Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 181 to 190 of 190

Thread: What to do About ISIS?

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    You can't be serious. The phrase emphasizes that the victims were in a house of worship on the highest of holy days--not just Christians in a marketplace on a Thursday. Makes it even more detestable. You are really looking for things to eyeroll about.
    Could also include twice a year Catholic worshipers, for that matter.

  2. #182
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726

    What to do About ISIS?

    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    You can't be serious. The phrase emphasizes that the victims were in a house of worship on the highest of holy days--not just Christians in a marketplace on a Thursday. Makes it even more detestable. You are really looking for things to eyeroll about.
    By couldn’t they simply say “Christians?” Seems like a forced and awkward nod to some notion of political correctness.

    I pulled this randomly from NBC News:

    COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka's defense minister said Tuesday that the coordinated Easter Sunday attacks that killed at least 321 people were in retaliation for the recent Christchurch mosque massacrein New Zealand.
    Seems like an editor made sure of careful wording there. The same terms appear over and over in recent accounts from multiple news outlets.

    From Rakib Ehsan, an English writer who professes Islam:

    Following the mosque massacres in Christchurch, political figures across the Western world did not hesitate in accurately describing what they were – white-supremacist terrorist attacks on Muslims in their places of worship during Friday prayers.

    In the aftermath of Christchurch, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Muslim community – the Ummah – and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of New Zealand and the ‘Muslim community’. Our own prime minister, Theresa May, correctly labelled Christchurch as a ‘horrifying terrorist attack’.

    Now, contrast this with the language used by the same three figures following the coordinated series of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka. Affectionate expressions of solidarity with persecuted Christian communities have been missing. The Christians killed in their own churches have been referred to by Clinton and Obama as ‘Easter worshippers’. Despite the clearly sophisticated, well-planned nature of the terrorist attacks, which very much had the aim of killing a large number of Christians, the British PM – a vicar’s daughter – referred to them as ‘acts of violence’.

    The differences in tone and nature between the condemnations of the Christchurch and Sri Lanka terrorist attacks are striking. After Christchurch, there was no hesitation about stating the religious backgrounds of the victims and directing emotion and affection towards Muslim communities. Politicians took no issue with categorising the events in Christchurch as terrorism.
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/0...as-christians/

    The mass murder of Muslims while worshipping in New Zealand sickened and horrified us all. So did the highly coordinated mass murder of six times as many Christians while worshipping on the holiest day of their year. But the New Zealand religious massacre — a lone wolf operation — brought extended and justifiable cries of outrage against white supremacy and guns, while Sri Lanka seems to have brought mainly expressions of sadness amid an apparent reluctance even to state the obvious goal of the killers or to express suspicion that the perpetrators were part of radical Islam. I’m not a student of these things, but I think the difference is notable and I don’t get it.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    By couldn’t they simply say “Christians?” Seems like a forced and awkward nod to some notion of political correctness.

    I pulled this randomly from NBC News:



    Seems like an editor made sure of careful wording there. The same terms appear over and over in recent accounts from multiple news outlets.

    From Rakib Ehsan, an English writer who professes Islam:

    O for crying out loud. Fox News and the AP used "Easter Worshippers" in reference to the Notre Dame fire. Trump tweeted condolences to the victims of a "terrorist attack on churches and hotels." No mention of Christians or Easter. You are really stretching to find outrageous p.c. here.

  4. #184
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    O for crying out loud. Fox News and the AP used "Easter Worshippers" in reference to the Notre Dame fire. Trump tweeted condolences to the victims of a "terrorist attack on churches and hotels." No mention of Christians or Easter. You are really stretching to find outrageous p.c. here.
    We must once again agree to disagree. I really don’t think this is a big deal, but I really, sincerely don’t understand why Clinton or Obama couldn’t say something about the Sri Lanka atrocity that is similar to what they said about Christchurch:

    “In the aftermath of Christchurch, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Muslim community – the Ummah – and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of New Zealand and the ‘Muslim community’.”

    The Occam’s Razor response is that they are playing to their base, consciously or not. What else could it be?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post

    The Occam’s Razor response is that they are playing to their base, consciously or not. What else could it be?
    No, this is a conspiracy theory response. The Occam's Razor response is that they were expressing sincere sympathy and did it in a way that upset some people. There is no simpler explanation than that.

    The majority will always be treated differently in language than a minority. This may be right or wrong, but it's true. Christianity is the majority religion in the US, so we have trained ourselves to speak about Christianity differently than other faiths. Don't try to read too much into it. I think the nuttiness of the left when it comes to PC'ness is creating an equal and opposite nutty reaction on the right.

  6. #186
    Reading anti-Christian sentiments into the term "Easter Sunday" is delusion.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    utefans?
    I was thinking it was on the former cougaruteforum.com, but it actually went further back than that to cougarguard.com. Her is the link:
    http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7516&
    “To me there is no dishonor in being wrong and learning. There is dishonor in willful ignorance and there is dishonor in disrespect.” James Hatch, former Navy Seal and current Yale student.

