Sri Lanka bombings: Christchurch retaliation suggested, ISIS claim responsibility

A politician has told the Sri Lankan Parliament that the bombings there in the weekend were a retaliation for the Christchurch mosque attacks on 15 April, but has given no details.

The Prime Ministers of both Sri Lanka and New Zealand say that this claim is ‘premature’.

ISIS have claimed responsibility for the bombings, but it is not clear to what extent, if any.

RNZ: Easter Sunday bombings were retaliation against New Zealand mosque attack – Minister

A Sri Lanka official says initial investigation shows Easter Sunday bombings were a retaliation against New Zealand mosque attack.

A series of coordinated blasts in churches and hotels hit Sri Lanka on Sunday leaving 321 people dead and 500 injured.

“The initial investigation has revealed that this was in retaliation for the New Zealand mosque attack,” junior minister for defence Ruwan Wijewardene told parliament.

“It was done by National Thawheed Jama’ut along with JMI,” he said, referring to another local group, Jammiyathul Millathu Ibrahim.

However, the Associated Press said Mr Wijewardene made the statement about retaliation “without providing evidence or explaining where the information came from”.

So it isn’t clear if this is based on information or facts, or if it is just speculation.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “We have seen reports of the statement from the Sri Lankan Minister of state for defence, alleging a link between the the Easter Sunday terrorist attack and the March 15 attack in Christchurch.

“We understand the Sri Lankan investigation into the attack is in its early stages. New Zealand has not yet seen any intelligence upon which such an assessment might be based.

While it was always possible the Sri Lankan bombings could be in some way linked to the Christchurch shootings I doubt that is the whole explanation.

Finding seven people wiling to be suicide bombers, training and equipping them and planning and carrying out a co-ordinated attack would take time, weeks perhaps, but likely months. Christchurch could just be being used as a convenient excuse, with the connection being used to stir up division and fear.

ABC News:  ISIS claims responsibility for Sri Lanka Easter bombings that killed over 300

The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for a wave of coordinated bombings at churches and high-end hotels across Sri Lanka.

The terrorist organization offered no evidence to support that assertion, which was initially announced in a statement in Arabic published by its Amaq news agency on Tuesday, saying the attackers were “among the fighters of the Islamic State,” according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, a company that tracks extremist groups.

ISIS later issued a longer, formal statement identifying the seven suicide bombers who detonated explosive-laden vests at the churches and hotels and a housing complex on Sunday.

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe acknowledged the claim during a press conference in the capital, Colombo.

“All that we knew earlier is that there were foreign links and that this could not have been done just locally,” Wickremesinghe said. “There has been training done and a coordination which we [have] not seen earlier.”

According to multiple U.S. sources briefed on the investigation, ISIS is believed to have been involved in the Sri Lanka attacks in a supportive capacity, but it’s not clear to what degree.

There is always a risk of escalation of terrorism. Violent extremists aim to generate as much publicity and provoke as much fear as possible. Terrorism was established as a global threat with the 9-11 attacks in New York in 2001, and the subsequent retaliation by the US in Iraq that began in 2003 but spread to other countries in the Middle East.

Violence begets violence. There will always be a risk of mass shootings, of bombings, and of other atrocities, but the best way to minimise the risks is to fight violence and provocation with peace and dignified defiance, along with vigilant security systems.

We know that ISIS and other violent extremists are intent on provoking bigger, wider conflict. That risks of that must be minimised, which means minimising irrational and over the top reactions.

 

Leave a comment

70 Comments

  1. Paul Buchanan on RNZ now is saying that it was ‘extremely reckless’ of the Sri Lankan Minister to make the Christchurch connection without any substantiation.

    And he says it is reckless of media spreading the story and the whole ‘clash of civilisations’ meme.

    I wondered whether to post on this, but it would have been commented on here anyway, and it has been brought up before now. It’s difficult being open about what is happening and what people think without publicising the hate and division and escalation that is being attempted.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  24th April 2019

      Well, I may as well re-post (since slightly edited) something I posted elsewhere this morning, since this is not the only reckless thing I’ve seen broadcast from Sri Lanka today.

      Gezza  /  April 24, 2019
      Around 7am this morning I saw a short news item featuring a burial procession for some of the Christian victims of this Muslim terrorist massacre in Sri Lanka led by a Catholic priest, who gave a brief interview with an Al Jazeera reporter & said, in perfect English, & with an incredible lack of self-awareness, reality, & common-sense, that those who were being buried were were followers “of Jesus Christ of Nazarrth who is the one true god” and that while those who had committed this heinous act were evil, they were required to forgive them, and to remember that they would ultimately have to answer to his God for what they had done.

      This item is being repeated during subsequent news broadcasts, by a (12 hours each) Doha & London-based, pro-Islam television & online broadcaster with global reach.

      He was still in his vestments, a Swami-like figure with long, black curly hair & a shock white beard & moustache, & told the reporter he didn’t want to give his name for fear of becoming a target to be murdered. He stood out from everyone around him like a sore thumb & would probably take no more than a few hours to identfy.

      And I thought, for God’s sake ! What an idiotic, provocative damn thing to say !

      There’s a temporary limited state of emergency in force in that place & security forces are still on high alert for the possibility of more attacks.

      All the signs are that this act was committed by fanatical followers of version 3 of Jaweh, Allah, who believe, with absolute certainty, that THEIRS is the one true God, & this priest has the stupidity to enrage & provoke more of them around the world and in his own home country with his equally arrogant & deluded public assertion that only HIS god is the true God.

