Another Terrorist Attack in Canada

[Guest]

The point is in response to the ridiculous, deport Muslims or bomb them into the stone age posts. We are able to distinguish culture, religion and politics when radical, right-wing, Christians commit a terrorist act in the US every 33 days. We don't do the same for Muslims. I get that it is easier to identify with people more like us, but that doesn't make it acceptable. For example, just days before the bombings in Brussels two bombings took place in Turkey. Innocents died, but almost nobody in the West is aware or paid any attention.

I'm not trying to deflect or appologize for terrorist acts. I fully acknowledge that religion plays a very serious role in terrorism and currently Islam is the worst of the lot. However, painting all Muslims with the same brush is as counterproductive as pretending the religion doesn't play a role. On this issue it is important to avoid an Us Vs. Them attitude based on religion or race or place of origin. It should be those who embrace democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, equal human rights and the rule of law versus those who would use hate, violence, discrimination and terror to achieve their ends. In my view, extremism is extremism, so the Islamists and right wing Christian fascists are on the same side. Many who support the Trumps and Cruzes of the world have a lot in common with those who they vowe to bomb.

I think the news coverage of the bombings in Turkey was quite extensive. That said, no-one lit up the Eiffel tower, as far as I know.

The closer you get to where it is commonplace, the less effect it has in areas where it is not, I suppose. I don't think an ISIS bomb in Iraq or Yemen tomorrow will be seen as a big deal. One in Sydney or Wellington would be major news.

Edited March 23, 2016 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

That's true, but far more people worldwide have been killed by Islamists or Jihadists. It is important not to paint all Muslims with the same brush but it is actually counterproductive to pretend Islam and Muslims don't play a significant role in the world of terror.

The world of terror...

What would be productive is to stop pretending there aren't Muslims in the ME region who have genuine grievances and that the only people responsible for making it such a terrifying place to live are from there.

I'm not trying to deflect or appologize for terrorist acts. I fully acknowledge that religion plays a very serious role in terrorism and currently Islam is the worst of the lot. However, painting all Muslims with the same brush is as counterproductive as pretending the religion doesn't play a role. On this issue it is important to avoid an Us Vs. Them attitude based on religion or race or place of origin. It should be those who embrace democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, equal human rights and the rule of law versus those who would use hate, violence, discrimination and terror to achieve their ends. In my view, extremism is extremism, so the Islamists and right wing Christian fascists are on the same side. Many who support the Trumps and Cruzes of the world have a lot in common with those who they vowe to bomb.

You seem to have omitted any mention of how those of us who embrace democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, equal human rights and the rule of law used the hate, violence, discrimination and terror of dictators to achieve our ends in so much of the Muslim world. Was/is this not every bit as extreme, terrifying, criminal or even worse? I think such geopolitical behaviour constitutes a crime against humanity myself.

The Trumps, Cruzes and supporters in their brutally honest and ideologically correct style have merely torn the mask of civility off the face of a terrifying ethos that's been at the heart of much of America's and it's allies foreign policies throughout much of the ME region for decades now. I don't think they have much in common with the people they want to bomb at all or ever did.

Edited March 23, 2016 by eyeball

[Cl Le]

How many innocent civilians have to be slaughtered before progressive leaders around the world admit they have made a huge mistake ? Malcolm Turnbull reminded Australia today why they have strict border regulations , well done . Marine Le Pen criticized Canadian immigration policies , think maybe she knows something we don't ? She witnessed the aftermath of multiple slaughters on her own soil and knows that France now faces a monumental challenge . There are areas of Molenbeek that Belgians can't even enter into and today they are burying their loved ones for the first time. All the signs pointed to an attack but there was a lack of will to stop it , maybe not now. PM Harper passed bill C51 and similar legislation was passed in the UK , Australia and France . You willing to bet on a dullard like Trudeau or three allied countries that are merely trying to look out for their public's safety ? Canadian CF-18's should still be hammering ISIS but the Liberals are focusing on turning our army bases into refugee camps even after two of our soldiers get stabbed . Progressive's say it was just another Muslim suffering from mental illness , I say there seems to be a lot of that going on around the world and I am sure if you lost a loved one weather it be in Paris , Brussels , Ottawa or California your not going to want to hear BS from a pencil necked Liberal apologist .

