Terrorists strike yet again

[narf]

Apparently yours doesn't if you think that Jewish terrorism is even remotely comparable to Muslim terrorism.

I didn't engage in any comparison, I merely jogged your mind that couldn't "remember a single instance of Jewish terrorism".

 

[LeVeL]

I didn't engage in any comparison, I merely jogged your mind that couldn't "remember a single instance of Jewish terrorism".

Did any of those examples follow UN decisions? Because that's what I specified.

You are an unbelievable demagogue.

 

[GRtak]

I am not defending anyone. They are both assholes, and until somebody stands up and tells it to their faces, nothing will change.

You are the one that fails to see that they both are problematic. I can only assume that you see this as a righteous religious war for the Israelis. There is no such thing.

 

[narf]

Did any of those examples follow UN decisions? Because that's what I specified.

You are an unbelievable demagogue.

If there are countless UN decisions as you specified, then I'm sure some of this terrorism was following after one such decision.


I'm a popular leader? Thanks, I guess...

 

[prizrak]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...port-authority-bus-terminal-article-1.3690939

A pipe bomb exploded in a underground subway passage between Times Square and the Port Authority Bus Terminal ? one of the busiest transit hubs in the world ? on Monday in what officials are calling a terrorist attack.

Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi native, detonated part of his ?low tech? explosive at 7:30 a.m. and was injured in an underground subway passage just 200 feet from the bus terminal at West 42nd St. and Eighth Ave., officials said. Three commuters suffered minor injuries, officials said.

After the explosion, Port Authority cops moved in and struggled with Ullah, who had wires attached to his body, sources said.
He tried to set off the rest of his bomb, but only part of it went off. Two PAPD officers grabbed him and successfully removed the explosives without further incident.

 

[LeVeL]

Six nearly simultaneous explosions struck three churches and three high-end hotels frequented by tourists on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, killing nearly 200 people and injuring many more, according to police and hospital sources.

Source

 

[LeVeL]

ISIS claiming responsibility for the 300 fatalities in Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton are referring to the victims as "Easter worshippers" - apparently it's not PC to just say "Christians".

 

[RdKetchup]

ISIS would (and have) claim responsibility for anything just to stay relevant and in the news.

And what makes you think using "Easter worshippers" is to avoid using "Cristian"? Snowflake much?

 

[prizrak]

And what makes you think using "Easter worshippers" is to avoid using "Cristian"? Snowflake much?

Because that’s a very awkward phrase? Why not just say “worshippers” or “Christians”?

 

[RdKetchup]

To me it's just sounds very specific, but not awkward.

Christian is implied, and the victims were people who were celebrating Easter.

I guess any reason is good enough for @LeVeL to try to bash Obama and Clinton.

 

[TC]

Actually, quite a few Christians were puzzled by it. There were some comparisons of public statements over Christchurch that were compared to statements over Sri Lanka, made by the same public figures, and it's interesting how willing they were to name names with one, while refusing to name names with the other. It sort of reminds me of Trump's initial statement on Charlottesville and how angry people were over him not naming names, while condemning hate and bigotry in general, rather than getting specific. Lots of speculation about pandering to certain groups, which may represent valuable voting blocks, or something.

 

[prizrak]

To preface this, I don't care about any religion, none of them make any sense to me. However this phrasing seems way too deliberate to be simply "we want to be specific". Simply saying "worshippers' would have worked just fine, we know it's Easter, not that it makes a difference if there is a holiday or not.

 

[JimCorrigan]

ISIS would (and have) claim responsibility for anything just to stay relevant and in the news.

Sri Lanka did identify a radical Islam group and arrested over twenty people, so there's that.

And what makes you think using "Easter worshippers" is to avoid using "Cristian"? Snowflake much?

Why are you bothered at people wanting both the perpetrators and victims of terrorism to be called out for what they are?

To me it's just sounds very specific, but not awkward.

Christian is implied, and the victims were people who were celebrating Easter.

I guess any reason is good enough for @LeVeL to try to bash Obama and Clinton.

When Christchurch happened, both of them (Obama and Clinton) identified the murdered as practicing the Muslim faith, and loudly condemned Islamophobia and white supremacism, which was the right thing to do.

So why not do the same here? Why not condemn radical Islam? Why call the dead and injured "Easter worshippers" and not Christians?

It's fair to call into question the lack of consistency.

 

[LeVeL]

It's just really bizarre when both of them use the same exact unusual phrase. You just don't really hear that.
They both mentioned "the Muslim community" after NZ, yet now Clinton called it a "holy weekend for many faiths", even though Jews weren't targeted and the only other religion that has a connection to this weekend is Christianity. Again, this is just a really bizarre choice of words - why not just say "Christians"?

 

[SirEdward]

This time, I have to agree: the "Easter Worshippers" definition was quite strange. A fairly accurate description of the events could have been written down in two lines, like this:

"Nearly all victims were Sri Lankan, many of them Christian worshippers
attending Easter Mass. Dozens of foreigners were also killed". (AlJazeera)

This is Twitter's lenght, too. This was not used, and I have to say that I would have said "Christians" in the Obama Twitter, because that was clearly the main focus of the attack. This, coupled with the political situation in the US electorate and with the fact that muslims are an interesting demographic to target in many of the historically key states for the presidency (2020 is just next year), leaves many, many doubts on what the reasons were for that awkward choice of words.

Also, I think we should get away from Twitter, it allows people to conceal things. Had it been a statement with no limitation in lengths, the choice of words would have been an overt statement, as a diplomatic, neutral statement would have been possible. As it is now, they could well say: "length was too short, we had to make a choice".

Twitter takes away our ability to expand on things, and our chances of reading the real thoughts behind the words; and by doing that, it generates divisions and misunderstandings and anger.

 

[prizrak]

As it is now, they could well say: "length was too short, we had to make a choice".

I think “Christians” is shorter than “Easter worshippers”
Do generally agree with you on twitter tho

 

[SirEdward]

I think “Christians” is shorter than “Easter worshippers”
Do generally agree with you on twitter tho

Indeed, but "Christians" has its downfalls, as it excludes those who weren't, so an excuse like that is still credible. I still would have used "Christians" anyway, or posted out of Twitter.

 

[prizrak]

Also thinking about it, Easter worshipers sounds like people were worshiping Easter, which isn't right either since no one worships the actual event.

 

[LeVeL]

Not sure if terrorism but seems fitting after the Sri Lanka discussion. 1 dead, 3 injured in a synagogue shooting in CA, on the last day of Passover. I don't go to temple nearly as often as I probably should but when I do I always carry a gun - anti-Semitism is alive and well, even in this country. Several rabbis I know also carry.