Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I’m sure that shooting victims and survivors would be happy to hear that they have been judged by god :p

There is an East Asia thread that RedKing has around here which it could get shunted to, but since terrorist attacks generally end up affecting many nationalities, I guess it could be discussed here? *shrug*

Not a huge lot to talk about though, and apparently a six foot long pvc pipe bomb (whether it was one whole six foot long pipe or connected sections, it wasn’t said) was found on a road to a major airport after the bombings.

[scriver]

Yeah no it's not. You're gonna have to expand on that one because as it is I'm having trouble reading it as anything but "but Islam is actually the real victim, you guys!"

Which is really disrespecting considering what just happened.

[Frumple]

... then I'm pretty sure the trouble is with you, as that reads absolutely nothing like that. Are you trying to respond to someone besides ispil and forgot to quote or somethin'?

[smjjames]

It's worth noting that this was done by a local group, and we're talking Sri Lanka here; it was only last year that it was Muslims being targeted by Buddhists.

This is not one of those things that ties in easily into the global "jihadist attack" narrative.

TBH, I was kind of spinning some excuse that it could be discussed here.

Back to US news I guess. Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton joins the race.

[scriver]

Sure, if they had targeted Buddhist temples or state institutions, you might have had a point. But they didn't -- they targeted Christians, another minority, and hotels (as in tourists and likely a symbol of the West). This is perfectly in line with how "global jihadism" operates.

Saying "there's pre-existing ethnic strife from before this attack so it doesn't fit the 'jihad attack narrative'" is nonsensical. The "jihad" movement came into being because of pre-existing ethnic and religious strife. The "jihad" movement went "global" because of pre-existing ethnic and religious strife. Pre-existing ethnic and religious strife is often what fuels jihadists to begin with. It does absolutely nothing to make this not fit into the "jihad attack narrative".

See this excerpts from this New York Times article:

“The target selection and attack type make me very skeptical that this was carried out by a local group without any outside involvement,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, a specialist in Sri Lankan extremism at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a counterterrorism research group based in London. “There’s no reason for local extremist groups to attack churches, and little reason to attack tourists.”

Sri Lanka, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, was ravaged by decades of civil war that ended in 2009, but it has little history of militant Islamist violence. The suicide bombings that were pioneered there starting in the 1980s were carried out by guerrillas from the country’s Tamil ethnic minority who were mainly Hindu, not Muslims.

Anne Speckhard, the director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism, contrasted the attacks by Tamil guerrillas with those attributed to National Thowheeth Jama’ath. Unlike the bombings on Sunday, she said, those during the civil war were part of a nationalist or ethnic separatist movement, and they mostly targeted political leaders rather than religious ones.

“These attacks appear to be quite different,” she said, “and look as if they came right out of the ISIS, Al Qaeda, global militant jihadist playbook, as these are attacks fomenting religious hatred by attacking multiple churches on a high religious holiday.”

She believes the change in MO and target both point to it being something apart from the usual "pre-existing ethnic strife" squabbling.

[Folly]

I'll readily admit that during times of peace and under ideal circumstances, theists can be good people. The same could be said of Nazis.

Historically, the significant majority of humanity's deadliest wars have been religiously motivated. And generally speaking, those religious bodies were peaceful and innocent before someone riled them up and demanded they take up arms to cleanse the world of all unfaithful.

And you may be thinking that's not something that could ever possibly happen in America, yet we have a commander in chief who routinely credits the Christian god as his inspiration, and then turns around and spews hatred and bigoted rhetoric.

But people won't actually listen to Trump, or act on his rhetoric, right? Just in the last week an organized and armed group  have shown up at the border and taken it upon themselves to threaten women and children at gunpoint.

Nobody ever wants to acknowledge that they are actively participating in something horrible, but then it happens just the same. The conditions in America right now are perfect for spawning a new Christian Crusade, and I will absolutely condemn anyone contributing to that genesis, whether they are taking up arms, speaking angry words, or just encouraging blind faith in a deity who damns all heathens.

[JoshuaFH]

Is it fair to call it a religious war when the motivations involved are decidedly not related to religion at all? You don't have to be religious to be a bigot, or a racist, or greedy, and then just spout pseudo-religious rhetoric to lend plausible legitimacy to your actions.