[bush_cheney2004]

....It seems odd to use the US data after a European event.

Not odd at all on this forum....US data is always just a click away.

[dre]

You seem to be aware that cancer is a far more common human affliction than it is for say Naked Mole Rats, even if only a small percentage of the population has cancer at this moment. Do you acknowledge that it is more common for a Muslim to be a terrorist than other religious affiliations, even if only a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists?

Its a meaningless comparison though. Most Christians live in western nations run by secular governments. They don't live in conflict zones.

A more relevant statement would be that people living in conflict zones and on disputed territory are more likely to use tactics that get them defined as terrorists. If you include non state actors seeking independence and revolutionaries there's actually quite a lot of non-Islamic terrorism. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias De Colombia, Epanastatikos Agonas, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, Sendero Luminoso, Real Irish Republican Army, Aum Shinrikyo, Lord’s Resistance Army. These groups have hundreds of thousands of members.

Then throw in groups like the narco-terrorists in Mexico and other places. 164 thousand people killed in Mexico over the last 6 years.

You could make a case for some actions by national armies as well... Countries like Russia and the US that storm into other countries uninvited destroy civilian infrastructure and kill mountains of people.

But yes... It would at LEAST be true to say that if Christians, Jews, and Atheists get to define what terrorism is, and who is a terrorist, then of course the numbers are going to be favorable to them.

[PIK]

As other countries start to get tough on these people and they will need a new country for a home base. And Canada under trudeau is looking like that spot to set up shop. And to the certain posters here that keep saying ''we do it to'' , who cares? I for one despise all religion and do not care about hurting anyone feelings. And lets not wait till the crap lands on our shores before we do something. NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION THEY SUPPORT.

[jacee]

I have read this in more than one post, I'd like to know what is your thought process behind posting that.....That we are more dangerous to our self, or that Islamic terrorism is not to be feared what is your point exactly.....

My point is that there are many terrorists who are not Muslim, but we don't call them terrorists or charge them under anti-terror laws ... because they are not Muslim.

Anti-terror laws were created for Muslims and are applied only to Muslims.

Rather than violent acts and political/religious motivations, being Muslim has become the defacto defining characteristic of terror acts.

That's discriminatory.

Saying 'most terrorists are Muslim' is nonsensical if one has to be Muslim to be defined as a terrorist.

KKK and other hate groups and ideologues are terrorists too, and should be labelled and charged as such.

.

Edited March 23, 2016 by jacee

[SunnyWays]

It has to be both: Lots of heinous and violent acts are carried out that have nothing to do with politics or religion.

I guess you missed the math: In North America since 9/11, more people have been killed by extreme right wing fanatics than by Islamic terrorists.

Why do we call one group fanatics and the other group terrorists?

Why are Muslims subject to anti-terror laws and KKK are not?

.

And I guess you've had your head in the sand - or are an irrational apologist for rampant terrorist murder....The US (and Canada) have spent billions upon billions of dollars to prevent another 9/11 from happening and so far - it's been pretty effective. It doesn't take much imagination to believe that if the US - and other Western countries - were not investing all that money - specifically to thwart Islamic terrorism before it occurs......that we'd have bombs going off all over North America and the KKK would look like Boy Scouts.

Edited March 23, 2016 by SunnyWays

[Guest]

My point is that there are many terrorists who are not Muslim, but we don't call them terrorists or charge them under anti-terror laws ... because they are not Muslim.

Anti-terror laws were created for Muslims and are applied only to Muslims.

Rather than violent acts and political/religious motivations, being Muslim has become the defacto defining characteristic of terror acts.

That's discriminatory.

Saying 'most terrorists are Muslim' is nonsensical if one has to be Muslim to be defined as a terrorist.

.

