Disgusting attack on Sri Lankans and Christians during Easter Sunday :(

Scroll to see replies

You're kidding, right? The papers and news have been leading with this for two days.

Detailed coverage, there is coverage certainly but is not as detailed as the ones with Western terror attacks, at least in my view. Such as who did it, the progress into the incident, how are the victims coping, how are the local people coping etc..

Reply 121

username4499936

Original post by RazzzBerries

The problem here is claiming religion has anything to do with terrorism at all. While citing chapter and verse, they are spinning their own versions of what they think it means. No where does it justify the mass killing of people.

I would rather have people judge them for what they've done wrong: a disgusting attack on the life of human beings, rather than debate which religion they were "fighting" for.

Considering that somehow 7 young men with their whole lives ahead of them somehow decided it would be a good idea to vaporize themselves............

I'd say it's worth considering their motivations.Obviously religion has everything to do with it.

Reply 122

Ladbants

Original post by ThunderBeard

Something seems a bit off. The thing is the Sri Lankan Government apparently knew about this. Furthermore the church masses were all during the Tamil masses. Embers of the war?

Not true, Negombo’s victims were mostly Sinhalese and in a Sinhalese area. If they wanted to target only Tamils they would have bombed a hindu temple and wouldn’t have bothered bombing hotels.

Reply 123

Ladbants

Original post by AJ126

It might not have had everything to do with it. Muslims in Sri Lanka have faced a number of small attacks from Sinhala Buddhists recently and were attacked by Tamil Tigers during the war, so a lot of them would feel marginalised and targeted, leaving some of them open to being recruited by terrorist groups who wanted to use them for their own agenda.

Reply 124

username4499936

Original post by Ladbants

Generally even if I feel marginalised or unhappy with people it never crosses my mind to strap a bomb to my chest and blow 207 people up.It just doesn't.Honestly I don't know why this is even a debate.The clue is in the name.Islamist Terrorism.Islamic Extremism.Its not atheist terrorism or Mormon terrorism or Jain Terrorism.To deny the link between Islam and this sort of terrorism is just the worst sort of apologetics.

Reply 125

QE2

Original post by The RAR

Still the top story with detailed coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk

Reply 126

QE2

Original post by Ladbants

It might not have had everything to do with it. Muslims in Sri Lanka have faced a number of small attacks from Sinhala Buddhists recently and were attacked by Tamil Tigers during the war,

So why attack Christian churches rather than Buddhist temples? And only 6% of Tamils are Christian. About 90% are Hindu so again, why target churches?

so a lot of them would feel marginalised and targeted, leaving some of them open to being recruited by terrorist groups who wanted to use them for their own agenda.

So in this scenario the motivation and justification for these attacks is not their personal grievances but the ideology of the group that recruited them.

Reply 127

Just my opinion

Yesterday there's a piece in the online mail by bishop giving his reason why nobody seems to give a s*** about the Slaughter of Christians around the world.
It was something along the lines of colonial guilt.
I can't link because mysteriously it has been taken down.

Reply 128

Ladbants

Original post by QE2

So why attack Christian churches rather than Buddhist temples? And only 6% of Tamils are Christian. About 90% are Hindu so again, why target churches?

So in this scenario the motivation and justification for these attacks is not their personal grievances but the ideology of the group that recruited them.

It’s not 6% it’s more like 10%, there are significant numbers of Christians in both ethnic groups, and reportedly it could have been a retaliation for the New Zealand attack on Muslims. And not sure why you want to spark hatred of a religion like this when only a few people actually did these attacks, it is this sort of rhetoric that leads to retaliatory attacks. Many Muslims actually helped the victims as well so don’t try and tarnish their religion like that.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 129

Ladbants

Original post by The RAR

Yeah if it’s true, the New Zealand attacks and Paris attacks got way more coverage, 24/7. They either don’t care because the victims are Christians or because the victims are Sri Lankans. I reckon it’s both

Reply 130

QE2

Original post by Ladbants

It’s not 6% it’s more like 10%, there are significant numbers of Christians in both ethnic groups,

I guess it depends on the source, but 6% or 10%, my point still stands. If the attackers were motivated by Tamil attacks on Muslims, it is more logical to target the 80% majority religion rather than a 6-10% minority.

and reportedly it could have been a retaliation for the New Zealand attack on Muslims.

Which was in part in retaliation for Islamist attacks on western targets.

And not sure why you want to spark hatred of a religion like this

I dislike all religions and other extremist ideologies, especially those that promote violent intolerance, discrimination and oppression. This latest outrage is a perfect example of why.

when only a few people actually did these attacks, it is this sort of rhetoric that leads to retaliatory attacks.

So you think that calls for the motivations and justifications of such attacks to be robustly and honestly addressed encourages more attacks? What would you suggest instead? Ignore why they are doing it and just wait for the next one?

Many Muslims actually helped the victims as well so don’t try and tarnish their religion like that.

Most Muslims are far better than their religion. Same applies to Christians.
However, as long as people accept and even defend a religion's right to spread hate and dehumanise out-groups, these things will continue, because there will always be people who take their religion at its (perfect, immutable) word.