      It’s positively blimmin tragic that religious diehards (& I count this priest & most Christian clergy among them), in this day & age, can still so casually & arrogantly set themselves above & against each other forever, by making it clear that at best they are only humouring the “obviously deluded” followers of other religions, as long as they don’t hurt anyone, by declaring their insistence, however quietly, “reasonably” or loudly that THEIR god (and obviously, therefore, they) are right, and superior.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th April 2019

        *Nazareth

        Reply
      • Jacqueline

         /  24th April 2019

        Gezza, perhaps you should just convert to Islam. The one true God might suit you well. Your rhetoric certainly fits with that one.
        Perhaps that follower of Jesus wished to express his grief and the most meaningful way for him was to publicly state his hope. Is that not acceptable for Christians in your world?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th April 2019

          Perhaps that follower of Jesus wished to express his grief and the most meaningful way for him was to publicly state his hope. Is that not acceptable for Christians in your world?

          I don’t need to convert to Islam, Jacqueline. I don’t believe – for a multitude of sound reasons, supported by a growing nimber of serious & credible academic researchers, that the God he tells Muslims is the only true one, is even real.

          I am sure that that follower is a believer as well as an individual who has spent his life making his living from selling this notion, on the basis of very unreliable & not very credible evidence. and that he wished to express his grief in the most meaningful way & to publlicy state his hope – which is that that they will now be tortured for eternity – for time never ending – for a cruel & criminal act committed once.

          It’s not that I think it’s unacceptable for Christians to say this. THEY MUST SAY THIS. Either publicly or privately (in their hearts, as some of them poetically like to put it.) They (with some sectarian & scholarly theological / philosophical differences among the believing researchers) truly believe this. And by publicly saying so, they automatically denigrate (while pretending not to) the faith of other believers who have the same essenitial, mythical grounds & tons of flawed scriptural evidence & scholarly research by believers, for believing theirs is.

          And these people will die and/or kill in defence of these unsupportable gods. I think there all kinds of things anyone can postulate for whether the universe had a creator & whether humans have any purpose for living beyond the same as any other creature. To survive & reproduce. And other mythical gods – especially in Asia.

          I have my own current personal favourite, but it’s in the nature of a musing, a possibility I find far more credible & consistent with science than yours. But I have no need to prosletyse it. It could be as wrong as yours, & there’s far to many & growing numbers of logical & evidential reasons to believe yours is neither real or nor remotely true.

          In my experience most atheists or agnostics (who may well by now be the majority of folk in NZ) just pooh pooh the notion of these Bible & Quran gods as silly, & quietly get on with their lives – because who cares?

          Well, the people who cling to these gods from ancient Jewish myths & legends care.

          And look what this outmoded belief system can & does lead to?

          And these gods are powerless to prevent it. A few years ago your god allowed believers praying to him in their own church in Italy to be killed when it collapsed on them in an earthquake. Now he’s allowed them, once again, to be murdered in their churches. And Allah keeps doing the same thing to his believers.

          By all means, have a go at me or my character if you like, but I’m not selling a religion that says I have a god who tells me what is true, moral, immoral, & that must have no other gods & must believe all others are false. I’m saying this god of yours, the Jews & Muslims, is, in reality, not even worth killing or dying for. Because it isn’t even real.

          And it’s time people started to talk more about this. Humans have enough blimmin things to battle & batter each other over, it seems, endlessly. The sooner we dump this one, the better, imo.

          That priest was thoughtless & reckless.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  24th April 2019

            And by publicly saying so, they automatically denigrate (while pretending not to) the faith of other believers who have the same essenitial, mythical grounds & tons of flawed scriptural evidence & scholarly research by believers, for believing theirs is.

            And there’s the non sequitur flaw in your argument. Not that, by implication, that is an accurate summation of the beliefs of Christianity (mind you, those in Sri Lankan churches WERE attacked in large part because they DO believe Jesus is God)

            …but that to oppose or even denigrate another’s beliefs publicly is someone a “provocation” that will “enrage” others to commit violence. FFS, Gezza, at times I’ve denigrated your views, as you’ve denigrated mine. Ideas should be up for grabs, and, unlike people at least on Your NZ, should be subject rebuttal, including at times ridicule.

            And unless it freedom of speech including religion is exercised, especially when it is attacked – like the priest whom you criticise, and with whom you draw a false equivalence with the terrorists – then it will be lost. And the real “religious diehards” will have won.

            Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  24th April 2019

            And look what this outmoded belief system can & does lead to?

            Er, and isn’t that the logical fallacy of…the slippery slope, so beloved of Abrahamic theists when debating, say, enthanasia?

            Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  24th April 2019

            And I also note you dodged answering Jacqueline’s other question:

            Perhaps that follower of Jesus wished to express his grief and the most meaningful way for him was to publicly state his hope. Is that not acceptable for Christians in your world?

            …or at least the answer I’m kinda gleaning from your answer is, “well, they are allowed to say it, but really they shouldn’t”.

            But I don’t want to put words in your mouth/draw false implications, despite your apparent proclivity, bordering on Tourette’s Syndrome status to use any and every occasion to denigrate religion. Fair enough….but maybe you may want to have another go at answering Jacqueline’s direct question with a direct answer, taking into account that Christians in times of stress and great grief, like anyone else, will look for comfort in their epistemological worldview. And the Christians beliefs from that worldview include the ultimate application of universal justice, and our need to forgive those who murder in the interim.

