290 or more Dead in the Largest Terrorist Attack Since 9/11

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

It never is. 

I don't believe it is as black and white as you wish it was. There are certain realities you can't ignore. 

Every culture has a spectrum of people with differing opinions, good and bad. For example, who are all the people cheering online about the church fires?

Islam has been overtaken by violent religious zealots, who commit their acts in the name of Islam. It appears to be a growing problem, fed by use of modern media to reach out and spread a hateful message, same technics of prpoganda as anyone would use. It is intended to attract youth to a cause. We need to save the world.

Question is, is this becoming a culture, is it taking hold and spreading? Clearly yes, if troops need to be sent to foreign countries to stop the spread of a caliphate. This is a culture.

[jacee]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No it's not.  White supremacists are Christian if they say they are, but their motivation is their colour and their racism.  The motivation of Islamic terrrorists is their religion.  They are Muslims.  You don't get to tell them they are not.

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Christianity: Andre Bissonette, Brenton Tarrant, Anders Behrens Breivek, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones. Christians say the terrorists are not true Christians. 

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Islam. Muslims say the terrorists are not true Muslims.

I say terrorists are terrorists, and religion is irrelevant. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[scribblet]

10 hours ago, jacee said:

No.

Yes...    if you watch their videos they admit to doing it in the name of Islam or Allah 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Christianity: Andre Bissonette, Brenton Tarrant, Anders Behrens Breivek, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones. Christians say the terrorists are not true Christians. 

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Islam. Muslims say the terrorists are not true Muslims.

I say they are all just violent terrorists, and religion is irrelevant. 

Like I said, you don't get to tell them what they are.  No-one does.  Obviously an ordinary, everyday Christian, Muslim etc, is going to express horror and say "these people do not speak for me".  It doesn't make any difference to what they are, or what their motivation is.  They are what they say they are, and they do what they do for the reasons they give.  No amount of hand wringing will change that. 

Remember, religion is not necessarily nice.

[scribblet]

Also read that ISIS supporters are celebrating....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/world/asia/sri-lanka-bombing-explosion.html

The government on Monday blamed a little-known radical Islamist group for the devastating Easter Sunday suicide bombings that killed nearly 300 people. Officials said the group, which had not carried out any serious attacks before, had received help from an international terrorist organization.

[DogOnPorch]

27 minutes ago, jacee said:

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Christianity: Andre Bissonette, Brenton Tarrant, Anders Behrens Breivek, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones. Christians say the terrorists are not true Christians. 

Some terrorists do violence in the name of Islam. Muslims say the terrorists are not true Muslims.

I say they are all just violent terrorists, and religion is irrelevant. 

 

The Quran orders Muslims to fight the unbeliever until all religion is for Allah.

You can't escape that fact.

[scribblet]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The Quran orders Muslims to fight the unbeliever until all religion is for Allah.

You can't escape that fact.

But they can continue denying...     

How is it when a mosque is attacked it's Islamophobia but when Christian churches get attacked it’s just an act of violence.  Sounds like nitpicking but politicians et al pick their words carefully, so why was Andrew Scheer peed on for not using the word Islamophobia.  What's the special word when Muslims kill Christians?

Whoops, can't say the word Christians.  

If you’ve never heard the term “Easter worshipper” until Clinton whipped it out yesterday, especially to describe the recent Islamic terror in Sri Lanka stand up,  cos you can’t say the word Christian anymore

 

[Goddess]

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

"The Queen looked cozy and cute, all bundled up in a light brown topcoat with a stylish Burberry headscarf," II tried copying the photo but I am sure you already know our Head of State and head of the Christian Church often wears a head scarf. 

The Queen does not wear a headscarf to show her subjugation to men, nor does she do it because she believes religiously that women are second-class citizens who must hide their sexuality in order to not incite men's lust.  She wears it to protect her hairdo on windy days and is free to not wear it, as well.

Smarten up.

[BubberMiley]

23 minutes ago, scribblet said:

But they can continue denying...     

How is it when a mosque is attacked it's Islamophobia but when Christian churches get attacked it’s just an act of violence.  Sounds like nitpicking but politicians et al pick their words carefully, so why was Andrew Scheer peed on for not using the word Islamophobia.  What's the special word when Muslims kill Christians?

 

Whoops, can't say the word Christians.  

