FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sri lanka church attack
Sri lanka church attack
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't follow the news much, have they caught the attacker/s?." load of arrest. No details. | |||
| |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan." my guess... lack of details on the why and who. Watch it go off if it’s Muslim terrorists. Ignoring the fact the tamils were Hindu. | |||
"Awful. Just awful. "  | |||
"Looks like tourists were targeted in the hotel attacks as well, my heart goes out to all who have lost lives or been affected by this atrocity " | |||
"I don't follow the news much, have they caught the attacker/s?.load of arrest. No details. " That is right, no news yet who they are. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p." With you there, an awful atrocity | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan." Probably a bit of both to be fair. Rightly, or more probably wrongly, I feel a lot more concerned about attacks in places I'm more likely to be or have been, such as Manchester, London, Paris or Brussels, than I do about attacks in a part of the world I've never been to and am unlikely to ever visit. That's not to say I don't care; I do and my thoughts and prayers were and are with them. But I just don't feel as worried or scared by these attacks as I do about ones closer to home. I don't like that that's the way I feel but it is honesty the way I do feel.  | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan." Yes I have also noticed a . I wonder why? | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan." Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why? | |||
"Sri Lankan inteligence are quoted as saying it was a relatively unknown Islamist group called National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ). Very sad news all round and it was only last month that we were in Colombo, so a lot of the targets are familiar to us. "Yes it is very sad, it is now confirmed it was them with connections with IS. | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. With you there, an awful atrocity "Yes it sure is. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?" . It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way  | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p." The logic of this attack escapes me. Both Christians and Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. Then going on to attack the tourist industry which will guarantee a fall in prosperity to the entire population after the economy had finally started to recover after the civil war. Modern terrorism doesn't seem to require an aim to be accomplished anymore though. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way "Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage? | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?". At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage. It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest "So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims. It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof. | |||
| |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof.". I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand! | |||
"Let's take this argument another way, if you imported a shit load of born again fundamentalist white Christians into the UK which is liberally progressive what sort of cultural clashes do you think would come from it?. I'm guessing from reasoning that we'd get a push for abortion laws being challenged, homosexuality ages being pushed, gay marriage, sex education?. Of course we'd get none of them and why because there white and we'd feel free to tell them to fuck off with they're backwards ideology. What do you think?" This isn't taking the argument another way at all. It's starting a different argument. Start another thread. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!"
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort ". My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it "You've just argued against yourself. Good win | |||
"Let's take this argument another way, if you imported a shit load of born again fundamentalist white Christians into the UK which is liberally progressive what sort of cultural clashes do you think would come from it?. I'm guessing from reasoning that we'd get a push for abortion laws being challenged, homosexuality ages being pushed, gay marriage, sex education?. Of course we'd get none of them and why because there white and we'd feel free to tell them to fuck off with they're backwards ideology. What do you think? This isn't taking the argument another way at all. It's starting a different argument. Start another thread." . You don't like that prediction then?, you must have a rough idea at what you'd predict surely? | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win ". I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims. My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings. Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed. "Really? That was your point was it? You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post. You mentioned Christianity and Islam though. I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me  | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me ". No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did. I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind. You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty. It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate. Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home."Then change your debating technique. Try not being insulting and actually writing what you mean. Feel free to stay vaguely on topic or starting a new thread if you want to discuss something unrelated. You're welcome | |||
| |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Then change your debating technique.
Try not being insulting and actually writing what you mean.
Feel free to stay vaguely on topic or starting a new thread if you want to discuss something unrelated.
You're welcome ". You've lost me, where did I insult you? And where did I not write what I mean? | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p." You should have posted this in the lounge shag. If you post this kind of thing in politics it'll just be taken over by the usual suspects with an axe to grind... | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. You should have posted this in the lounge shag. If you post this kind of thing in politics it'll just be taken over by the usual suspects with an axe to grind... ". Haha no it's just the one suspect with six accounts! .
| |||
 | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. You should have posted this in the lounge shag. If you post this kind of thing in politics it'll just be taken over by the usual suspects with an axe to grind... "Yes I should of as you get more forumiters there with different views. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Then change your debating technique.
Try not being insulting and actually writing what you mean.
Feel free to stay vaguely on topic or starting a new thread if you want to discuss something unrelated.
You're welcome .
You've lost me, where did I insult you? And where did I not write what I mean?""I thought you were at least intelligent..." Funnily enough, interpreted as an insult. "It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians..." Apparently what you meant by this was: "My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime..." Once again, you're welcome. Perhaps you should change your name to "The Gas-lighter"? | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. The logic of this attack escapes me. Both Christians and Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. Then going on to attack the tourist industry which will guarantee a fall in prosperity to the entire population after the economy had finally started to recover after the civil war. Modern terrorism doesn't seem to require an aim to be accomplished anymore though." Back on topic, there is some domestic root to this as the Sinhalese have attacked Muslims recently due to an actual or alledged recent attack the other way. A revenge cycle that Sri Lankans in general seem prone to despite it not being their normal day-to-day nature. This may be the ISIS, internet and media enabled global extreme of what would have been one guy with a machete a decade ago. I don't know if there is any going back from this kind of reaction whomever the group who feels slighted happens to be  | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Then change your debating technique.