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  24th April 2019

            I don’t know or care what the religious or non-religious beliefs or non-beliiefs are of all those who advocate for euthanasia, but I haven’t heard anyone advocating that people with incurable diseases or condtions who themselves don’t want to ultimately die in degrading circumstances should be euthanised BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE in a fictional god, Kimbo. That’s a false equivalence, & you should know that.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              So you are going to jump down into the illustration I gave, and ignore the primary point I made: you seem to have resorted to the “slippery slope” fallacy in saying, in the context of a peaceful priest affirming his non-violent faith?:



              Care to have another run-in on that one, Gezza?

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              …sorry wrong cut and paste (although Hitch Slaps are always fun!). I’ll repeat it again. This statement by yours,

              And look what this outmoded belief system can & does lead to?

              including and especially linking it directly to the priest you mentioned, is an appeal to the logical fallacy of “the slippery slope”.

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              There’s no slippery slope point out that saying on excruciatingly poor evidence my god is the one true god & they will be punished for breaking his rules everlastingly in a theoretical, unevidenced afterlife is the same belief the murderers have & only stokes the flames.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              There’s no slippery slope point out that saying on excruciatingly poor evidence my god is the one true god & they will be punished for breaking his rules everlastingly in a theoretical, unevidenced afterlife is the same belief the murderers have & only stokes the flames.

              Again, an assertion with no evidence. How about, in the context of people who have killed others, and a priest seeking to give comfort to his people in a non-violent manner (hence he rightly doesn’t feel the need to give a detailed theological,. philosophical nor evidentiary explanation for his belief in the context of a bloody media sound bite!)

              …it is a false equivalence?

          • Gezza

             /  24th April 2019

            I don’t want to words in your mouth/draw false implications, despite your apparent proclivity, bordering on Tourette’s Syndrome status to use any and every occasion to denigrate religion.

            Forgive me, but that is utterly risible coming from any believer of a faith who loudly or quietly profess their beilef in their god every Sunday, Friday, & in some extreme cases, every waking hour of their lives, & csn get utterly ropable & storm away from – or at – anyone who simply points out all the flaws in them.

            And the problems have led to & still lead to.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Don’t have a problem with you pointing out my flaws, indeed I think I’ve examined mine better than yours in this public forum.

              Either way, I note your latest assertion:

              And the problems have led to & still lead to.

              …hasn’t in any way provided any evidence that the priest’s views and statement in some way justify your earlier assertion:

              And look what this outmoded belief system can & does lead to ?, (i.e., terrorism and violence).

              So yet again, I invite you to have another go at responding and trying to rebut the analysis that that statement is an example of the fallacy of the slippery slope…

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              I have no need to.

              1. The evidence for what this can lead to is there in Sri Lanka.
              2. I am not pointing out YOUR flaws, nor attacking your character. You are attacking mine.

              I am simply pointing out that the evidence for the truth of your religion is getting weaker & weaker as time & knowlege & scholarly research continues. And that I hope in time it will no longer be necessary for people to judge & others on the basis of what they believe their imaginary Gods have decreed should be the criteria.

              And I’m stopping at that because otherwise this thread will go on & on with no concession either side nor any basis for people to evaluate who’s right without spending hours looking at the detailed, relevant research even if just on YouTube & coming to a properly informed conclusion.

              I have made & explained my point about the foolishness of the priest’s remark in those circumstances. I saw no religious leader make the same statement after Christchurch here. They had too much sense. (Or if any did, like I dunno, The Bish, they’d have copped an earful from the atheist PM down to the local Bobby.)

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              I am not pointing out YOUR flaws, nor attacking your character. You are attacking mine.

              Sorry, but in the context of criticising the words of a man to whose religious community great violence was done

              …and who is stressing that they need to forgive

              …and restrain from any revenge

              I find that response pissy, pearl-clutching and (to quote you) “lacking in self-awareness”. And look again. Like my critique

              despite your apparent proclivity, bordering on Tourette’s Syndrome status to use any and every occasion to denigrate religion

              …I’ve criticised your words, and the way you have presented them (i.e., your actions), not you. So no, no “characterl attack”. Evidence by:

              I am simply pointing out that the evidence for the truth of your religion is getting weaker & weaker as time & knowlege & scholarly research continues.

              Fair enough. But then that on the face of it confirms that you think the priest should not have said what he did because (and I deduce this by your use of that adverb, “simply”), not because of any alleged “provocation” that might “enrage” others, nor because he allegedly shares the equivalent same violent ideology (a libellous slur, I would suggest)

              ….but just because you just don’t like it. Yes. We (and I do presume to talk for others as they too have noted it on occasion) already knew that

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              I have no need to. (i.e., provide evidence).

              Oh, ok.

              1. The evidence for what this can lead to is there in Sri Lanka.

              Oh, ok, so you are providing evidence?

              Yeah, nah. In the context of a priest, whom you have linked via a false equivalence to terrorists, that is an argument that correlation is causation.

              I count this priest & most Christian clergy among them…And by publicly saying so, they automatically denigrate (while pretending not to) the faith of other believers who have the same essenitial, mythical grounds & tons of flawed scriptural evidence & scholarly research by believers, for believing theirs is.
              And these people will die and/or kill in defence of these unsupportable gods….And look what this outmoded belief system can & does lead to?

          • Gezza

             /  24th April 2019

            *problems they have led to & still lead to.

            Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  24th April 2019

        …as I posted elsewhere today, this is the right response IMHO. Not cowering in fear, much less criticising others who may “provoke” and “enrage” others:

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th April 2019

          Can you show me a video of him doing this in Tehran or Mecca?

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  24th April 2019

            How about, seeing you are advocating a “tactical/pragmatic (cowardly?)” approach, you address the intrinsic merits of the issue that we can and should at least hold the line in countries where freedom of religion is a right? New Zealand and Sri Lanka qualify, both in law and in lived fact last time I looked.

            I mean, you are the one who is supposedly wary of the encroachment of religion into your and our national freedom…yet you criticise a guy and draw an eqiavlence between him and actual terrorists because, in time of great suffering, he pushes back against religious intimidation?!

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  24th April 2019

            FFS: he pushes back against religious intimidation with religious intimidation.
            🙄

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              How is what he said religious intimidation?

              I too believe Jesus Christ is God, even though you, and a whole host of others, including Muslims think otherwise.

              I too believe that there will be a great judgement at the end of the age.

              I too believe that in the interim I and other Christians must exercise forbearance and forgiveness, especially when great wrong/evil is done.

              I don’t dispute you disagree, and that you have a whole host of reasons why. Fair enough. But how is saying any of that intimidating…anyone??!

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              The Day of Judgement, when Christians believe all humans will answer to their God, and suffer his wrath. My god will punish you – the unbeliever – with unrelievable torment, for eternity? For murder? It’s 1000 times more vicious a revenge than any human could even hope to inflict on a murderer. It’s the intimidation end of the carrot/stick formula used to gain & keep followers ever since Christianity was first devised.

              So powerful a notion on the uneducated, scientifically unknowledgeable, ancient mind, that even Muhammad borrowed it. And almost certainly likely for the exact same reason. We thought this age had passed & that everything would work out fine. But it hasn’t. Time people looked seriously into the origins & history of all three, imo.

              Your own Yahweh is clearly recorded in your own Bible to be a mass murderer of innocents multiple times. Absurd mental gymnastics are required to justify his evil deeds.

              All for now.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Ok, Gezza. Bye for now. I note, however, your patronising plea to be worried for the “uneducated, (and) scientifically unknowledgeable”, looks suspiciously like the same arguments that are used to shut down freedom of speech. Including why we once had blasphemy laws.

              “Will no one thinks of the children??!” 🤣

              Yes, we have laws against genuine intimidation, and rightly so. Your explanation in no way qualifies, either in law, nor in everyday fact.

              As with anything you don’t like someone saying, you always have the option of ignoring them, including by leaving their presence, hitting the off-switch, or, if you are especially inclined, telling them to “f*&% off!”. 😀

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              As one prominent YouTube atheist recently forcefully pointed out, in response to a typical abusive attack from a theist, while Christian apologists constantly & loudly complain in debates that they (not their beliefs) are being unfairly attacked by devious, deviant godless heathens (or whatever nicer turn of phrase they adopt in their public utterances) & attempt to shut down the discourse that way – aetheists & humanists have had to endure the most vile abuse from pulpits everywhere for fracking centuries, including attempts to tell their “flocks” that atheists are Nazis, communists, every conceivable godless mass murdering, equally repressive or got mitt uns bloodthirsty blot of an ideology upon humanity – for simply pointing out that the evidence for the existence of this mythical god eho they let overtake great chunks of their reason, is simply unbelievable, & that they need to acknowledge, get a grip on, & stop with their own disgraceful behaviour & false allegations.

              If you feel a need to cherry pick & completely misrepresent what I have said at the outset & divert it into why I believe the false judeo-christian muslim god needs to be discussed far more widely than it is (because, hey, it’s good & harmless right?) you clearly won’t want to explain how come it’s a mass muderer too, but that that’s ok, because it has to be ok or believers are screwed.

              As I have often said, in recent times, when devising Christianity, linking Jesus to the evil mythical being Jaweh really is, to create the myth of Jesus’s divinity, was the worst idea anyone could have come up with.

              Examples of The Christian God personally killing heaps of innocent people:
              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              How about, Gezza, before drawing whatever bow you want, be it me, or any theist who has said anything, anywhere, anytime be it from a pulpit or otherwise, you just, for the sale of clarity, give us some evidence that the priest who has raised your ire has engaged in “religious intimidation”. Real intimidation I mean, utilising a definition that wouldn’t threaten genuine and valuable free speech.

              That can at least be a primary hurdle to selling the much more suspect idea that there is an equivalence with his words – counselling the need for patience and forebearance – and murdering people in cold blood.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              And linking Jesus to Yahweh to create the doctrine of his divinity was “the worst idea”? You really mean that? I’ll give you the chance to clarify that you were using hyperbole before making like a mosquito in a nudist colony who doesn’t know where to bite first. 😳

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              I’ve already quite clearly explained where the crux of the problem with all 3 of the most prominent Judaic sects lies & how they lie at the very heart of every religiously motivated act of terroris, we are most familiar with today.

              MINE IS THE ONE TRUE GOD.

              To have any priest or believer announce that, in the immediate aftermath of an attack like this, however well-intentioned and intended to be softened by expressions of forgiveness, with the statement that they will have to answer to HIS GOD, knowing that eternal torture is the penalty his religion teaches that his god will exact, is to provoke yet more attacks, from fanatical believers that THAT THEIRS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD, and that he expects them – the murdering fanatics – to exact the penalty of death to unbelievers.

