Its pretty clear that he had a history of mental issues; why do you seek to deny it? The evidence for mental illness is more credible than the evidence for a terror plot, so far. Having said that, I can also say that what sent him over the edge might have been violent Islamic rhetoric; I am not denying that, and nobody else is either as far as I can tell. It might also have been time for "The Joker" to exact his revenge, or maybe the cut in hours at his job was what sent him into a murderous rampage. He sat outside his job for hours after his last shift. Was he trying to quiet down the violent voices he heard, or was he trying to gather the courage to carry out his perceived task for Islam? That final impetus is what we may never really know, and we certainly aren't going to know after only a week. It takes longer than that to even do a forensics exam on a computer and interviews with people who knew him will take much longer, given that they're going to be a lot more extensive than what media are going to do. By the time they get an answer that makes sense, if they ever do, you all and the media will probably have moved on. Maybe there'll be some book or blog that will put it al together in a year or two. The expectations expressed here for "answers right now" are unrealistic. The "answers right now or we are being lied to" is just stupid.

I think It really is shameless and ignorant of xenophobes to ignore and deny all the confirmatiom of mental illness to push their anti-Muslim agenda which seem to be their knee-jerk reaction to Muslim criminals, considering that most Muslim people are not violent and far more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators.

Not true. Even excluding the statement released by the family, we have plenty of confirmation that he suffered from mental illness.

Yup. It will be a conspiracy to hide the truth about Islam and a terror attack unless an official says "It was a terrorist attack". Wouldn't matter if decades worth of medical history was provided detailing Hussain's delusions, these people would just claim they were forged or something.

It is still their ideas you and others are repeating. They've filtered from the far-right fringes and to people who consider themselves "centrist". What is this constant screeching whinge you regressive types have about free speech whenever you run across a notion you dislike? Anyway, were it not for free speech, you wouldn't even have all this anti-Muslim rhetoric to disseminate. Here is an idea for you. Take a look through history, at accusations levelled against Catholics in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and compare the similarities to the accusations you have levelled against Muslims. Some samples: How easy would it be to substitute Islam and Muslims for Catholic and Catholics in the above excerpts and be describing the stuff that is posted here and elsewhere daily. Perhaps if you could muster an original thought you wouldn't have been duped by professional xenophobic commentators. This thread is for those people who have already decided Hussain is a terrorist and unless authorities confirm that, they are going to believe information is being withheld. It is just another opportunity to demonize Muslims. This happens regularly throughout history, and the pushers of this kind of hatred are no different from each other in behavior and rhetoric, whether it's Muslims demonizing non-believers, Nazis demonizing Jews or Protestant Americans demonizing immigrant Catholics.

Probably at least in part because of people like you, DoP, Trump, and others who follow the lead and repeat the rhetoric of such anti-Muslim luminaries as Gisele Litman, Mark Steyn, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Bruce Bawer, Daniel Pipes, Patrick Buchanan and others. The ideas these people have disseminated have been used by Geert Wilder and other far-right politicians and were the inspiration behind Anders Breviek attack that left 69 dead and 150+ injured, including children. Those same ideas that Bissonnette was exposed to and that led him to slaughter Muslims as they worshipped.

@centerpiece - The quote function isn't working for me. True, my personal interpretation means nothing. If hate crimes against Muslims spiked in 2015 by 61% and dropped by 20% in 2015, its still higher by 40% than it was in 2014. Perhaps it will drop again in 2017; lets hope. I do agree, to a point, that most of these crimes aren't serious, other than the 6 dead Muslims. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't firmly and loudly condemn them. "I am not too concerned about an hijab being tugged or a yarmulke being knocked off" is pretty weak condemnation. Especially coming for a guy who regularly laments that Muslim women wear hijabs in Canada. If the vast majority of people are aware that terrorists are a small subset of Muslims, why the eagerness to accept speculation, from a questionnable source, that a large amount of drugs found in a (presumed Muslim) drug dealer's possession must be terror related, and that no mention of such a plot by any authorities doesn't mean there is no plot, but that authorities are lying to us? This eagerness to acceot Muslum=terrorist speculation doesn't suggest to me that people "know" that only a very few Muslims are terrorists. Muslims regularly denounce violence. A couple of years ago, I posted links to a letter signed by literally 100s of Muslim leaders denouncing terrorism and the anti-Islam crowd here simply rejected it. There are Muslim individuals and groups all over the world, posting blogs, articles, you-tube videos, appearing on TV and on other news media denouncing terrorism, denouncing violence; there have even been fatwas against it. Nonetheless, several people here and elsewhere actively reject those examples as "not enough" and many others simply remain in ignorance, only hearing the anti-Islam propaganda that Muslims don't object to this violence, and repeat it as you have done here. Consider that we all know that most Canadians reject the violence of Bissonette; the idea that we should all appear on the streets or on the news to "prove it" is laughable. Yet, that seems to be the expectation for Muslims. Even though the vast majority of them live peaceful lives, even though we "know" terrorists are only a small subset of them, there is still some weird expectation among too many people that when a terror attack happens, each and every Muslim in the world must somehow affirm, to our satisfaction, that they condemn the attack. Imagine if the Muslims in Canada had said, after the Mosque shooting "Why don't more Canadians condemn this slaughter?" Would you find that reasonable? If not, then why would you find it reasonable when we ask that question of Muslims when every terror attack is followed by condemnation by Muslim groups and/or Muslim leaders?

