Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bedford Roughyed

Sri Lanka bombings

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

There's been plenty of other wars over the centuries 

Yep - but most wars aren’t fought for religion; they are about land and power. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GeordieSaint said:

Yep - but most wars aren’t fought for religion; they are about land and power. 

But quite often religion is used by the perpetrators to control their populace to fight for that land or power 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But quite often religion is used by the perpetrators to control their populace to fight for that land or power 

And to identify an enemy and unify a cause . It engenders ‘ other ‘ , something different to us in this context . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tim2 said:

Yes. Religion makes a convenient hook on which to hang your tribal hat.

Indeed.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

  • Like 1

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saintslass said:

No confirmation on which group is responsible but the Guardian is reporting the following in their rolling news

 

Contrary to what the BBC reported (quoted in the previous post), AFP reports that an intelligence alert was issue earlier this month about a potential attack.

Documents seen by AFP show 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”.

“A foreign intelligence agency has reported that the NTJ (National Thowheeth Jama’ath) is planning to carry out suicide attacks targeting prominent churches as well as the Indian high commission in Colombo,” the alert said.

The NTJ is a radical Muslim group in Sri Lanka that was linked last year to the vandalisation of Buddhist statues.

If the bombings were carried out by a radical Muslim group there will be ramifications for Muslims in Sri Lanka and elsewhere and so it goes on.

The sympathy that the Muslim community got after the Christchurch bombings could well be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking numbers.

 


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An absolutely tragic event. I am sad but at the same time infuriated with the way this is being reported compared to the Christchurch terror attacks. I’ve harped on about media double standards on here before but once again it has popped up and once again I’ll express my displeasure. While I know it isn’t a conspiracy theory as some on here would like to believe, it should now become a bit more obvious to the naysayers that there are obvious differences in the way these things are reported. Not just by the media but public figures as well. It all depends on who is carrying out the attacks and the victims of the attacks. 

Case in point, tweets by politicians.

Seriously how hard is for these people to say “Christians”? What exactly is an “Easter Worshipper”? Do you not even begin to question why these people started using that term in unison? 

Now compare that to the Christchurch attacks. You can all see the differences right? Hillary Clinton didn’t refer to Muslims as Friday Worshippers. She also immediately called out to fight islamophobia. This is in complete contrast to her response to Sri Lanka. 

It does make you wonder doesn’t it? You’d think she’d say the same about violence against Christians especially when you consider that they are more likely to be the victims of attacks. But no, we get a generic response to fight hatred. 

It’s almost like there are ulterior motives involved......

854FB7B1-EB79-4DD3-BBCF-E977C75A4770.jpeg

1D95B426-DCF9-4694-AFBC-A7EABFA58841.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

Shocking numbers.

 

Absolutely horrendous. I think we're going to find out very quickly that we're dealing with both a a well-resourced Islamist threat and incompetence on an epic scale from a complacent government.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Absolutely horrendous. I think we're going to find out very quickly that we're dealing with both a a well-resourced Islamist threat and incompetence on an epic scale from a complacent government.

I would agree.

According to the Associated Press, a contact within the forensic investigation has confirmed the original six bombs were triggered by seven suicide bombers.  I'm not aware of any groups other than Islamist terrorists which use suicide bombers?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Future is League said:

If the bombings were carried out by a radical Muslim group there will be ramifications for Muslims in Sri Lanka and elsewhere and so it goes on.

The sympathy that the Muslim community got after the Christchurch bombings could well be lost.

That is no reason to avoid naming those responsible, once that is established (although personally I think it already has been).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

I'm not aware of any groups other than Islamist terrorists which use suicide bombers?  

I'm sure I could dig some out - I have a vague memory that Sri Lanka's civil war had some on all sides - but that's irrelevant for the now. It looks a lot like the kind of attacks we associate with Islamists. There's been a threat from a named Islamist organisation to the Sri Lankan government detailing this exact kind of attack on these targets. I'm going to be very surprised if it's anything other than the obvious.

To cover off the 'why aren't we calling them Christians'? My personal view is that 'Easter worshippers' brings home fine the reason why people were in the churches. It is one of the holiest days in the calendar. It's a day of celebration. That brings it home. Plus, we have to, for the time being, differentiate between those attacked in church and those attacked in the hotels. The latter were not killed because they were Christians, although many of them, I suspect, will be.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

I'm not aware of any groups other than Islamist terrorists which use suicide bombers?  

The Tamil tigers used suicide bombers (developed the vest, etc) from the 1980's.  Not the first but one of the first to use this tactic.  


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

To cover off the 'why aren't we calling them Christians'? My personal view is that 'Easter worshippers' brings home fine the reason why people were in the churches. It is one of the holiest days in the calendar. It's a day of celebration. That brings it home. Plus, we have to, for the time being, differentiate between those attacked in church and those attacked in the hotels. The latter were not killed because they were Christians, although many of them, I suspect, will be.

I disagree but can see where you’re coming. Christians and Tourists would have sufficed. Christians don’t refer to or identify themselves as Easter Worshippers. I’ve never seen that term before. People were in churches because they are Christians and were targeted because they are Christians. 

Refusal to name them as such as well as call out the perpetrators is alarming, especially when just a month ago, it was done with no time wasted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Refusal to name them as such as well as call out the perpetrators is alarming, especially when just a month ago, it was done with no time wasted. 

They will when they say who it was.  No one has claimed it yet.  

  • Like 1

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm sure I could dig some out - I have a vague memory that Sri Lanka's civil war had some on all sides - but that's irrelevant for the now. It looks a lot like the kind of attacks we associate with Islamists. There's been a threat from a named Islamist organisation to the Sri Lankan government detailing this exact kind of attack on these targets. I'm going to be very surprised if it's anything other than the obvious.