              I am not going to indulge you further by succumbing to your distractions from that point. And especially when you continue, once I let you, to skip over the jealous, vengeful, murderous nature of the god who is the primary source of each of your 3 huge sects’ foundations.

              It matters less that other believers in Islam protest that killers like these are wilfully, foolishly, or just evilly misrepresenting Islam, but more that they even believe at all in a fictional god from the middle ages, based on an update of a fictional god from the bronze age, without which mistaken belief they would have no basis at all for any such justification.

              I might post a very good examinatinn of the historical evidence of the evolution of Christianity on a Religion thread, sometime. When I do, you can knock youself out picking that apart, if you like. To try & point out the evidence of masses of historical research showing where your god came from & how little justification there is nowadays for believing any version of it will take up far too much space & time & simply get sidelined all over the place, as always, when theists protest.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Not sure I’ll bother, Gezza. After all, contrary to your assertions about Yahweh, I haven’t sidelined them. Just pointed out that thus far, your accusation that one priest’s citing of him doesn’t qualify, by any legal or reasonable-use definition, as religious intimidation.

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              Not sure I’ll bother, Gezza.
              Yes, well, I was fairly sure that response was coming.
              It’s not easy for Christians & theologians to dare even dare to go there.
              For some, given what might happen to them if they even dare to, denying the holy spirit – the unforgiveable sin, it’s extremely intimidating.
              Eternal torment is horrible, horrible prospect. Better to just carry on believing & play it safe.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              No, Gezza. I’d at least argue I have some track record of putting my cherished beliefs on the chopping block in this forum. Am happy in ordinary circumstances to look at any data you can muster that Yahweh is an ogre and a tyrant who inspires evil.

              What I’m saying is, based on your track record in this thread in failing to adequately defend your questionable assertion that the priest in Sri Lanka engaged in “religious intimidation” by at least using a legally sound definition of the term

              …I’ll likely give anything you post a miss.

              And no, before you complain that’s another theist launching into a personal character attack, that’s a criticism of your actions, and the lack of merit in your arguments.

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              No it’s not. It’s a blatant attack on my character by way of a blatant misrepresetation of what I said by reinterpreting what you say I meant to say it is an attack on a priest’s character p, when I have set out precisely why it was an incredibly insensitive & even dangerous thing for him to say.

              And you are, as far as I can make out so far, in complete agreement with him that yours is THE ONE TRUE GOD, so you csn hardly be expected to be taken as a disinterested & objective commenter, can you?

              Let me ask you bluntly. Is your God, the one you & that priest believe in, the one true God? It’s a very simple question. “That depends”, or other long-winded theological or circular philosophical variations to try and avoid a simple yes or no, isn’t a worthwhile answer.

              If you want to avoid defending it against the evidence of a prominent historian & theologian who has access to all the increasing smount of historical texts & evidence that show how the Bible has been constructed around a few basic genuine misrepresented scriptures, that’s fine. Others might be interested to know.

              Millions of people, including Sunday Christians and hope I go heaven when I die but otherwise yeah nah” types haven’t a bloody clue what the hell is even IN the Bible and absolutely NO idea of what is now reliably known in the historical & theological fields about how absolutely minutely little is actually accepted by scholars of Christianity to be even genuine. It’s TINY, and hugely suspect.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Blatantly misrepresented you? Er, you are the one who said he engaged in (to quote you) “religious intimidation”, but can’t give a reasonable, let alone legal definition by substantiate that. But calling you out and pressing you on the matter is “a blatant attack on your character” in your world? 😳

              I have no idea if the priest and I (to quote you again) “are in complete agreement”. As I’ve never met anyone with whom I’m in complete agreement, including in matters of theology, I doubt it. Plus, how do you expect me to answer that, when I only know what you have said he said…in a brf sound bite?! 😳

              Yes, I think the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ may be true. I’m a fallible and finite human, and at this stage it’s my best assessment. But does that mean there is no place in a possible after life of blessing (if such a thing exists) for those who do not consciously know of him, or who belong to other religions? I have no idea. I hope so, just as I hope for me.

              Do I think there is a hell in which people will be tormented for ever? No. But I hope for justice in this life. Don’t you? And if there is an afterlife, I hope for that too. But I have no idea, if it occurs, what it will be like.

              So, I think that answered your “blunt” questions. Any chance you are going to get around to answering my (to quote you yet again) “simple question” with a (quoting you yet again) “simple yes or no”:

              By what legal and workable definition is what the priest said (to quote you once more) “religious intimidation”?

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              Theology is a great thing for takking onesekf out of awkward problems with the one true god, isn’t it. “I can argue against anyone questioning it by saying well, I don’t necessarily believe it, unless someone says they don’t believe it in which case I can say you said something you didn’t say & then I can bend it & say you are saying something other than what you said.

              By what legal and workable definition is what the priest said (to quote you once more) “religious intimidation”?

              There are 3 essential elements to Christianity.
              1. Jesus is God.
              2. Heaven or paradise awaits those who believe in the Christian Jesus and (& his old man) & obey their commandments (these include not having other Gods) – they’ve morphed & muddied these around a bit because Jaweh’s a stated mass murderer, which makes his prohibition against murder a bit awkward
              3. Hell – eternal torment awaits those who break your favourite God’s commandments and do not seek Jesus’s forgiveness and accept him as the only one true God. THAT is intimidation & always has been.

              There are two components to my first comment which explain what is wrong with the implications of what that priest said. As I have explained more than once. Christianity teaches that these muderers will suffer eternal punishment. Muslims know this. That preacher has told Muslims HIS ONE TRUE GOD will punish them eternally.