@Goddess Funny how last year, when I provided stats showing that hate crimes against Muslims rose by 61% in Canada your concern was non-existent. Instead, you were part of the cadre attacking me for my concern over this. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171128/dq171128d-eng.htm Link to your lack of concern.

The article seems contradictory if hate crimes against Arabs are rising, but falling against Muslims, when a lot of Arabs are Muslim. Given that quite often a xenophobe can't tell the difference between South Asians and Muslims, and they aren't in the habit of asking for clarification before exercising their xenophobia, do the stats consider who the attacker thought they were attacking, or who the victim was? Anyway, from your link: Do you agree with Argus that the number and type of hate crimes against either Jews or Muslims is so small and insignificant as to be irrelevant? https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25285-islamophobia-in-canada/?do=findComment&comment=1270500 I think all assaults - whether "knocking off a yarmulke or tugging off an hijab"- should be denounced in the strongest possible terms. Both the Ottawa Accord and Motion M103 made the same point, even while mentioning a specific category of hate.

There has been no call for Islamaphobia legislation either, merely a motion for a study. BTW, are you aware of the Ottawa Protocol? A statement rather similar to M103 .... And guess what? It was also criticized .. oddly similar criticisms to M103. More criticism here And here The government has had 8 years to get that legislation done, but still nobody sent to jail for criticizing Isreal, imagine that. Perhaps in a few years I'll check back here and laugh some more at all the folks so fearful of a single word in a motion for a study.

Good question, where is JTs outrage? I have to agree that he has been remarkably quiet on this.

But if you already believe that Muslims are a threat to Canadian culture and safety, then any anti-Islam site, article or rant on the internet must be true, and of course a drug dealer with a Muslim name having a huge stockpile of drugs must mean a terror attack, right? Right?? Pretty please? (You bunch are too funny, really.)

The point isn't whether or not carfentanil is dangerous. The credibility is in the claim: because it was so much and so-and-so said it (is/was/could be) a chemical weapon, it must therefore have been a terrorist plot and Canadians are being lied to.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe there was some kind of huge terrorism plot and no one else noticed - not his friends, not his family, not law enforcement. You might consider the fake news sites to be the most credible source ever, but I don't. I'm willing to wait and see. You've already made your mind up.

Sweetie? Hard to tell when people use and defend garbage information. I suppose telling people to shut up and go away is another way of dealing with information you don't want to hear. Awww ... I must have made a damn fine argument for you to get so upset. Indeed. . "Pretty much" and "firmly" were kinda the same in my mind. But I understand that in your desperate attempt to make me wrong, you will grasp at any straws, so I will rephrase: I think its firmly established that he had mental issues of some kind, and that there is a definite possibility he was inspired or triggered by some radical Islam rhetoric; I just don't think the terrorism link been as firmly established as the mental health issues yet.  I am very biased against some things, yes. So what?

LOL. Yup.

Out of lunch time, but wanted to say you make some good points. But I ask you, even if the gov/media released a statement that FH's actions had no links to terrorism and provided supporting details, would that be accepted? Or would certain people still say "They aren't telling us everything"?