[misko27]

As an objection, though, this "pre-existing ethnic squabbling" was nothing less than the Tamil Tigers, who pioneered the modern use of the suicide bombing. They were, indeed, the leading suicide bomber group during the period they were active, between 1980 and 2000 committing 168 attacking killing over 1000 people. They're the only suicide bombing to kill a sitting President, and reportedly, they invented the suicide vest. While I'm here, I'll also note they were avowedly secular, though mostly Hindu.

So specifically Sri Lankan terrorism has suicide bombing as a common modus operandi. The targets aren't, yes, but the tactic itself is normal. So there's something a little off about saying Sri Lanka has to take from international Islamic terrorism in inspiration, when in history international Islamic terrorism took from Sri Lanka in inspiration.

[Folly]

Is it fair to call it a religious war when the motivations involved are decidedly not related to religion at all? You don't have to be religious to be a bigot, or a racist, or greedy, and then just spout pseudo-religious rhetoric to lend plausible legitimacy to your actions.

A person does not have to be religious to do horrible things. But religion is by far the most effective method for that person to convince a large group of other people to join him.

Just indoctrinate people, starting when they are gullible children and training them to shut off all rational thought and blindly do as they're told. Teach them that anyone who fails to do so is morally deserving of any suffering they receive. Teach them that it's okay for them to die for their deity, because they will be rewarded with an eternity of happiness. These are not conditions fostered with the intent of rendering a population benign and peaceful, or helping them reach some sort of enlightenment. These conditions can lead to only one thing, and that is war.

[PTTG??]

Is it fair to call it a religious war when the motivations involved are decidedly not related to religion at all? You don't have to be religious to be a bigot, or a racist, or greedy, and then just spout pseudo-religious rhetoric to lend plausible legitimacy to your actions.

That's a pretty big loophole, because you can keep defining more ultimate causes until you get something you can say isn't religious. In common parlance, a religious war is one in which at least one of the aggressors is organized as a church. The important thing is that the religious social network is used to organize a war.

[Kagus]

A person does not have to be religious to do horrible things. But religion is by far the most effective method for that person to convince a large group of other people to join him.

Says the person with an anime avatar...

[Max™]

It's worth noting that this was done by a local group, and we're talking Sri Lanka here; it was only last year that it was Muslims being targeted by Buddhists.

This is not one of those things that ties in easily into the global "jihadist attack" narrative.

Plus Sri Lanka has had the whole Tamil Tigers thing for years... oh wait, someone else already mentioned that for me:

As an objection, though, this "pre-existing ethnic squabbling" was nothing less than the Tamil Tigers, who pioneered the modern use of the suicide bombing. They were, indeed, the leading suicide bomber group during the period they were active, between 1980 and 2000 committing 168 attacking killing over 1000 people. They're the only suicide bombing to kill a sitting President, and reportedly, they invented the suicide vest. While I'm here, I'll also note they were avowedly secular, though mostly Hindu.

So specifically Sri Lankan terrorism has suicide bombing as a common modus operandi. The targets aren't, yes, but the tactic itself is normal. So there's something a little off about saying Sri Lanka has to take from international Islamic terrorism in inspiration, when in history international Islamic terrorism took from Sri Lanka in inspiration.

It was my biggest annoyance about people ranting against islamist shit for a while, I'm like ok, if this is the worst terrorist problem worldwide suddenly does that mean it only matters when white people are involved? What about narcoterror in South America? What about Sri Lanka? Hell if white people are your interest I got a little place called Northern Ireland you should check out before acting like this is some sudden muslim problem we have now to worry about.

[Kagus]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna997326

What even... What?

[Akura]

So basically, if they so much as touch the vehicle it's considered a "search", and an unconstitutional one at that? If merely touching the vehicle is considered an unconstitutional search, what happens when, say, a cop puts a ticket on the windshield of an illegally parked car?

[Lord Shonus]

The foundation of it appears to be that they were marking legally parked cars, meaning that the "search" had no legal justification. Ticketing a car wouldn't fall under this, because that can only happen when there is cause to believe the car is parked illegally. Essentially, the parking cops in question were treating every car as if it was going to break the rules, and used a "as long as you have nothing to hide move your car in time, you're fine" defense, making it not too dissimilar from "stop and frisk" searches.