              It was a foolish & reckless thing to say. To a reporter & tv camera operator from a Muslim based tv channel. No doubt he sees no problem with it. No doubt many Muslims don’t either. He should have chosen his words more carefully. Because some Muslims WILL have a problem with it. The ones who believe Allah sanctions killing unbelievers. And who keep doing it all around the world.

              And all 3 of these religions that are at the very heart of this strife are based on a complete blimmin myth.
              https://yournz.org/2019/04/24/sri-lanka-bombings-christchurch-retaliation-suggested-isis-claim-responsibility/#comment-364154

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Christianity teaches that these muderers will suffer eternal punishment.

              Er, aren’t you the smart guy who reckons there are “thousands of interpretations of the Bible”, so how do you, a non-Christian at that, get to dictate what it “teaches”. Much less what the priest did and didn’t mean in all its complexity?

              And I love this from you in response my (repeated) question:

              By what legal and workable definition is what the priest said (to quote you once more) “religious intimidation”?
              ——-
              There are 3 essential elements to Christianity…

              No Gezza, it was, as per your rules, a “simple question requiring a yes or no”. I’ll give you a hint – NO, there is no legal workable definition that would respect the right to free speech by which his words were “religious intimidation”.

              And on top of that you have the chutzpah to lecture others with:

              Theology is a great thing for takking onesekf out of awkward problems…

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              It’s the blimmin iPad! It facilitates the making of bloody typos. Still cherry picking things written & then arguing them out of proper context eh?

              I AM a former Christian. The tendency these days to play down the hell fire & damnation doesn’t change the centuiries for how long it’s been the refuge & rod of the preachers & religious right. And in some places still is. The multiple arguments over interpretations even among Christian sects & theologians themselves have always been one of the biggest indicators there’s somethng seriously wrong with that book.

              Sometimes I just like to pretend to be arrogant, Kimbo. It’s always a fun way to have discussions with those who like to pretend that they’re not.

              Late enuf for me & going round in circles debating your misrepresentation of something I said right at the start. Pointless. Nitey nite.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              Nite, Gezza

          • Jacqueline

             /  24th April 2019

            Gezza and Kimbo.
            I keep wanting to be finished with YourNZ, and Blazer reckons I’m always barking up the wrong tree, but here goes (a nice big flounce for Griff) –

            •We’re all quite upset about evil world events shattering our usual Kiwi culture.

            •I was upset to the point of being very ill after PCANZ put me out of fellowship. I still cannot fathom why I was so hated by Christians.

            •It looks like your bromance was short lived – Gezza because you’ve chosen Humanism and Kimbo because you have theological answers.

            •I suggest that Kimbo will never get through to Gezza because –

            Spirituality within the Body of Christ 101 states that when a believer is unfairly put out of Christian fellowship, the cross loses its power.

            [You lose Kimbo. You are undermining the Gospel. Try confessing that to your fellow Presbyterian leaders. (There’s the flounce Griff.)]

            •Gezza, I heard you say before that you had ‘been there and done that’ re trying the Jesus way. I just want to say to you that you are well loved, a precious fellow Kiwi and I hope everything goes well for you.

            •Kimbo, not once have I seen you clearly state where your hope lies. You know full well that ‘Christianity’ is an historic confusion worldwide and also that churches in NZ experience oppression/confusion/apathy/dogmatic tyranny. (You admitted to experiencing ‘Christian’ spiritual confusion personally.)

            Please would you stop muddying the waters. Being a theologian does not make your walk with Jesus any more plain sailing than the next person’s. Are you walking with Jesus the Good Shepherd? And if so, do you belong to a church which unfairly discarded me?

            Jesus is the Victor.

            •Gezza, I respectfully suggest that you had already at some time/several times given your life over to the Saviour. But confusion attacked you, probably via people, and you were seriously discouraged. I tell you outright – all forms of mysticism including Catholicism, mega physics, witch craft, bargaining with god in case he’s God, signs and wonders, experiences of ‘voices’…keeps you from knowing peace. I think you are closer to walking with Jesus than you give yourself credit for. A kind heart and an open mind is vulnerability. Jesus is powerful to save.

            If Kimbo’s prayers are pure, he could help.

            It’s clear that the host wishes to keep away from division re ‘clash of civilisations’. I wonder if he would also rather steer clear of the churches dirty laundries. What do you think Kimbo?

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  24th April 2019

              What do you think Kimbo?

              This one time I’ll respond to you:

              I suggest that Kimbo will never get through to Gezza

              Not trying to, and neither is he doing the same with me. Instead, we both find it useful, indeed healthy to engage in discussion for others to consider in a public forum. Don’t like it? Then do what you said before, and leave and never come back.

              Try confessing that to your fellow Presbyterian leaders.

              I said I am a Calvinist, but never said I was a Presbyterian/member of the PCANZ. Indeed (not that your arrogance merits any personal details about me, but this one time I’ll acquiesce), I’m not.

              Kimbo, not once have I seen you clearly state where your hope lies.

              I said above that “I believe Jesus is God”, and I’ve recently posted “I’m not yet prepared to give up my Christian faith”.

              You know full well that ‘Christianity’ is an historic confusion worldwide and also that churches in NZ experience oppression/confusion/apathy/dogmatic tyranny.

              So when you say you think you know what I know, that’s the third error based on the sin of presumption you’ve made in one post. So that’s strike three.

