Easter Sunday Attack in Sri Lanka

It sound like these terrorist don't like Christians, or most religious. Also they don't like people having any kind of freedom. Including Muslims that have freedom .

JosephZ said:

I don't cover for terrorists, so don't ever accuse me of doing that.

Yes, part of the attack was aimed at churches during Easter services which obviously shows us that Christians in Sri Lanka were deliberately targeted, but the attacks on the hotels had nothing to do with the religious make up of the people staying in them.

The hotels would be filled with tourists, business people, and wealthy locals. While these guests would be followers of a variety of religions, most would be Buddhists based on the demographics of the country. The hotels were chosen so the attack would garner high amount of international media coverage since the victims would represent multiple nationalities. Intentionally hurting Sri Lanka's tourism industry would be a secondary reason for targeting hotels. It certainly wouldn't have been because the terrorists suspected there would be a large number of Christians staying at the hotels they targeted.

Click to expand...

And it was just a coincidence that large numbers of Christians just happened to be in the hotels, gathered in fellowship and dining after Easter services. Oh, yeah - Easter Sunday ..... just another, random coincidence.

wing2000 said:

As with all terrorists attacks, we have a choice: You can either ignore their efforts and love all people (as Christ instructed) or give into the terrorist by turning on people based on their differences - in this case - religion.

Click to expand...

Christ never said to ignore their efforts...

JosephZ said:

The hotels would be filled with tourists, business people, and wealthy locals. While these guests would be followers of a variety of religions, most would be Buddhists based on the demographics of the country.

Click to expand...

Not really, because most of the guests would be foreigners. In high-end hotels such as these, mostly Westerners.

TheBear said:

And it was just a coincidence that large numbers of Christians just happened to be in the hotels, gathered in fellowship and dining after Easter services. Oh, yeah - Easter Sunday ..... just another, random coincidence.

Click to expand...

There were some Christians there, not large numbers of Christians. What source do you have that shows there were large numbers of Christians at these hotels when they were targeted?

Sri Lanka is not a Christian country and would not be a major destination for Easter travelers, so the occupancy of the hotels would be reflective of the demographics of the country; mostly Buddhist, followed by Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

As for Christians having fellowship and dining after Easter services, keep in mind, hotels are not the only places to eat in Sri Lanka. There were some Christians eating at these hotels, after all, a free breakfast would be included for guests of these hotels, and if you are I were staying at one of these hotels, we would also be eating breakfast there. At least I know I would, because I always take advantage of a free breakfast when I travel.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Not really, because most of the guests would be foreigners. In high-end hotels such as these, mostly Westerners.

Click to expand...

When you stay at a hotel in the US, what nationality are most of the guests? American right?

I travel a lot and every hotel I have ever stayed in is occupied primarily by nationals of the particular country I'm visiting. Yes, the luxury hotels will have more foreigners than economy hotels (This is why they were targeted), but even then they will be occupied mainly by people from the country the hotel is located in, followed buy countries in the region. Due to Sri Lanka's close proximity to India, a large percentage of the foreigners traveling Sri Lanka would be from that country.

The religious make up would reflect the demographics of the country as well. For example, if I were to stay at a luxury hotel here in the Philippines, most of the guests would be Filipino and Catholic. If I were to stay in a luxury hotel in Indonesia, most of the guests would be Indonesian and Muslim, in the US, most guests would be American and would identify as Christian. This same principle would hold true in Sri Lanka. Most of the guests would be Sri Lankan and be Buddhists.

I was able to find an older article showing the ratio of domestic travelers to foreigners.

While more than one million foreigners visit Sri Lanka as tourists, six million Sri Lankans travel within the country as domestic tourists. Other ways of measurement would be the number of guest nights at all registered hotels and guest houses by tourism authorities. The last published annual statistical report for 2012 shows that there was a ratio of 1-5 (one local traveller versus 5 foreigners) in terms of guest nights in graded and supplementary accommodation units.

The number of tourist arrivals appeared to have doubled since 2012, but even then, the ratio of domestic travelers vs foreign would be greater than 3 to 1.

Columbo is also the business center of the Sri Lanka, so a large number of business travelers from within the country would be staying at the hotels that were targeted as well.