Try not being insulting and actually writing what you mean.
Feel free to stay vaguely on topic or starting a new thread if you want to discuss something unrelated.
You're welcome .
You've lost me, where did I insult you? And where did I not write what I mean?
"I thought you were at least intelligent..."
Funnily enough, interpreted as an insult.
"It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians..."
Apparently what you meant by this was:
"My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime..."
Once again, you're welcome.
Perhaps you should change your name to "The Gas-lighter"? ". How does saying I thought you were intelligent if not misguided transpire as an insult.  | |||
| |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. The logic of this attack escapes me. Both Christians and Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. Then going on to attack the tourist industry which will guarantee a fall in prosperity to the entire population after the economy had finally started to recover after the civil war. Modern terrorism doesn't seem to require an aim to be accomplished anymore though. Back on topic, there is some domestic root to this as the Sinhalese have attacked Muslims recently due to an actual or alledged recent attack the other way. A revenge cycle that Sri Lankans in general seem prone to despite it not being their normal day-to-day nature. This may be the ISIS, internet and media enabled global extreme of what would have been one guy with a machete a decade ago. I don't know if there is any going back from this kind of reaction whomever the group who feels slighted happens to be "Back on topic??? That's fucking rich! Read the OP. | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. The logic of this attack escapes me. Both Christians and Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. Then going on to attack the tourist industry which will guarantee a fall in prosperity to the entire population after the economy had finally started to recover after the civil war. Modern terrorism doesn't seem to require an aim to be accomplished anymore though. Back on topic, there is some domestic root to this as the Sinhalese have attacked Muslims recently due to an actual or alledged recent attack the other way. A revenge cycle that Sri Lankans in general seem prone to despite it not being their normal day-to-day nature. This may be the ISIS, internet and media enabled global extreme of what would have been one guy with a machete a decade ago. I don't know if there is any going back from this kind of reaction whomever the group who feels slighted happens to be
Back on topic??? That's fucking rich! Read the OP."You don't think that the reasons for it have any significance? Perhaps from avoiding it happening again? What did you contribute other than to criticise what I wrote? | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home."Christianity is white? Good old Desmond Tutu, Aryan as fuck. | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p." 321 dead over 500 injured according to the beeb. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Christianity is white?
Good old Desmond Tutu, Aryan as fuck. ". Thats rather a cheap shot at my point, Christianity in the main is firstly for a millennia almost exclusively white, not for the last 100 years obviously but historically. If you look at say Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's tweets over the horrible new Zealand attack and the horrible Sri Lanka attack you'll notice a distinct lack of the word Christianity, Hillary calls it multi faith Easter worshippers and tourists and despite knowing apparently from the outset that the main planners name is Mohammed Mohammed there's no mention of the killers colour or ideology. while in her new Zealand tweet she clearly references Muslims victims and white supremacist killer. The media and Western leaders are obsessed with colour and it clearly shows when you get awful terrorist attacks by either side. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Christianity is white?
Good old Desmond Tutu, Aryan as fuck. .
Thats rather a cheap shot at my point, Christianity in the main is firstly for a millennia almost exclusively white, not for the last 100 years obviously but historically.
If you look at say Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's tweets over the horrible new Zealand attack and the horrible Sri Lanka attack you'll notice a distinct lack of the word Christianity, Hillary calls it multi faith Easter worshippers and tourists and despite knowing apparently from the outset that the main planners name is Mohammed Mohammed there's no mention of the killers colour or ideology.
while in her new Zealand tweet she clearly references Muslims victims and white supremacist killer.
The media and Western leaders are obsessed with colour and it clearly shows when you get awful terrorist attacks by either side.
"No it wasn't/isn't. It's genesis was in much the same region as Islams and was spread initially by the Roman empire, which ruled a hell of a lot of non-white people. Northern Europe was pretty reluctant to being Christianised for quite a while. Equally, Islam has millions of followers of all races, including caucasian. Don't you remember the Balkan crisis? | |||
| |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. The logic of this attack escapes me. Both Christians and Muslims are a tiny minority in this country. Then going on to attack the tourist industry which will guarantee a fall in prosperity to the entire population after the economy had finally started to recover after the civil war. Modern terrorism doesn't seem to require an aim to be accomplished anymore though." Its total war for them. Crippling an economy is part of that. When it comes to religious extremism they arent looking to win just wanting to make sure you lose | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Christianity is white?
Good old Desmond Tutu, Aryan as fuck. .
Thats rather a cheap shot at my point, Christianity in the main is firstly for a millennia almost exclusively white, not for the last 100 years obviously but historically.
