Sri Lanka explosions: Over 300 killed as churches and hotels targeted

What about pandering to the left by equating every Republican president with Hitler, and with all conservatives being a 'basket of deplorables'?

Where do you stand on that? That all good?

 

I would say that the overton window is expanding and what once used to be fringe right wing ideas such as desiring to ban an entire religious group from immigrating here or spreading racial IQ bell curve propaganda are now more mainstream and that this country's "deplorable" population has expanded.

 

I think if we are going to discuss these issues we should be accurate. I don't recall anyone including Hillary Clinton all conservatives a 'basket of deplorables.' She mentioned that maybe half of Trump's supporters were. Of course, the hype about it afterward included the exaggeration that she was referring to all conservatives or all Trump supporters, but that isn't what was initially stated by Clinton.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20190423-claims-sri-lanka-bombings-releases-photo-attackers

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

 

What will happen first:

• Islamic attack kills 200+
• Non-Islamic religious attack kills 200+
• Regressive illiberals gain the courage to criticize Islam for the first time in their life

 

Definitely agree.

It was a large number of Trump supporters she was referring to. So, yes, not correct to say 'all', but still correct in that it applied to a very large segment of conservatives, and that she did it to pander to the left. Same as with all the equating of Republican Presidents with Hitler.

The point being, if pandering is bad...let's recognize both sides definitely do it.

 

I agree with you. Both sides pander. I think part of politics is pandering. Some of it is more harmful to the discourse than others.

 

The nutball in New Zealand, and the nutballs in ISIS, and many more nutballs around the world, would very much love a new global holy war and a future lit only by fire.

 

That's sadly very true. I think the NZ incident was more an isolated nutball...but still agree. ISIS (and other terror groups) absolutely want the violence to continue...it's how they build their power.

I think the 'reasoning' shows this. Yes, the NZ incident was terrible. I didn't hear a single person disagree with that...including Christians. So, to then massacre a bunch of Christians in Sri Lanka...as if they had ANYTHING to do with what happened in NZ....is both ridiculous, and shows the mindset and penchant to violence.

I'm personally torn as to what the appropriate response to this type of 'reasoning' really is. I think you can only turn the other cheek so often, and not sure that working to alleviate the root causes, etc. will never really get rid of events like these. But neither do I want to accept that its just part of reality going forward. Its a tough situation to deal with...which I'm pretty sure the terrorists realize, and thrive on. Crack down on them hard...they'll use that to increase their power. Don't crack down on them hard, they'll simply escalate their activities.

 

Totally fair statement. I would think the discussion then shouldn't be around 'that's pandering!'...but around the specific instances, and what their effects will be.
Would add that, sadly, pandering these days isn't 'part' of politics. It IS politics, to too much of a degree. There are some candidates who really don't do it much...and I often agree with much/most of what they say...but they always quickly disappear from contention. Not rousing enough to any base, despite the wisdom of what they say. Conversely, there are many prominent politicians that are mostly ALL pandering...and they often do quite well.

Sad sign of the times (although not sure it was ever really any different, just more noticeable now).

 

Sadly you're right about the candidates who don't do it disappearing. It's part of the click bait/anything for an advertising buck/ drive traffic to our website or news channel society.

 

Really messed up.

All started because of 9/11 and the illegal war in Iraq.. and there is no end in sight

 

... no, this has been going on long before that.

 

You may want to look into how many suicide bombings there have been in place like Iraq, Pakistan, and so on before 9/11

 

Don't spread misinformation because of personal biases ... the world bleeds because of people like you. Raw numbers of bombings increased from 2000-2010 because of militants fleeing from Afghanistan, but these incidents and intersect violence have been going on since all these nations formed.

President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives" The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet–Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Muslims (mujahideen) to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent.

According to an independent research site pakistanbodycount.org maintained by Dr. Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani a Fulbright scholar deaths from suicide bombings up to October 2011 were 5,067 with over 13,000 injured. The website also provides analysis on the data showing an evident increase in suicide bombing after the Lal Masjid operation. All death counts are verifiable from news sources placed online.

It has been even more turbulent in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine etc. before 9/11. The common denominator is intersect violence and the allure of cash from western trade and ideologies getting into the hands of those in power.

 

You obviously did not read the manifesto from the murderer in New Zealand and his attempt to inspire future acts of murder and terrorism. If the roles were reversed and it were some Muslim murderer with a manifesto you would not call him an isolated nutball. You guys revel in this double standards.

 

Simmer down, Francis. I don’t have any blood on my hands. FOH

 

It’s beginning to look like the bombers were “educated” and came from “well-to-do” families — with at least one having a Western education in the UK and Australia.

The “socioeconomic” angle won’t work here; neither will the “we bombed their countries”. However, there is one credible explanation for their motivation, guidance, and justification.