Reply 131

QE2

Original post by Ladbants

Yeah if it’s true, the New Zealand attacks and Paris attacks got way more coverage, 24/7.

It is no secret or mystery that the media gives more coverage to stories that have a closer connection to their audience than stories that don't. Did you expect any different?
It's the same principle by which you would mourn and go to the funeral of a neighbour, but maybe not a passing acquaintance from two streets away, and definitely not a stranger from the next town.

In the same way, the Sri Lankan media will devote more coverage to this attack that they would to the Paris attack. But somehow I don't think you'll criticise them for it.

They either don’t care because the victims are Christians or because the victims are Sri Lankans. I reckon it’s both

Hold on, are you accusing the UK media of having a pro-Muslim bias? First time I've heard that accusation!

Reply 132

Reformed

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

You can call it a "standard meaningless response" if you like :smile:

Islamist terrorist bashing is of course acceptable but as far as I'm aware, we don't officially know that it was an Islamist terrorist group. Besides, the people above me were getting into stupid arguments about Quranic verses, which don't have a place in this thread - that's for other threads. That is what I was directly responding to :yes:

Exactly. As I say above, there are plenty of other threads on which to quibble about jihadists and whether Quranic verses support or do not support them. Or whether they are Muslim or not. This is not the place...

POST EDIT: Just seen news which seems to officially implicate a local Muslim group, so I stand corrected on that front. But I didn't know that info when I made the original comment

not to worry- tbh the sri lankan authorities tried their damndest to keep the leak from getting out as long as possible. they had been obsessed with tamils in the country for so long they had taken their eye of the ball in terms of other major threats.

Reply 133

Reformed

Original post by RazzzBerries

you could do that, and for every other similar attack in any other country round the globe , ignoring the part that coordinated (and in some cases 1000 year old) indcotrination has played in these attacks happening. then you could simply repeat parrot fashion these must all be random unlinked attacks by 'crazies' with no particular agenda.

that would be logical and would achieve a solution to the problem for sure..

Reply 134

Underscore__

Original post by QE2

Hold on, are you accusing the UK media of having a pro-Muslim bias? First time I've heard that accusation!

I would say in response to the wave of public feeling that Muslims were crapped on by the media certain broadsheets and other, more left leaning media outlets, have done a 180.

Reply 135

Cxesar

Original post by Professional G

it’s not the time for stupid conspiracy theories.

That is a good point, but stupid? that is your opinion and is relative... One could argue the person who is naive enough to group conspiracy theories as stupid is stupid...

Reply 136

z-hog

Talking of conspiracy theories, there's a bloke down the pub quite given to them and his latest is that parts of the media are going out of their way to avoid the use of the word 'Christian' in their reporting, he says it's because it's bad for business when trying to bring Christianity down to portray Christians as victims of anything on this earth. I told him I wasn't sure, that you can't put anything past the media these days but that it would be hard work to leave it out. After all, every time Muslims or people of any other denomination are targeted we are inevitably told of what made them a target. I told him I'd look it up and reminded him it was his round next.

So I did look it up:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/apr/22/sri-lanka-attacks-bombings-live-news

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sri-lanka-bombings-attack-easter-massacre-terrorism-colombo-church-thowheed-jamaat-islam-a8881566.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48018417

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48028045?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cywd23g0gxgt/sri-lanka&link_location=live-reporting-story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48011886

Five samples will have to do, we all have a life. Only mention of the word 'Christian' is in the middle link, it is quoted as part of an alleged statement by IS that they were intent on targeting, well... Christians. Other than that, couldn't find the word Christian once anywhere. The bottom link is remarkable by covering the whole religious side of it without ever using the word... Christian. Plenty of references to Muslims and Buddhists, why not?

Never mind all that, the question is: what do I tell my mate tomorrow when I see him?

Reply 137

Chakede

Original post by z-hog

interesting, though I wonder how concerned youe been about christians in asia at any point before this atrocity. take a llook at pakistans treatment of them in last 2 decades for example

Reply 138

AntiMonarchist

Original post by z-hog

I also find interesting that the media have been quick to blame the authorities for not doing anything to 'halt the attack'. They appear to be apportioning more blame to the authorities for this than the attackers themselves.
What a contrast to the constant nauseating praise they heaped on Jacinda Ardern, just because she put on a headscarf and put her best moany face on.

Reply 139

z-hog

Original post by Chakede

interesting, though I wonder how concerned youe been about christians in asia at any point before this atrocity. take a llook at pakistans treatment of them in last 2 decades for example

Oh, I've been concerned about Christians in Asia as much as about everybody on the planet. In this particular instance, the question is solely about the reporting. There must be some reports using the word, thought a quick search among that MSM would quickly put the conspiracy theory to rest but it was going to take longer than I can afford.

This is of interest: immediately after the attacks, they're all tweeting and reporting under the directive of avoiding the word Christian. When Obama tweets about Easter Worshippers, it's as if the entire network of political and public figures with their media complex are aware of the need to suppress the word. From him to the BBC, with everyone in between. Surely that is pre-determined, they couldn't just get on the phone among themselves to decide it on the spot.