I don't agree that being Muslim has become the defacto defining characteristic of terror acts. It is the first thing I think of, certainly, when acts such as yesterdays are commettid, but I hold off from comment until someone has claimed responsibility just in case my first instincts are wrong.

That said, it cannot be denied that if someone is going to die from a terrorist act, the chances are greatest that the perpetrator will be Muslim. The chances are pretty good that the victim will be too, but that's neither here nor there.

With regard to your last sentence, I've never seen that sentiment expressed outside of here.

Edited March 23, 2016 by bcsapper

[SunnyWays]

On this issue it is important to avoid an Us Vs. Them attitude based on religion or race or place of origin. It should be those who embrace democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, equal human rights and the rule of law versus those who would use hate, violence, discrimination and terror to achieve their ends.

I wish it were that simple.....just reflect for a moment with how Islam aligns with the basic tenets that you've described. What percentage of Muslims world-wide do you think would accept our concept of those tenets - especially as it relates to women? Almost exclusively here in Canada, we see the most liberal, forward-thinking Muslims that Islam has to offer - yet we still find ourselves at odds from time to time. Just try and imagine how much trouble more traditional/conservative Muslims have in adapting to those tenets.

Yes, if only it was that simple.

[hitops]

If he said

"God told me to come and kill people",

would you call him a Christian terrorist?

Or would you call him a nut case?

.

I'd call him a Christian terrorist.

The difference is that those are exceptionally hard to find. You can't find any group of any size, or any doctrinal support believed by any plurality of Christians that supports that. In contrast, you can easily find those things in the worldwide Muslim community, and most importantly, in their scriptures. This is why the debate rages in Muslim circles (many for, many against), but not in Christian ones (99% would condemn). It is extremely hard to make arguments from NT scripture for things like that, and relatively easy to do so from the Koran and hadiths.

Is is really tough to make the call on Christians who do terrorism-ish (definitions vary) things, because unlike the Muslim community, there is no organized group of any impact fostering that mentality, and no logistical support base for planning, etc.

The target also matters. The cases I can think of involving Christian attacking things are usually politically sensitive, or in one case the IRS....things that are strike more of a personal grudge than grand religions vision. In contrast, most Muslims who make the news doing bad things, just pick something for maximum carnage. This is more the definition of terrorism.

Edited March 23, 2016 by hitops

[jacee]

And I guess you've had your head in the sand - or are an irrational apologist for rampant terrorist murder....The US (and Canada) have spent billions upon billions of dollars to prevent another 9/11 from happening and so far - it's been pretty effective. It doesn't take much imagination to believe that if the US - and other Western countries - were not investing all that money - specifically to thwart Islamic terrorism before it occurs......that we'd have bombs going off all over North America and the KKK would look like Boy Scouts.

Are Boy Scouts a hate group too?

Such dangerous nonsense you spew.

Crimes are crimes. Treat them as such, regardless of race or religion.

A lot of haters and deranged people are converting and calling themselves Muslims these days and saying 'Allah' made them do it, instead of 'God' made them do it.

They are still just haters, deranged people and criminals.

Canada, the RCMP in particular, spent $1m of our tax dollars trying to create a couple of 'terrorists' out of two handicapped individuals who could never have done that crime on their own.

Just because law enforcement is jumping on the bandwagon to pad it's budget for 'war toys' by creatING fake Muslim 'terrorists' doesn't mean we are under any threat.

The only threat there was from the RCMP, and the million dollar hit to our wallets!

If you want me to believe that we in Canada are under threat from terrorists, find me some who aren't just sick people not getting the help they need from the mental health system, or created by cops!!

There are none.

Thr RCMP spent a milkion of our dollars to create 'Muslim terrorists' out of people who needed mental jeslth support. Put that million dollars into mental health support for those two unfortunate people, and there would have been no crime!!

Go chase some moose. They are a bigger threat.

.

Edited March 23, 2016 by jacee

[hitops]

The guy was hearing voices. Very likely a schizophrenic. We had an Asian dude on a bus actually decapitate someone under similar circumstances and it wasn't Islam that inspired him. Also, no one died here, despite this guy's efforts.