If you’ve never heard the term “Easter worshipper” until Clinton whipped it out yesterday, especially to describe the recent Islamic terror in Sri Lanka stand up,  cos you can’t say the word Christian anymore

 

Were you also among those who were hysterical about Andrew Scheer not mentioning Muslims in his comments about New Zealand? 

[jacee]

52 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I don't believe it is as black and white as you wish it was. There are certain realities you can't ignore. 

Every culture has a spectrum of people with differing opinions, good and bad. For example, who are all the people cheering online about the church fires?

Islam has been overtaken by violent religious zealots, who commit their acts in the name of Islam. It appears to be a growing problem, fed by use of modern media to reach out and spread a hateful message, same technics of prpoganda as anyone would use. It is intended to attract youth to a cause. We need to save the world.

Question is, is this becoming a culture, is it taking hold and spreading? Clearly yes, if troops need to be sent to foreign countries to stop the spread of a caliphate. This is a culture.

Islamic terrorism is not a problem we have in Canada, at least no more (probably less) than we have a problem with Christian terrorism. 

Read the thread: I am attempting to explain to Robert Greene why he shouldn't assault and terrorize Muslim Canadian women in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka (which are not even clearly Islamic). 

I am trying to explain to bcsapper that terrorists are just terrorists and fanatics who represent no religion, regardless of their claims. 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, jacee said:

Islamic terrorism is not a problem we have in Canada, at least no more (probably less) than we have a problem with Christian terrorism. 

Read the thread: I am attempting to explain to Robert Greene why he shouldn't assault and terrorize Muslim Canadian women in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka (which are not even clearly Islamic). 

I am trying to explain to bcsapper that terrorists are just terrorists and fanatics who represent no religion, regardless of their claims. 

 

 

Oh, we all told Robert Greene why he shouldn't do that.  Basic stuff.

As for your point to me, you are just wrong.  You might not like it, but it is very obviously so. 

[jacee]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, we all told Robert Greene why he shouldn't do that.  Basic stuff.

As for your point to me, you are just wrong.  You might not like it, but it is very obviously so. 

Do violent fanatics who call themselves Buddhists actually represent Buddhism?

No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks. 

Islamic terrorists generally do proclaim responsibility for terrorist acts. 

"The Muslim Council of Sri Lanka said it condemned the attacks “on our Christian brothers and sisters on their Holy Day of Easter, as well as on the hotels in Colombo.” It said that it mourned the loss of “innocent lives due to extremist and violent elements who wish to create divides between religious and ethnic groups to realize their agenda.”

http://time.com/5574723/easter-sunday-blasts-explosions-sri-lanka-what-to-know/

Why do only Christians get to disavow terrorists who murder in their name? Isn't that a Christian supremacist prejudice?

Colonialism was white Christian supremacist terrorism in the extreme. The repercussions are still occurring today, including in Sri Lanka. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Can you distinguish between Christians and a criminal terrorist who calls himself a Christian and murders innocent Muslims at prayer in Quebec?

Fairly easily. The latter are crazy - in the single case which has thus far occurred.

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Can you distinguish between Muslims and criminal terrorists who call themselves Muslims and murder innocent Christians at prayer in Sri Lanka? 

That's more difficult as so very many Muslims share the same beliefs and goals as the terrorists, even if they don't personally believe in mass murder to achieve them.

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Islamic terrorists are not religious. They don't go to mosques and they are not welcome there. 

Yeah, that's bullshit. Almost all Islamic terrorists are regular and devoted visitors to mosques. Half the time that's where they wound up becoming radicalized in the first place.

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Muslims who come to Canada are often running away from Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorists murder far more Muslims than they do Christians.

That's usually not true either. They're not running away from anything but poverty. They bring Islam with them, and the children they are raising are even more devoted to Islam than their parents. The numbers of Muslim Canadian girls and women wearing Islamic costumes is increasing.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Saudi Monitor said:

Attack on churches is unacceptable, it is a barbaric, inhumane and unspeakably EVIL attack, whether it's on Mosque or Church, regardless who commits this hideous terrorist attacks!

And yet, oddly, it has been done regularly throughout the entire history of Islam. The few Christian churches that remain in Islamic countries need armed guards to prevent their worshipers from being slaughtered.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Do violent fanatics who call themselves Buddhists actually represent Buddhism?

No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks. 

Islamic terrorists generally do proclaim responsibility for terrorist acts. 