ISIS claimed responsibility on Tuesday for the Easter Sunday suicide bombings in Sri Lanka, as an official in the country said the preliminary investigation into the attacks showed it was "retaliation" for the massacre of Muslims at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Of course, ISIS is not particularly trustworthy. There are still some questions about who really was responsible or helped. Not to mention the fact that even if the motive was retaliation for the act of terror in New Zealand, this is not a valid reason to blow people up.

essentialsaltes said:

ISIS claimed responsibility on Tuesday for the Easter Sunday suicide bombings in Sri Lanka, as an official in the country said the preliminary investigation into the attacks showed it was "retaliation" for the massacre of Muslims at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Of course, ISIS is not particularly trustworthy. There are still some questions about who really was responsible or helped. Not to mention the fact that even if the motive was retaliation for the act of terror in New Zealand, this is not a valid reason to blow people up.

Click to expand...

So ISIS isn't dead.

ISIS will be dead when the CIA decides it is dead.

ISIS is now claiming responsibility as revenge for New Zealand. HERE Not sure if true.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Christ never said to ignore their efforts...



Not really, because most of the guests would be foreigners. In high-end hotels such as these, mostly Westerners.

Click to expand...

If this was ISIS. It was justified to them. Since all the damage the USA has done to them and their families . I'm sure it stings the USA, that a lot of Christians were killed.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

If this was ISIS. It was justified to them. Since all the damage the USA has done to them and their families . I'm sure it stings the USA, that a lot of Christians were killed.

Click to expand...

As one whose actually spoken with refugees : Muslim, Christian and Yazidi who fled ISIS violence I would respectfully disagree!

ISIS reaped what they sowed having butchered large numbers of Christians in Syria and Iraq who never did them harm. Christians in Sri Lanka have an impeccable track record and are not going around murdering people. There is no justification for these murders.

If ISIS have a problem with the USA then they should try attacking American military targets.

mindlight said:

As one whose actually spoken with refugees : Muslim, Christian and Yazidi who fled ISIS violence I have to ask what planet you are living on!!!!!?

ISIS reaped what they sowed having butchered large numbers of Christians in Syria and Iraq who never did them harm. Christians in Sri Lanka have an impeccable track record and are not going around murdering people. There is no justification for these murders.

If ISIS have a problem with the USA then they should try attacking American military targets.

Click to expand...

In ISIS mind they are innocent. And everyone else is guilty. Also the USA starts alot of wars. Iraq. That create these type of groups.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

In ISIS mind they are innocent. And everyone else is guilty. Also the USA starts alot of wars. Iraq. That create these type of groups.

Click to expand...

They sit in ruins and say all sorts of crazy things, and I have no inclination to nod along to their conversation. A conversation which you as a woman and infidel would not be invited to anyway, but feel free to empathise. By their fruit we know them, there is no justification for the attacks in Sri Lanka

mindlight said:

They sit in ruins and say all sorts of crazy things, and I have no inclination to nod along to their conversation. A conversation which you as a woman and infidel would not be invited to anyway, but feel free to empathise. By their fruit we know them, there is no justification for the attacks in Sri Lanka

Click to expand...

I would never go to Iraq's world and bombed their people over a lie.. So I wouldnt have woke ISIS up in the first place. I dont empathize. I just think when you play with danger this happen.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

I would never go to Iraq's world and bombed their people over a lie.. So I wouldnt have woke ISIS up in the first place. I dont empathize. I just think when you play with danger this happen.

Click to expand...

We went to Iraq and got rid of an evil dictator who had waged wars in the region that had cost 1.5 million lives and who had used chemical weopans (WMDs) on his own people. The Americans were naïve in attempting a societal change in Iraq like the ones they achieved in Germany and Korea. Basically the quality of the people militated against that and the Americans approached the task in a superficial and secular manner. The Iraqis were still committed to older religious hatreds that overruled the positive but rather weak secular vision America had for their nation and most of the deaths that occurred during the Coalition occupation were of Iraqis killing each other usually due to the Shia - Sunni divide. The real driver for the rise of ISIS was the premature withdrawal of American power from the country by Obama. Maliki's Shia regime then removed the Sunni generals from his army and alienated the Sunni population. ISIS rose into that vacuum and also at the same time joined the Sunni uprising against the Shia backed Assad regime. Clinton and Obama naively hoped that the Sunnis might get rid of Assad for them and stop the Shia oil corridor from Iran to Syria reaching the Med and thereby stop the Saudis screaming at them and playing games with the oil price. In the meantime they turned a blind eye while ISIS and other extremists butchered the church in Iraq and in Syria.

