SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
8 attacks in Sri Lanka, 200+ deaths.
- Thread starter Dennisch
- 50 comments
- 2,698 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Try telling that to the adenoidal holier-than-thou twits on BBC radio.
- 29,165
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The AFP - fortunately no conflict of interest there - have also eagerly reported it was revenge for Christchurch, though they and other agencies also reporting the same thing did not provide a name for the minister making the claim. Since then, they have further reported ISIS has taken responsibility, and the attack was months in the planning.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 2,921
- United Kingdom
Of course it is, within reason! It sets a good example.
When you give money to homeless people (if you do), do you only give it on the condition they don't share it or spend it on alcohol/drugs?
The point is to help those in need.
Of course it would be a nice gesture.
You have one of the biggest terrorist attacks outside of the ME since 9/11 that predominately targeted Christians, their places of worship and tourists. As a gesture of Christian goodwill I'm sure that following the teachings of the NT in donating some of what has been given to a notable Christian structure for the aid of others would be well received.
Would be nice in an ideal world
I will be to the Barnabas fund
Maybe I believe in a laissez-faire attitude to donations. For example if part of my donation went to the victims of the Christchurch attack I can't see a problem with that.
-------
Just an update on the extent - from The Times:
"Twelve bomb detonators were found at Colombo’s main bus station and a further 75 at a rubbish dump in the same area hours later."
I think this bombing is the standout attack of the new wave of Islamic terrorism - that of returning ISIS fighters lending their expertise to murder plots.
Last edited:
- 40,757
If I give money to a charity or group that is supposed to give it to homeless people, I'd certainly expect they actually give it to the homeless people.
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Nope. Maybe this will help it sink in for you:
If you give money to support STEM education, would you want those responsible for ensuring that money does what you expect it to do to go and spend it on support for pro-choice initiatives?
- 2,921
- United Kingdom
That's apples with oranges compared to my example - hence why I qualified it with "within reason"
Cathedral destroyed by fire -> small money given from a massive fund to Churches destroyed by explosives and Christians caught in it.
--------
Did political rivalry stop the message going through?
Muslims in Sri Lanka repeatedly handed in information about the group for years:
Hilmy Ahamed, vice president of the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, said he warned military intelligence officials about the group and its leaders about three years ago. On Monday afternoon, Sri Lanka’s government said National Thowheed Jamath was responsible for six suicide bombings at Christian churches and luxury hotels.
“Targeting the non-Muslim community is something they encourage -- they say you have to kill them in the name of religion,” Ahamed said in a phone interview from Colombo on Monday. “I personally have gone and handed over all the documents three years ago, giving names and details of all these people. They have sat on it. That’s the tragedy.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ampaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
"Within reason"? The only reasonable thing to do with money accepted for a cause is to put it toward that cause and only that cause.
If anyone who gave money to rebuild the cathedral wants those churches to have money as well, they can give further to support that second cause.
It seems to me that you only have difficulty accepting the above assertions because you presumably offer support for both causes, but when presented with a scenario involving one or more that you don't support, you dodge it.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
You're comparing apples and oranges.
If I give money to a person on the understanding that it becomes theirs to do what they want with then guess what? They can do what they want with it.
If I give money to a broker/agent/representative of a cause to undertake a specific task (e.g. repair a damaged cathedral or build wells in Africa) and they then use the money for something else then they've misrepresented their intention and committed a fraud. It isn't their money, they're collecting for a cause and channeling the money to it.
- 11,802
- Marin County
How will this ever end? I fear the internet has triggered a brand new era of hive-mind psychopathy and sadism and I can't even fathom how it might be mitigated.
Anyone have any ideas?
Anyone have any ideas?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Globally, the desire to much more heavily regulate social media has gained strength. and it will grow. Sri Lanka continues a social media blackout. Before it was shut down, false reports had come out about the identity of the attackers and number of casualties.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/s...ethink-on-silicon-valley-20190423-p51gb6.html
https://news.yahoo.com/sri-lanka-falls-silent-victims-islamist-attack-064346792.html
Last edited:
- 2,921
- United Kingdom
So if that fund for building wells in Africa suddenly gets close to a billion pounds in donations and decides to give a little to building hospitals in Africa, you'd feel aggrieved and think fraud was committed with your money?
Remember also we were talking about two huge events that happened close together:
A fire at one of the most iconic Christian places of worship that is also a major tourist attraction
and
One of the biggest terrorist attacks killing many Christians among others and that also ruined Christian places of worship and buildings popular with tourists.
I despair at the state of the world sometimes
Religiously inspired violence? It won't. There's Hindu nationalism in India, Muslim persecution by Buddhists in Burma, Christian extremism in Africa. Islamist attacks are over-represented because of the inherent nature of some of the text and actions of the founder but even if an "enlightenment" period occurred it would just bring it on par with the others.
Last edited:
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Using contributions for anything other than the cause for which it was taken is wildly inappropriate. In the event of such a windfall, the appropriate action to take would be saying, "Hey, we've got more money than we need and a check for the sum that you donated is in the mail so that you can use the funds as you see fit."
So what? I don't particularly care that it was specifically Christians that were killed in specifically "Christian places of worship" (whatever that means; surely you can worship anywhere).
One event is not the other, as you yourself indicate. Simples.
If I felt that support for rebuilding the cathedral was lacking (it obviously isn't), I might be compelled to contribute and it wouldn't be at all because I care one bit about specifically Christians or their specific delusions...because I really, really, really don't. I'd be compelled to contribute because the location is iconic and transcends religion.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Obviously. Clearly you think it's okay for a broker to work outside the remit with your money, it happens that I don't. I'd expect the broker to at least poll the contributors for their opinion.
With that kind of logic I'm glad you don't look after money for me. It seems you're saying the fraud would be okay if it was "spent on something similar". How about people having the choice about what to spend their money on?
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
- 2,921
- United Kingdom
Then we have different views on how we expect money given to charity should be allocated. Fair enough.