  8. #188
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    No, this is a conspiracy theory response. The Occam's Razor response is that they were expressing sincere sympathy and did it in a way that upset some people. There is no simpler explanation than that.

    The majority will always be treated differently in language than a minority. This may be right or wrong, but it's true. Christianity is the majority religion in the US, so we have trained ourselves to speak about Christianity differently than other faiths. Don't try to read too much into it. I think the nuttiness of the left when it comes to PC'ness is creating an equal and opposite nutty reaction on the right.
    No conspiracy theory involved. My thinking was leading me to the same view that you express in the second half of your post. I think you are right -- that is the primary reason for the different nature of the sympathy and outrage expressed regarding atrocities against Christians, as opposed to other groups. They are still the majority group in the USA and in the West, so they (we) are less sensitive to attacks. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up over 22% of the world population, but there are only 3.5 million in the USA.

    So in the West you can tell jokes about Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Latter-day Saints (Mormons) etc., because they are seen as part of the majority (although LDS are in a slightly different category) and they all pretty much take it in stride. But you can't tell jokes about Muslims, Hindus, etc., because they're minority groups and the general sense is that they need protection in the West. I agree with this view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Reading anti-Christian sentiments into the term "Easter Sunday" is delusion.
    I don't think the sentiments are anti-Christian, as noted above. (Interesting that you would move so quickly -- reflexively? -- to the conclusion that I do think so, however.) They are just carefully written not to offend. Remember, I'm just trying to understand the different reactions to horrible crimes against different groups. And the reaction is indeed different, and it deserves discussion more than ridicule.

    Here's how these attitudes play out. For example, can you imagine Obama and Clinton revising their statements about Christchurch to fit the Sri Lanka situation?

    “In the aftermath of Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton expressed her solidarity with the global Christian community and said ‘we must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalisation of religious hatred in all its forms’. Former US president Barack Obama tweeted that himself and his wife Michelle were grieving with the people of Sri Lanka."


    Hard to imagine. Instead, Obama said:

    "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka."
    Pretty good. But on Christchurch, he said:

    "Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms."
    He couldn't also grieve with the Christian community over Sri Lanka? He can choose the words he wants to use, but why choose those?


    Clinton was even more watered down on Sri Lanka"


    "On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."


    Was this really an attack on "tourists" and "travelers?" Was it really "a holy weekend for many faiths?" Apart from Christianity and Judaism (both Easter and Passover fell on the same weekend this year) who else was celebrating?

    On Christchurch, Clinton said:

    "My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped."


    I don't think she could have said:

    "My heart breaks for Sri Lanka & the global Christian community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of religous hatred in all its forms. "Islamic terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped."


    That's a non-starter. The political blowback from the left would have been ferocious
    Last edited by LA Ute; 04-25-2019 at 01:59 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post


    No conspiracy theory involved. My thinking was leading me to the same view that you express in the second half of your post. I think you are right -- that is the primary reason for the different nature of the sympathy and outrage expressed regarding atrocities against Christians, as opposed to other groups. They are still the majority group in the USA and in the West, so they (we) are less sensitive to attacks. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up over 22% of the world population, but there are only 3.5 million in the USA.

    So in the West you can tell jokes about Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Latter-day Saints (Mormons) etc., because they are seen as part of the majority (although LDS are in a slightly different category) and they all pretty much take it in stride. But you can't tell jokes about Muslims, Hindus, etc., because they're minority groups and the general sense is that they need protection in the West. I agree with this view.



    I don't think the sentiments are anti-Christian, as noted above. (Interesting that you would move so quickly -- reflexively? -- to the conclusion that I do think so, however.) They are just carefully written not to offend. Remember, I'm just trying to understand the different reactions to horrible crimes against different groups. And the reaction is indeed different, and it deserves discussion more than ridicule.

    Here's how these attitudes play out. For example, can you imagine Obama and Clinton revising their statements about Christchurch to fit the Sri Lanka situation?



    Hard to imagine. Instead, Obama said:



    Pretty good. But on Christchurch, he said:



    He couldn't also grieve with the Christian community over Sri Lanka? He can choose the words he wants to use, but why choose those?


    Clinton was even more watered down on Sri Lanka"




    Was this really an attack on "tourists" and "travelers?" Was it really "a holy weekend for many faiths?" Apart from Christianity and Judaism (both Easter and Passover fell on the same weekend this year) who else was celebrating?

    On Christchurch, Clinton said:



    I don't think she could have said:



    That's a non-starter. The political blowback from the left would have been ferocious
    The reason Obama didn't say he stands with Christian's is because he is christian. Pretty simple.

    Why do we care again what Hillary Clinton says anyway?

  10. #190
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    The reason Obama didn't say he stands with Christian's is because he is christian. Pretty simple.
    Take cover. The grammar police are coming!

    Why do we care again what Hillary Clinton says anyway?
    Because she is a progressive icon and I am beating up on progressives in this part of the thread.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •