Sri Lanka atrocity: 15 killed (including 6 children) as cornered jihadists detonate explosives during police raid

[Remarkableriots]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sri-lanka-attacks-spice-tycoon-investigated-for-helping-sons/ar-BBWgMzb?ocid=AMZN

Quote

Police are holding the father of two Sri Lanka suicide bombers on suspicion of aiding and abetting his sons, as an international investigation continues into the devastating terror attacks which left at least 359 people dead across the country.

Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim was arrested Sunday following attacks at hotels and churches. His adult sons, Imsath Ahmed Ibrahim and Ilham Ahmed Ibrahim, blew themselves up in Sunday's attacks.

On Thursday, police spokesman Ruwan Gunasekera told CNN that their father, Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim, was is in custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting his sons. Gunasekera added that all other members of the Ibrahim family are believed to be in custody.

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

On 4/23/2019 at 5:59 PM, SFLUFAN said:

Feel free to roll your "goddamned eyes" at a Palestinian Christian who has to endure the tender mercies of both Hamas and the Israelis.

 

It's not a "race" or a "competition" - it's a reality for millions of Christians in the Middle East/China/India, Muslims in China/India/Myanmar, Buddhists in Vietnam, etc.  If so-called "liberals" can't see that, then they might as well pack up shop and hand the political and societal keys over to the worst forces of global atavism and reaction.

 

Even though I may agree with many of their philosophical positions, this is one of the primary reasons why I've rejected the so-called "new atheist" movement and simply can't brand myself as a "liberal".

Not to infuriate you with another tangent, but I actually never understood what exactly was 'new' about the 'New Atheist' movement.

 

The movement's leaders (the so-called 'four horsemen') always seem(ed) to basically just be regurgitating arguments that have been around since people like Russell and Mencken formalized their atheist philosophy in the late 19th and early 20th century.

 

Is it just that people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are younger, less nuanced and more strident than Russell/Mencken/etc.?  So they seem 'new'?  And why is Dennett (who is far and away a better philosopher than the others) included when he and his arguments have been around since the '70s?

[Greatoneshere]

21 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Is it just that people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are younger, less nuanced and more strident than Russell/Mencken/etc.?  So they seem 'new'?  And why is Dennett (who is far and away a better philosopher than the others) included when he and his arguments have been around since the '70s?

 

I think you answered your own question: it's because they were less nuanced and more strident (one could say intentionally provocative) in a way that previous ones had not been thus a distinction was made. I think simply being from a different generation (as you say, younger) inherently would make them more aggressive as each generation tends to be in the eyes of the one that comes before. Though labels are meaningless to a degree, I'd imagine that's why. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

@Signifyin(g)Monkey - They wrote books that people actually read.  That's the only difference I can think of.

[Littleronin]

Death Toll has been "revised down" to "about 253."

[Anathema-]

The difference between an atheist and a new atheist is the new atheist acts as if they are a grand champion who has slayed the illogic of Christianity and has moved on to new subjects; mostly reactionary anti-Islam claptrap.

[Zaku3]

22 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

The difference between an atheist and a new atheist is the new atheist acts as if they are a grand champion who has slayed the illogic of Christianity and has moved on to new subjects; mostly reactionary anti-Islam claptrap.

 

I never heard of new athiest so I wikied it and this is kinda sorta it. Well they seem to be "militant atheists".  I guess that means if they saw me with a rosary or something they would go on a rant about why Christianity is BS.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I don't think any religion should be above criticism/ridicule, let alone the fastest growing and second largest in the world. You can criticize it without being a racist or a bigot. We need to stop conflating the two.

[Anathema-]

2 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

Not a single new atheist thinks these things. These statements are projections made against a fantasy strawman caricature of new atheists, the kinds put forward by rags like Vox or Guardian.

 

 

okay chummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm p

[CastlevaniaNut18]

59 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

 

 

Not a single new atheist thinks these things. These statements are projections made against a fantasy strawman caricature of new atheists, the kinds put forward by rags like Vox or Guardian.

 

 

^ the basic features of anyone who would fall under or identify with the label of "new atheist".

 

 

That being said, identifying as an atheist or new atheist does not make a person more intelligent or not racist or bigoted in anyway. There are plenty of Capital A Atheists who are as reprehensible as any other shitty human being.

Oh, I know. I just disagree with the prior posts that it's some sort of hallmark for "new atheists" or whatever. There's bad apples in every bunch.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Fifteen people including six children have died during a raid on their home by Sri Lankan security forces in which three cornered suicide bombers detonated their explosives and others traded gunfire with police.

[SuperSpreader]

New atheists? Is this a thing? Is this like atheists who fell for the trap that religious people fall for? Because it sounds like the same herd mentality masked as smahty pants unlike those otheeeerrr groups.

[SuperSpreader]

No amount of eye roll can express my feelings towards all those pretend counter culture labels.