If you look at say Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's tweets over the horrible new Zealand attack and the horrible Sri Lanka attack you'll notice a distinct lack of the word Christianity, Hillary calls it multi faith Easter worshippers and tourists and despite knowing apparently from the outset that the main planners name is Mohammed Mohammed there's no mention of the killers colour or ideology.
while in her new Zealand tweet she clearly references Muslims victims and white supremacist killer.
The media and Western leaders are obsessed with colour and it clearly shows when you get awful terrorist attacks by either side.
No it wasn't/isn't.
It's genesis was in much the same region as Islams and was spread initially by the Roman empire, which ruled a hell of a lot of non-white people. Northern Europe was pretty reluctant to being Christianised for quite a while.
Equally, Islam has millions of followers of all races, including caucasian. Don't you remember the Balkan crisis?". You know when I wrote firstly for a millennia, that means the last thousand years,it's genesis nor its spread by the Roman empire was in that millennia. Anyhow were arguing about semantics, not my point. | |||
"It's interesting that this thread only gets a few posts. Are people now desensitised to terrorism or is it the location and the victims being Sri Lankan.Yes I have also noticed a difference too. I wonder why?. It's probably because it's Muslims blowing up Christians, nobody gives a shit about Christians, there frankly the most ridiculed bunch of dogmatic myth believing loons going and your rightly applauded by all the media for calling them out on it. Of course your a far right Islamophobe if you mention it the other way
Do you think if these were white Christians in a church in Europe, Australia, the USA or any other "western" country we wouldn't have non-stop coverage?.
At home? Yes constant coverage, fuck me even some shit cathedral in Paris gets constant coverage.
It certainly hasn't made as much in road as the new Zealand attack which you couldn't get further from, so it's not a location thing, the media really really don't like Christians, neither do I to be honest
So, actually, it's nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.
It's to do with the number of white people or lack thereof..
I hate to point this out to you but really it does show my point that your completely in your own bubble but, there was no white people killed in New Zealand!
The killer was white.
The Prime minister who's actions and words drive the story was white.
The brown people barely figured.
Good effort .
My point exactly, good work, you've finally got it
You've just argued against yourself.
Good win .
I thought you were at least intelligent if not misguided, it was argued that it was distance, I argued that new Zealand is further away, it was argued that the victims were the wrong colour I argued that new Zealand had no white victims.
My point was the media examines whiteness not the crime, when we're the victims it's what we've done wrong to have this crime inflicted upon us, when we're the perpetrator it's what whiteness caused us to do it, it's the lefts intersectionality of groupings.
Eventually things go full circle and the same argument reversed.
Really?
That was your point was it?
You mentioned neither distance nor complexion in your original post.
You mentioned Christianity and Islam though.
I guess you are happy that you "won" some argument that proves your superior intelligence, bit it wasn't with me .
No not really, I'd love you too actually give me a decent debate,I didn't mention distance because I knew as I've explained it had nothing to do with it, you did.
I mentioned Christianity and Islam because there's two massive differences one is white the other ain't, both are dogmatic, both are slightly crazy and both have the most stupid regressive ideas known to humankind.
You refused to answer my question on what you think you'd predict on importing a shit load of white fundamentalist Christians to a liberal progressive county like the UK, to me that shows your weak in character and honesty.
It's a shame as I thought you might be somebody I could have dialogue with in an open debate.
Goodnight, I've got a long drive back home.
Christianity is white?
Good old Desmond Tutu, Aryan as fuck. .
Thats rather a cheap shot at my point, Christianity in the main is firstly for a millennia almost exclusively white, not for the last 100 years obviously but historically.
If you look at say Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's tweets over the horrible new Zealand attack and the horrible Sri Lanka attack you'll notice a distinct lack of the word Christianity, Hillary calls it multi faith Easter worshippers and tourists and despite knowing apparently from the outset that the main planners name is Mohammed Mohammed there's no mention of the killers colour or ideology.
while in her new Zealand tweet she clearly references Muslims victims and white supremacist killer.
The media and Western leaders are obsessed with colour and it clearly shows when you get awful terrorist attacks by either side.
"The second oldest church is the Ethiopian one. 68% of the global Christian population is non-white. People do, however, care more about those who they feel they have something in common with. That's why they attacked the hotels. The churches were for body count. Cynical. It gets no nastier. | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. 321 dead over 500 injured according to the beeb." A sickening atrocity, that it was as had been claimed to be an act of vengeance for the equally sickening atrocity in New Zealand is deeply sad.. Thoughts are for the surviving family and friends.. | |||
"I want to dedicate this thread to it, my thoughts go out to them during this festive season, at least 137 is dead r.i.p. 321 dead over 500 injured according to the beeb." | |||
The guy I work with at my job is from Sri Lanka and his family there go to that main church every week including midweek.
Fortunately for them, they decided to go to another church instead on Sunday because it was Easter, so managed to avoid what happened. | |||