"The Muslim Council of Sri Lanka said it condemned the attacks “on our Christian brothers and sisters on their Holy Day of Easter, as well as on the hotels in Colombo.” It said that it mourned the loss of “innocent lives due to extremist and violent elements who wish to create divides between religious and ethnic groups to realize their agenda.”

http://time.com/5574723/easter-sunday-blasts-explosions-sri-lanka-what-to-know/

Why do only Christians get to disavow terrorists who murder in their name? Isn't that a Christian supremacist prejudice? 

Everybody gets to disavow whatever they want.  It doesn't change anything.  The IRA were Irish, The PLO are Palestinians, ISIS are Islamic, the Baader Meinhof gang were lefties, Anders Brehvik was right wing, etc.  No member of any of the aforementioned groups get to say that others are not, just because they do not behave in the fashion they would have them behave.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but bad Muslims are Muslims too.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

Why do only Christians get to disavow terrorists who murder in their name? Isn't that a Christian supremacist prejudice?

There are no Christian terrorist groups.

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, jacee said:

Islamic terrorism is not a problem we have in Canada, at least no more (probably less) than we have a problem with Christian terrorism. 

We don't have any Christian terrorism in Canada. But we have had repeated experiences with Islamic terrorism, and only the intervention of police have stopped them from doing things like blowing up the CN tower, derailing trains, bombing parliament and beheading the prime minister. 

France has a Muslim population of 7.5% and regular terrorist attacks. With mass immigration, particularly from the middle east, Canada's Muslim population is expected to rise to 10% by 2030. By then we might well have regular terrorist incidents, too, but of course, by then it will be far too late to do anything about it.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Argus

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

We don't have any Christian terrorism in Canada. But we have had repeated experiences with Islamic terrorism, and only the intervention of police have stopped them from doing things like blowing up the CN tower, derailing trains, bombing parliament and beheading the prime minister. 

France has a Muslim population of 7.5% and regular terrorist attacks. With mass immigration, particularly from the middle east, Canada's Muslim population is expected to rise to 10% by 2030. By then we might well have regular terrorist incidents, too, but of course, by then it will be far too late to do anything about it.

The 2017 attack in Edmonton where a police officer was stabbed and 4 people were run over was, for some reason, not classified as a terrorist attack even though the man - Abdulahi Sharif - had an ISIS flag in his vehicle at the time of the attack. 

So Jacee is correct - if we simply refuse to label Islamic attacks as Islamic attacks, then VOILA!!  No problem with Islamic terrorism in Canada!!  See how that works?

[paxamericana]

32 minutes ago, jacee said:

Why do only Christians get to disavow terrorists who murder in their name? Isn't that a Christian supremacist prejudice?

Colonialism was white Christian supremacist terrorism in the extreme. The repercussions are still occurring today, including in Sri Lanka. 

I think you are being intellectualy dishonest. Here in the US islamist extremist are still responsible for the most victims if we are talking headcount. Remember 9/11? 

Also your argument seems to boil down to colonial imperialism, typical play book of the post modernist. Discounting the fact that the Quran is written down by 6th century war lords with no reformation period. There's a reason why Islam IS NOT a religion of peace. It advocates for a theocracy much like ISIS. The post enlightenment west adopted secularism with regards to christianity because of the catastrophic war in europe involving the church of england and the pope, Islam has yet to do so. This is the real reason why islam is not a religion of peace. You may want to check your post modernist playbook for intellectual dishonesty. 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by paxamericana

[Argus]

What the Islamophiles never like to deal with is this. Yes, there are occasional loose screws here who commit violence against Muslims. But all of them are lone nuts. Any religion or culture can produce lone nuts who commit violence. But only Islam seems to produce large, organized groups devoted to slaughtering unbelievers. The attack in Sri Lanka wasn't some lone nut. It was an organized group which likely received assistance from an outside, organized group, probably ISIS or Al Quaeda, according to reports.

There is only so much lone nuts can achieve. But the Muslim groups are not nuts except in the sense that religious fanatics are crazy to the rest of us. And they have vastly more resources and abilities to achieve mayhem than lone nuts. All the attacks in Sir Lanka were apparently carried out by suicide bombers - like, 10 of them.  It is literally inconceivable that you would ever see that sort of thing from any western group, including the KKK or whatever the alt-right is calling itself. Remember the thwarted plot to bring down 10 airliners simultaneously that was headquartered in the Philippines? Or the one headquartered in the UK which had roughly the same aims (24 arrested). The Islamophiles refuse to acknowledge this. They continue to dismiss each and every one of literally tens of thousands of terrorists acts committed in the name of Islam as the work of rare extremists. 