Anyway just cause we set Iraq free and then left them to kill each other as they clearly wanted to do while were there also is no justification whatsoever for blowing up Christians in Sri Lanka who had absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

I would never go to Iraq's world and bombed their people over a lie.. So I wouldnt have woke ISIS up in the first place. I dont empathize. I just think when you play with danger this happen.

Click to expand...

Wondered how long it would be for US foreign policy to be blamed for what happened in Sri Lanka, rather than the ideology the terrorists follow. Funny, did you agree with that right wing Australian senator who blamed muslim immigration for the NZ attack?, I doubt it, but the whole "western foreign policy is to blame" is the lefties equivalent to that. Its just as disgusting in this situation.

Christians lay dead and your trying to now paint an image that the US is bombing "Isis and their families" is the real cause. ISIS brought it on themselves, they were a genocidal army, stop downplaying what they are. Foreign policy was always an excuse for such people and their hatred is older than the US nation itself, its resurgence of the same old supremacy.

Depressing, Some people just cant help themselves, they have to make muslims the victims in everything.

mindlight said:

We went to Iraq and got rid of an evil dictator who had waged wars in the region that had cost 1.5 million lives and who had used chemical weopans (WMDs) on his own people. The Americans were naïve in attempting a societal change in Iraq like the ones they achieved in Germany and Korea. Basically the quality of the people militated against that and the Americans approached the task in a superficial and secular manner. The Iraqis were still committed to older religious hatreds that overruled the positive but rather weak secular vision America had for their nation and most of the deaths that occurred during the Coalition occupation were of Iraqis killing each other usually due to the Shia - Sunni divide. The real driver for the rise of ISIS was the premature withdrawal of American power from the country by Obama. Maliki's Shia regime then removed the Sunni generals from his army and alienated the Sunni population. ISIS rose into that vacuum and also at the same time joined the Sunni uprising against the Shia backed Assad regime. Clinton and Obama naively hoped that the Sunnis might get rid of Assad for them and stop the Shia oil corridor from Iran to Syria reaching the Med and thereby stop the Saudis screaming at them and playing games with the oil price. In the meantime they turned a blind eye while ISIS and other extremists butchered the church in Iraq and in Syria.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing. Saddam Hussein, despite his cruelty, preserved a measure of social order in the country. There was no problem with ISIS until after he was gone. I foresaw myself that his overthrow would ultimately lead to something worse. The reality is that in that part of the world, secular nationalist leaders like Hussein, Assad and Al-Sisi are the best realistic option.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

That's just the thing. Saddam Hussein, despite his cruelty, preserved a measure of social order in the country. There was no problem with ISIS until after he was gone. I foresaw myself that his overthrow would ultimately lead to something worse. The reality is that in that part of the world, secular nationalist leaders like Hussein, Assad and Al-Sisi are the best realistic option.

Click to expand...

The Christian church had a measure of protection under Sadam it no longer enjoys. There was an opportunity with the invasion for a new kind of future but the Iraqi people chose Shia - Sunni sectarianism instead. This was a gamble that failed and giving freedom to wounded and broken people informed by a false religion may have caused more harm than good.

Sadams deposition or Gadaffis is not the problem here. Both were monsters. It is the state of peoples who when free to choose act in ugly and hateful ways towards Christians

The best solution in both cases may have been to hand over to a secular alternative in the same regime who would have protected the church. It was naive to attempt a complete overhaul of a nations culture so wedded to ancient religious hatreds

What is going on Sri Lanka is an overflow of whole countries who think it is OK to kill Christians and have a democratic mandate for that. Many of these countries are regarded as friends by the West!