To cover off the 'why aren't we calling them Christians'? My personal view is that 'Easter worshippers' brings home fine the reason why people were in the churches. It is one of the holiest days in the calendar. It's a day of celebration. That brings it home. Plus, we have to, for the time being, differentiate between those attacked in church and those attacked in the hotels. The latter were not killed because they were Christians, although many of them, I suspect, will be.

I'm not sure we necessarily have to differentiate.  If this attack was Islamist then that suggests an international flavour and as we all know, Islamists view westerners as Christian (whether or not they actually are) and given the luxury of the hotels hit, it could be assumed that they will have had a number of westerners in there.  To the Islamist, western and Christian is synonymous and so hitting luxury hotels and churches will be pretty much one and the same thing.

Calling Christians 'Easter worshippers' appears to have started with the Democrats in the USA, who also referred to other faiths having holy days over Easter.  There is definitely a down play in some areas of this being targeted at Christians.  Thankfully we can also quote our Foreign Secretary who was very specific about Christians and who (rightly) pointed out our poor record in defending Christians, the persecution of whom has been on the rise worldwide for some time.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

The Tamil tigers used suicide bombers (developed the vest, etc) from the 1980's.  Not the first but one of the first to use this tactic.  

Fair enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

They will when they say who it was.  No one has claimed it yet.  

As far as I know, 2 names have already been released which tells you all you need to know. But even when they do get to the bottom of it, I’m absolutely willing to bet that 2 key words won’t be used side by side to label this attack. I’ll let you figure that one out.

In the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, white supremacy was immediately being blamed by the media despite not knowing anything about the attacker. 

Why is it different now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

As far as I know, 2 names have already been released which tells you all you need to know. But even when they do get to the bottom of it, I’m absolutely willing to bet that 2 key words won’t be used side by side to label this attack. I’ll let you figure that one out.

In the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, white supremacy was immediately being blamed by the media despite not knowing anything about the attacker. 

Why is it different now?

If I google "islamist bombing sri lanka" the top link is the New York Times saying that suspicion has fallen on Islamic terrorists and then a link to more detail about Islamic terrorism. Called that very clearly, by the way. The next link is Fox Australia talking about links to Islamic State. Then a couple more in a similar vein until you get to Infowars saying that nobody is calling them Islamist attacks.

This is my work laptop so it has location services off, so you may not get the exact same list in the same order, but it does seem that news outlets are happy put Islamic, terror and attack, all in the same sentence.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Why is it different now?

Because the attacker claimed responsibility, released his name, live-streamed it, had white nationalist symbols and messages, used white nationalist memes. 

But hey, if you want to be more upset about Hillary and Christchurch than the massacre of catholic worshipers and tourists, then crack on.  


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

I'm not sure we necessarily have to differentiate.  If this attack was Islamist then that suggests an international flavour and as we all know, Islamists view westerners as Christian (whether or not they actually are) and given the luxury of the hotels hit, it could be assumed that they will have had a number of westerners in there.  To the Islamist, western and Christian is synonymous and so hitting luxury hotels and churches will be pretty much one and the same thing.

Calling Christians 'Easter worshippers' appears to have started with the Democrats in the USA, who also referred to other faiths having holy days over Easter.  There is definitely a down play in some areas of this being targeted at Christians.  Thankfully we can also quote our Foreign Secretary who was very specific about Christians and who (rightly) pointed out our poor record in defending Christians, the persecution of whom has been on the rise worldwide for some time.  

That’s a key point right there. In the discussions that I’ve had, I’ve noticed that those from Islamic countries tend to extrapolate the widespread following of religion in their own countries when looking at the west. Thus they consider every westerner a Christian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If I google "islamist bombing sri lanka" the top link is the New York Times saying that suspicion has fallen on Islamic terrorists and then a link to more detail about Islamic terrorism. Called that very clearly, by the way. The next link is Fox Australia talking about links to Islamic State. Then a couple more in a similar vein until you get to Infowars saying that nobody is calling them Islamist attacks.

This is my work laptop so it has location services off, so you may not get the exact same list in the same order, but it does seem that news outlets are happy put Islamic, terror and attack, all in the same sentence.

The BBC used 'radical extremist Islamist group'.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If I google "islamist bombing sri lanka" the top link is the New York Times saying that suspicion has fallen on Islamic terrorists and then a link to more detail about Islamic terrorism. Called that very clearly, by the way. The next link is Fox Australia talking about links to Islamic State. Then a couple more in a similar vein until you get to Infowars saying that nobody is calling them Islamist attacks.

This is my work laptop so it has location services off, so you may not get the exact same list in the same order, but it does seem that news outlets are happy put Islamic, terror and attack, all in the same sentence.

Now do the same search for “white supremacy Christchurch” and see how more explicit the articles are in addressing the problem. There’s a clear difference whether you want to admit or not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

Because the attacker claimed responsibility, released his name, live-streamed it, had white nationalist symbols and messages, used white nationalist memes. 

But hey, if you want to be more upset about Hillary and Christchurch than the massacre of catholic worshipers and tourists, then crack on.  

These attackers clearly targeted Christians in what is the holiest time of the year. Their names also just so happens to be from a certain religion. Their method of attack just so happens to be one which is commonly used by extremists from a certain religion. It should be quite obvious shouldn’t it? 

I’m upset at the double standards and refusal to acknowledge the persecution of Christians and the blatant protection of Islam. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Do we have to do the Muslims vs Christians again? 

It's geniunely unbelievable that this trope is the first thing the same people reach for time and again. Stuck both of them on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...