              I don’t know why the PCANZ chose to disassociate itself from you, and, in this context I don’t care, and neither is it something I ever want to know. But like them, and Christopher Hitchens’ advice I posted above, I give you the message, kindly go away and kindly don’t try to engage with me again ever. Including with your elastic band LANCB returns, no matter what new handle you choose.

            • Jacqueline

               /  24th April 2019

              Thank you Kimbo. Very much appreciated.

              Angry much. Why? Just please don’t take it out on your women folk and children. Many of us know that Calvinists struggle with harshness. At this time in history, perhaps it’s time for a change?

              Stating that Jesus is God is a wee bit different to humbly and clearly stating where your hope lies.

              God bless. I enjoyed your theological discussions.

              And you have inadvertently answered for me another personal query re other Presbyterians in NZ. Like I said, thank you – very much appreciated.

            • Jacqueline

               /  24th April 2019

              And I agree with Kimbo that comments here are for everyone.

              To that end, I’d like to say that I thought Kimbo’s post about the resurrection was very good. On a secular site it gave room for honest queries. But at the end, Kimbo’s closing statement was disheartening. It was all about him, yet the resurrection was all about Jesus! Following that, it is all about what Jesus did for us!
              Without faith it is impossible to please God.
              I’ve been encouraging people that you only need a little. Jesus will do the rest. He is God. You can relax and allow Him to mold you during life’s process.
              During times of fear and anxiety and grief, we all need hope.

              In a way, Kimbo and I have exposed dirty laundry between Christians, even though he is not a PCANZer. It’s a shame, but really – we must get our heads around what Christianity actually is. NZs future depends upon this.

    • harryk

       /  24th April 2019

      ‘he says it is reckless of media spreading the story and the whole ‘clash of civilisations’ meme.’

      He is correct. I’ve pointed out before how Huntington’s ideological anti globalist construct has been discredited by those in his own field and is now only pushed by the usual suspects eg Spencer and his ilk whose outrageous fortunes [sorry] depend in it. Clash of cultures, certainly. Civilisations not. The Western and Islamic civilisations that existed in the past no longer exist and have been re-subsumed into the single central civilisation. That is NOT a denigration of the achievements of those past civilisations nor a denial of their continuing existence as cultural nodes within a globalising civilisation. Politicians and academics have to take Huntington on and explain to the public in the media why he was, and is wrong, not just whinge about the media. Time for them to roll up the sleeves and get writing.

      Reply
  2. Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th April 2019

    Justifying what they were already doing – like the Christian preacher except they were using bombs and he was using words.

    Reply
  4. Duker

     /  24th April 2019

    And yet we have some, for their own political purposes ( Heather Roy former ACT Mp), are saying in NZ they should ignore the police recommendations and go ahead with Anzac day services for those locations , mostly in Auckland, that had been cancelled. After all what could go wrong?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th April 2019

      Any attack in south Auckland would certainly be a suicide mission.

      Reply
    • Trevors_elbow

       /  24th April 2019

      So give into fear… beautiful Duker, beautiful

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  24th April 2019

        Pointless buzz word. “Give in to fear”
        You seem to be unaware, at the time of the Christchurch mosque massacre they locked down schools , closed the main highway south. Cancelled flights and many others
        Not giving into fear.. its sensible precautions from the police.
        Last thing we want is knowalls who are clueless.
        The Sri Lankan bombings – there were warnings – if they cancelled services no on would say it was giving into fear ( except knowalls) but a reality that police services protect agaisnt every circumstance.

        Let Heather Roy play soldiers elsewhere without exploiting something for political gain.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th April 2019

          We simply don’t know if they are sensible precautions because we haven’t been told about the intelligence data – just like the Sri Lankans.

          Reply
          • harryk

             /  24th April 2019

            Exactly. No transparency, no public interest, no precautionary principle. India should have released the information directly to the Sri Lankan and international public, not just to partners in the Sri Lankan security services riven with political hatreds. The excuses emanating from SL claiming incompetence are pathetic and unbelievable. No State could possibly be that incompetent. Not even NZ. If I can identify one of the suicide bombers just by searching open source stuff online for a few minutes, the entire SL State couldn’t? BS. And now, dusting off my seldom worn UFO shaped revolving tinfoil hat, I suggest there was an element of political bastardry involved and I sense cover up.

            Nor do I believe 5Eyes had no knowledge of the original Indian data. The NZ State moved early to evade responsibility for Christchurch by mandating a Royal Commission. Govts never commission an enquiry into themselves unless they know what the results will be. Ministers will be exonerated and responsibility kicked down the ladder to a few scapegoats, a few more clapped out Poms
            ex MI6 recruited and gifted a second retirement package in the antipodes. Not much different in Oz.

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th April 2019

          I see Devonport has give bureaucracy the fingers as usual and will defy the ban on their Anzac service and hold it as usual. Good on them

          Reply
  5. Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  24th April 2019

      “Both these sets of attacks – Christchurch & Sri Lanka – were attacks made on people going about worship of their god”

      True enough but only one of these attacks was made in the name of their god

      An important distinction?

      Reply
      • “An important distinction?”

        Not really. I haven’t seen anything that suggests either attack was made in the name of a god.

        The Christchurch attack was based on flawed ideology. I don’t think there is any evidence of any indication of the ideology behind the Sri Lanka attacks yet.

