I just had a look at the Wikipedia entry on the history of terror attacks in Sri Lanka, and as I suspected, while it has plenty, they have nearly always been directly political/sectarian in nature and mostly to do with the civil war. There seems to be no significant history of Islamic terrorism, and at barely 10% of the population, it's not as if they could possibly have ambitions of taking over the place.
So it appears to be one of those particularly pointless examples of extremist Islam attacks which are more like childish tantrums: "if we can't run the place like we would, we're going to blow you up." (It might be that the Church specific bombings were in "retaliation" for
the Christchurch killings - but that hardly explains the attacks on
hotels.)
I mean, this is what's so frustrating about Islamic terrorism when it happens in nations for which there is no chance of it actually achieving anything for radical Islam. I can see a bloody-minded point in, say, terrorism within Islamic nations if they think it will weaken a moderate Islamic government and give their brand of Islam a better chance of taking power. But attack within nations with a small Muslim population? It's ridiculously pointless.
And as for Sri Lanka's pre-knowledge of likely terror attacks and then doing (apparently) stuff all about it? It would cause political heads to roll here (sorry, perhaps not the best metaphor on this topic) but will it there?
I think I'll be giving the place a miss as a tourist destination for the next few years.
Major terrorist attacks are always false flags to get gentiles killing each-other. Here you are blaming Muslims. Name one major terrorist attack that you have investigated and found Muslims to be to blame? They don't exist in the modern era. This is the terrorist community (Jews and intelligence agencies) murdering Christians. Why did you blame it on Muslims? Racist.
ReplyDelete