17 minutes ago, Kushman said:

The article was written by the Associated Press, not FOX news. It's been posted on the various mainstream media sites. 

 

Here's Tucker from FOX news talking about the left refusing to call the victims Christians.

 

 

 

Bit of a reach there Cucker.  As for your retort that is was and AP article, that doesn't excuse FOX NEWS, you know, the company that employs Cucker from using the phrase.  Kinda mixed messaging.  Cucker uses the phrase "Easter worshipers" as his evidence that that left is waging a war on Christianity, yet his employers have that phrase in a headline on their site.  Why didn't they just use Christians?  Does that mean FOX NEWS is also in of the war against Christians?  Except for all their bits on the war on Christmas, an this Cucker segment.  

 

EDIT:  Look at the day published.  Before the bombings?  Before some people lost their crap over the phrase "Easter worshipers"?  

Edited April 23, 2019 by thedestroyerofworlds

[bishopshodan]

Sri Lanka shuts down social media.

 

I understand why but don''t know if they should.

 

Will there be a future where only verified accounts will be allowed? Would that work? Apparently 'What's app' and 'Peer to Peer' platforms are big over seas.

 

 

 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

I am a little confused about a few things. Firstly it appears some are bent out of shape about two retired politicians who will never again run for public office not calling "Easter Worshipers" "Christians", citing it as evidence of a war on Christianity.

 

When are Easter worshipers anything but Christians? Do Hindus celebrate Easter? Jews? Buddhists? I don't hear the same empathy for the victims of the hotel blasts who were more than likely Buddhist or Hindu.

 

How can people claim not calling the victims "Christian" instead of "Easter Worshipers" is evidence of a war on Christianity but not even mention or seem to give a rip about the fact that the Sri Lankan government had prior intelligence of an upcoming attack on churches and did not issue a public warning.

 

From page 2 of this thread .....

 

"Prime Minister Ranil Wickremsinghe acknowledged that the government had some "prior information of the attack", though ministers were not told.

 

He said there wasn't an adequate response and there needed to be an inquiry into how the information was used.

 

He also said the government needs to look at the international links of a local militant group.

 

Agence France Presse reported that it had seen documents showing that Sri Lanka's police chief Pujuth Jayasundara issued an intelligence alert to top officers 10 days ago, warning that suicide bombers planned to hit "prominent churches". He cited a foreign intelligence service as reporting that a little-known Islamist group was planning attacks."

 

Therefore, allowing Christians to congregate at churches on Easter. Isn't that better evidence of a war on Christianity than a tweet? Talk about misplaced outrage.

 

There may in fact be a war on Christianity however, it pales in comparison to the war on common sense.

I don’t know how things like policing work on Sri Lanka, but could there be more here than just a lack of “common sense” and that’s what their Prime Minister is wanting looked into?  

[canuckistani]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I don’t know how things like policing work on Sri Lanka, but could there be more here than just a lack of “common sense” and that’s what their Prime Minister is wanting looked into?  

The Prime Minister is being diplomatic.

Sri Lanka is not set up like most British colonies( including us), where the PM holds all the power and there is a ceremonial position like the Gov. General or President ( India for eg) who is a figurehead ala the Queen. Sri Lanka is a bit more like Russia, as in their President has way more power than India's or Canada's head of state ( Lt. General), but not as much as Russia's. 
Last year, around October, the SL President tried to fire the SL PM, sparking a constitutional crisis and was forced by their Supreme Court to re-instate the PM. He has, subsequently, kept intelligence reports and security briefings from the PM, which may go a long way to explain why they did not heed the warnings from an allied foreign power regarding this terror outfit ( most likely India). 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

18 hours ago, Kushman said:

should of been more specific. Show me where Obama or Hillary condemned radical Islam right after an attack. I've seen many members on the left (AOC, Hillary, Ilhan, etc...) cry out about Muslim victimhood at the hands of  "growing white supremacy" without hesitation, but anytime there is an attack by Islamic radicals, they are quite silent on mentioning radical Islam, or mentioning the perpetrators at all. The reality is, the left refuses to acknowledge Islam as problematic in any way shape or form, and naming Christians as a victims of Islamic terror would of went against the very agenda they've been pushing for years now. It's sad and disgusting. 

Wasn't Obama in charge when they shot Bin Laden?

 

We need to start prosecuting the criminals. Not worrying about whatever derision / perversion of faith, or politics, used to justify killing people. Particularly terror attacks on random people. Mass shootings, using a bus or truck to mow down people.

 

 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Wasn't Obama in charge when they shot Bin Laden?

 

We need to start prosecuting the criminals. Not worrying about whatever derision / perversion of faith, or politics, used to justify killing people. Particularly terror attacks on random people. Mass shootings, using a bus or truck to mow down people.

 

 

@canuckistani could answer this better, but I think the Israelis did more than just punish the terrorist.  They targeted families of those attackers I think, didn’t they?  

[canuckistani]

Just now, Alflives said:

@canuckistani could answer this better, but I think the Israelis did more than just punish the terrorist.  They targeted families of those attackers I think, didn’t they?  

yep. and it works......surprise surprise.

[Canuck Surfer]

37 minutes ago, Alflives said:

@canuckistani could answer this better, but I think the Israelis did more than just punish the terrorist.  They targeted families of those attackers I think, didn’t they?  

Not sure I support that.  If the family is running a terrorist training camp, bank rolling the perversion sure...

 

37 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

yep. and it works......surprise surprise.

Yeah, sure it does.

 

Its why persecution boils underground for generations. Breeds terrorist after terrorist.

 

Kill their mother. There wont be any deep seeded resentment?

 

Its why the terror becomes stealth.

[Kragar]

22 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Wasn't Obama in charge when they shot Bin Laden?

Yes, he was.  He also went to lengths to proclaim that Bin Laden was not Muslim.  I don't recall any fact-checkers calling him out for that statement either. 

 

He has repeatedly and deliberately taken steps to distance Muslims who commit terrorist activities from Islam, I presume in an effort to appease any Muslim (or left-leaning US voter) who might take offense at any slight derived from the real connection.

 

Look up any Christian church shooting... I challenge you to find Obama send comfort to Christians.  He consistently sends words of support to Muslims (identified as such) when a mosque is attacked, but never uses the word "Christian" when they are attacked.  Why is that?

 

 

[Generational.EP40]

 

let’s go social justice !