        Reply
        • Conspiratoor

           /  24th April 2019

          ISIS have been quick to step up and take the credit in the name of allah. Muslims behind the violence are quite explicit about the religious certainty that compels their actions

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  24th April 2019

            They could be lying. The ISIS franchise model seems to work on taking credit for any and every haymem in some way connected to Islam (if that is what the religious affirmation of these terrorist cells really is), or every disturbed loner who shouts “Allu Akbar” while mowing innocents down with truck/gun/knife…

            Helps to increase the reputation they are everywhere.

            Reply
            • I agree. They have been shown to be liars before about this sort of thing;I think; very foolish as they are asking for trouble by doing so.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  24th April 2019

              Au Contraire. According to recent research by terrorism experts Justin Conrad and Max Abrahms, only one in seven terror attacks is actually claimed by the terrorist group responsible

              ISIS use limited and strictly controlled outlets for claims of responsibility for its operations. This allows it to stop rivals from faking claims of responsibility on ISIS behalf

              However as well as claiming responsibility both for attacks it deliberately planned and executed, it also takes the credit for those inspired by its propaganda. Intel is emerging this was the case in Sri Lanka

              https://www.voanews.com/a/study-terrorist-usually-dont-claim-responsibility-for-attacks/3369222.html

          • “take the credit in the name of allah”

            Is there evidence of that, or is that your assumption?

            Reply
            • Conspiratoor

               /  24th April 2019

              Not assumption. All militant islamic ideology is driven explicitly in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam and Islamic law

              https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/in-the-name-of-allah.aspx

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2019

              The problem is you cannot ever get rid of Islam as a false religion without disposing of the two others, equally false, ever-growing amounts of evidence show, that inspired it. And you cannot argue well theirs is false, but mine is true, and righteous, when they ALL insist on the same thing. On the same legends and same kind of absurd evidence.

              These religions aren’t just quaint, & outmoded, One or other of them are not now “basically harmless” any more. And any objective look at the evidence & their history shows that actually they never were harmless.

              You’ve got whole classes in places like towns in East Texas that scream abuse at teachers, bang their desks, & turn their backs on the teacher when they come to teach Evolution.

        • harryk

           /  24th April 2019

          How about the video recorded Shahada statements made by the alleged bombers before the attacks? For what it’s worth I suggest the time taken for IS to officially claim responsibility is probably due to the necessity of first obtaining the video in a secure manner that wouldn’t allow cyber sleuths to compromise their future comms.

          Re the retaliation for Christchurch claims. Opportunism tailored to suit their various target audiences. SL police discovered a large cache of explosives and detonators owned by Islamists group two months before C.Church, so someone was planning before the NZ event.

          ‘The CID officers, who were searching for another suspect involved in the destruction of Buddha statues in Mawanella, stumbled on the explosives and detonators buried in a coconut estate in Wanathawilluwa, Puttalam on Thursday. The officers have found of 100kg of high powered explosives used to manufacture bombs, 100 detonators, illegal firearms and several other illegal items and arrested four suspects…’ [Colombopage 19/1/19]

          Reply
  6. Reply
  7. haryyk

     /  24th April 2019

    ‘the LTTE tried to kill a candidate known as Mahamood Lebbe Alim Mohamed Hizbullah in the Batticaloa district’

    Hizbullah is now Governor of the Eastern Province and denies National Thowheed Jamaat were responsible. He would be familiar with or have known some of the individuals currently alleged to have been suicide bombers.

    This 2017 thesis examines the military involvement of Batticaloa Muslims against the LTTE during the civil war amid concerns a Jihad was mobilising.

    ‘WHY DID THE LTTE CAUSE THE DISPLACEMENT OF MUSLIM COMMUNITIES IN SRI LANKA DURING THE CIVIL WAR?’

    ‘There was strong evidence that showed that the LTTE knew or believed that those civilians supported the SLMC which was a political party that protested against the LTTE, obstructed the permanent merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, frequently requested the appointment of more Muslim Home Guards and encouraged Muslims to fight against the Tigers. The displaced people were located in provinces that included districts that allowed SLMC politicians to gain seats in the Sri Lanka Parliament or, at least, to put them closer to gain access to the Sri Lankan government.’

    http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/650883

    Reply
  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th April 2019

    IS message to returning jihadists: Go home and kill people.

    Reply
  9. harryk

     /  24th April 2019

    Three quotes taken from Praveen’s piece in the Indian media two days ago –

    ‘In addition, the note identifies Badrudeen Mohammed Mohiudeen, a former Sri Lanka army soldier close to Zahran Hashmi, who Sri Lanka investigators say may have helped fabricate the improvised explosive devices used on Friday’

    ‘The fourth suspected jihad cell member Mohammad Milan, the note says, was also known to be linked to Zahran Hashmi, and, on social media, had voiced rage against all non-Muslims following the massacre of worshippers in New Zealand by a white nationalist terrorist’

    Oh dear. ‘If’ the US knew so did the 5eyes partners –

    ‘ “We had no prior knowledge of these attacks,” US ambassador Alaina Teplitz told the US channel in an interview on the suicide attacks on Sunday that killed 359 people, including at least four Americans. A Sri Lankan minister had said earlier this week that India and the United States had provided information before the bombings on three churches and three hotels which authorities have blamed on a local Islamist group’

    https://www.firstpost.com/world/sri-lanka-bomb-blasts-precision-intelligence-warnings-on-colombo-were-ignored-documents-show-6496211.html

    Reply
  1. Sri Lanka bombings: Christchurch retaliation suggested, ISIS claim responsibility — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply to Trevors_elbow Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s