But extremism is not rare among Muslims because mainstream Islam still calls for death for anyone who violates its laws. Mainstream Islam has never renounced nor apologized for its militant expansionism and it's violent teachings towards unbelievers and those who disobey its social and moral codes. And until that happens we should be very, very, very careful about allowing Muslim immigrants. Instead we're bringing in a hundred thousand a year because the Liberals see them as fresh Liberal votes.

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The 2017 attack in Edmonton where a police officer was stabbed and 4 people were run over was, for some reason, not classified as a terrorist attack even though the man - Abdulahi Sharif - had an ISIS flag in his vehicle at the time of the attack. 

So Jacee is correct - if we simply refuse to label Islamic attacks as Islamic attacks, then VOILA!!  No problem with Islamic terrorism in Canada!!  See how that works?

While I appreciate the passionate left response that tries to put all cultures and religions on an equal footing in terms of how they mesh with the values of an open liberal democracy based on common law like Canada, the truth is that they are not all equally healthy.  On the other hand, terrorism is terrorism and must be condemned no matter the origin, Muslim or right-wing extremist.  We need to be honest about the origins of our democracy and what most Canadians want to retain about our society, which is in fact very tolerant, progressive, and multicultural.  Not anything goes, however.  We should be concerned about attempts to hand legal decisions to non-court players (Sharia), as we should also be concerned about extreme positions against freedom of religion (the freedom to wear religious symbols or dress).  I also think we need to be concerned about extreme environmental positions that damage public economic interests and identity politics games that restrict certain races or genders from jobs, education, and other institutions.    

[Donnie]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

No.

It's like saying white supremacist terrorists are not Christian.

The creep who killed 50 Muslims in NZ was not a Christian as he claimed. 

Terrorists claim a religion as justification.

But they are all just violent criminal terrorists. 

However it's dishonest of you to completely seperate religion from Islamic terrorism as you constantly do

[Robert Greene]

As I've said before, I'm not calling for violence against Muslims, but we need to crackdown on the Islamization of Canada. Figure out non-violent ways to get it done, because we need to get it done.

I would be happy to see a few guys spray paint the clowns in veils, but I'm not calling for it to be an official strategy. 

I would recommend spiting on the street, every time you walk by a B@tch dresses like a ghost in public. Those kind of actions I would support without any hesitation. It would deliver the message, that we're not going to bow down to their B@llchit. If you see one of them walking by, give them a disgusted stare and spit on the ground.

It's time for us to stop the approval of new mosques, and threaten to blockage any mosque that preaches extreme rhetoric.

It's time for us to get tough. If we don't get tough, we can witness hundreds of more suicide bombings.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

As I've said before, I'm not calling for violence against Muslims, but we need to crackdown on the Islamization of Canada. Figure out non-violent ways to get it done, because we need to get it done.

I would be happy to see a few guys spray paint the clowns in veils, but I'm not calling for it to be an official strategy. 

I would recommend spiting on the street, every time you walk by a B@tch dresses like a ghost in public. Those kind of actions I would support without any hesitation. It would deliver the message, that we're not going to bow down to their B@llchit. If you see one of them walking by, give them a disgusted state and spit on the ground.

That's not right, Robert.  It's mean.  In some cases these women and girls didn't choose to dress this way.  In most cases they are just dressing the way they're accustomed to dress.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Education and dialogue are key.  I would wonder why someone who chooses to cover herself head to toe would want to be here rather than in a country where such an uncomfortable suppression of identity is celebrated.  The answer I suppose is economic.  This is why there does, unfortunately, have to be some public discussion, including within parliaments, of what kinds of values we as a society want to import.  I don't want to see legal restrictions on dress in public.  I do think that anyone planning to immigrate to Canada who thinks that a religious practice justifies such restrictive dress probably shouldn't be allowed to immigrate here.  What are the implications of such beliefs for women's rights and freedom of expression as a whole?  I think negative.  It's also why we must never allow Sharia law in Canada.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

I would be happy to see a few guys spray paint the clowns in veils, but I'm not calling for it to be an official strategy. 

I would recommend spiting on the street, every time you walk by a B@tch dresses like a ghost in public. Those kind of actions I would support without any hesitation. It would deliver the message

No it would not. It is assault plain and simple, and it would accomplish nothing useful at all.