Find a CREDIBLE source and maybe I would not dismiss it out of hand. At the very least I would have to go to the trouble of finding an equally credible source to dispute it. With all the attention about fake news and Russian trolls and bots, you'd think there would be at least a little interest here for making even a slight effort to provide credible sources instead of desperatly defending poor ones. I don't personally care if you have sympathy for this guy or not; I do not, as I have already posted on this thread. I don't know if it was mental health issues or terrorism; I would guess both, personally, but I might be wrong. Speculation is not information. Here is the "logic" behind the CFP article. 1. Faisal Hussain shot 15 people; two died. 2. FH had a brother who was involved in a criminal lifestyle. 3. The police found a cache containing guns and 42 kg of carfentanil at the brother's house over a year ago. 4. Carfentinal is very toxic and that much would kill a lot of people. 5. "Authority" said that carfentinal has been considered a potential chemical warfare weapon. 6. Therefore, the brother was planning a terrorist attack. 7. That the authorities/media are not confirming this means they are hiding information from us. 8. And because its now "proven" that brother was planning a terrorist attack, FH's attack was terrorism and the authories are once again hiding info from us. Of course "anything" is possible. But this article proves nothing. Like all fake news sites, it cobbles together a few bits of information, fills the holes with speculation, and uses fear to override people's thinking ability. Then it presents a conclusion, while conveniently making any conflicting information a plot to hide the truth. It isn't possible to persuade someone your argument is sound if you use BS logic and stupid sources. Its barely possible to persuade them using pristine logic and sources. In this case, the problem isn't that I refuse to accept info I don't like, the problem is that CFP is not a credible source. I don't know why you keep insisting that I have to accept the information it provides. Perhaps if fewer people were so willing to accept fake news sites as legitimate sources of informatiom we might all be better off. I think its pretty much established that he had mental issues, and that there is a definite possibility he was inspired or triggered by some radical Islam rhetoric; I just don't think the terrorism link been firmly established yet.

1. I already know carfentanil is extremely toxic and 42 kgs of the stuff would kill a lot of people. I didn't need a fake news site to tell me that. 2. The significance, according to this source, is that there was a plot afoot to use that and the guns in a terrorist plot and that police, government and media hid that information. Correct? I respond by pointing out the lack of credibility of the source, and (right wing, anti-Islamist) people think this is an odd reaction? Wow. No fecking wonder fake news is so prevalent. 3. So to you, a court saying that he had heroin and cocaine, possibly laced, in his system is just as credible as a speculative and heavily biased source saying he probably died from carfentanil fumes? Mmmm-OK.

Here's one small but telling difference in the two articles: CFP states "Farad probably “overdosed” off the ambient vapours in the house." Toronto Sun, eschewing speculative nonsense, says he "had consumed both heroin and cocaine and the cocaine in his lungs was “possibly laced” with another substance, court heard". Why should I, or anyone, take seriously anything in that article when there is such clear and blatant evidence of their lack of journalistic integrity? Defending such sites with the claim that they're just telling us what mainstream media/politicians won't is the claim every conspiritard makes about their pet conspiracy, whether its anti-vaccers or 9/11 "truthers".

The site is horseshit. If people can't find legit sites to post from, then I am going to assume they are spreading misinformation, either deliberately or not and I am going to call them out on it. If the info in the horseshit site is more than hearsay and speculation, a credible site will also post the information. A credible site will provide facts, not speculation. And it won't have clickbait fear-mongering headlines like "Did we just dodge 9/11 2?" Here is an article that is credible and provides the same info, without the speculation, guessing, assumptions and fear-mongering indulged by CFP and lapped up by gullible people.

Canada Free Press ... Happy to publish misleading information and deny science to support right wing and Christian agendas. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/

Just reviewed the thread (all 14 pages) on the Quebec Mosque shooting, here: Interesting how the same themes recur when a White guy kills Muslims and when a Muslim kills non-Muslims. The same people pushing the narrative in both situations that there is a government/media plot to hide from Canadians the true facts of the Islamic threat; that violence by a White guy is "unusual" (one poster going so far as to suggest that Islamic violence causes non-Islamic violence) and violence by a Muslim is "usual"; that all Muslims should be viewed with suspicion because some of them kill people and that White guys are basically fine, no matter how many of them kill people. Interesting also is that a White guy shooting Muslims after visiting alt-right websites and having admiration for far-right political figures expressing anti-Muslim rhetoric is deemed irrelevant, while a Muslim shooting non-Muslim people after visiting Islamist sites is extremely relevant. And some folks wonder why I immediately identified this thread as merely another opportunity for anti-Islam types types to indulge in anti-Muslim rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

Read my response. I allowed for other things as well as mental illness. And why does "mental illness" have to be confirmed by 'relevant authorities' when visits to radical websites doesn't have to be confirmed by those ame "relevant authorities" but you will accept that while questioning mental illness? Anyway, the fact that police have a history with this guy due to mental illness issues seems pretty good confirmation. This Toronto Sun article is the only one I can find that mentions "sources" for the Islamist website contact: not even "police sources". But here people are happy giving that more credence than "police sources" and the statement released by his family. Ultimately it wouldn't really matter if he'd left a detailed note disavowing Islam, and declaring himself the expression of (the Christian) God's wrath on earth, the conspiracy would simply claim the note was forged by those determined to fool Canadians. His name and the act of violence is enough to convict him of terrorism, regardless of the truth.