The Asian guy to my knowledge did have a scripture or doctrine he was following, nor any ideological support base anywhere here or elsewhere that would cheer such a thing. Islamic terrorists do, even while many condemn them. The prophet Mohammed was either spoken to by God, or heard voices. You pick. Muslims believe he is the guy to emulate. He took out a lot of people.

[SunnyWays]

Just because law enforcement is jumping on the bandwagon to pad it's budget for 'war toys' by creatING fake Muslim 'terrorists' doesn't mean we are under any threat.

The only threat there was from the RCMP, and the million dollar hit to our wallets!

.............................................

Go chase some moose. They are a bigger threat.

.

So just to be clear - you don't believe that Canada is at risk to Islamic terrorism - and you do not think that we should be spending money in providing protection against terrorist attacks. Is that accurate?

Edited March 23, 2016 by SunnyWays

[hitops]

Saying 'most terrorists are Muslim' is nonsensical if one has to be Muslim to be defined as a terrorist.

One doesn't, nor has anyone claimed they do. To be a terrorist, your primary motivation is to cause terror and kill people. It is usually intended to be as large scale as possible, with concern over whom the victims are, as long as there are many and it makes an impact or political statement. Usually lack of concern for the consequences to yourself. It also involved a religious motivation. The perpetrator citing the religion directly as the inspiration for their actions, is a good indicator.

A disproportionate number of murders in Canada are by aboriginals (also usually the victims). Many have cultural-based religious beliefs. I don't call them terrorists, because nobody is trying to take out a large group of Canadians 'in the name of' some native entity or spiritual being. It is just regular crime. Same with most other people in Canada committing crimes. Many adhere to a religion, many not. Unless they aim to cause terror/carnage and/or cite their religion as a motivation, I don't call them terrorists.

Edited March 23, 2016 by hitops

[cybercoma]

The Asian guy to my knowledge did have a scripture or doctrine he was following, nor any ideological support base anywhere here or elsewhere that would cheer such a thing. Islamic terrorists do, even while many condemn them. The prophet Mohammed was either spoken to by God, or heard voices. You pick. Muslims believe he is the guy to emulate. He took out a lot of people.

What are you on about? Christians who hear voices are excused because Jesus hearing voices doesn't count when he talks to "God"? I'm not sure why we point out other criminals' mental health, but in the case of a Muslim here....well, his scripture tells him to kill. So it must be that. All scriptures tell people to kill. The Bible promotes all kinds of violence. There's passages where "God" speaks to Moses telling him to decapitate the non-believers and hang their heads on display (Numbers 25:3-4). So if some Christian was hearing the voice of God when he decapitated someone, would you point to scripture? There are even laws to murder your own children if they don't believe in God (Deuteronomy 13:6). So will we bring that up next time a Christian engages in domestic homicide? Maybe we can argue that Sikhs who engage in "honour" killing are following the Christian Bible.

All of this to say that you and many others have a biased view of Islam. You argue incessantly that Islam itself is the problem. However, you rarely if ever extend that logic to other religions. When people from other faiths commit crimes, they're radicals, not indicative of the faith, mentally unstable, they're in a word, tragedies. You can separate criminals from the religion. You can see how they bastardize the faith or say they're not "real" Christians. Yet, when it comes to Muslim criminals and scum, it's their religion and culture. You just sweep a broad brush over everyone without ever recognizing the fact that there are no only Muslims who condemn the violence, but Muslims themselves are the primary victims of this violence. They believe deeply in Islam, but are also victimized by the radicals.

In any case, this is all very aside the case of this thread. A mentally ill person who was hearing voices attempted to murder someone. Nobody was killed in this attack, despite the assailant's best efforts. It's simply another crime, perpetrated by a sick person, regardless of his faith.

Edited March 23, 2016 by cybercoma

[hitops]

What are you on about? Christians who hear voices are excused because Jesus hearing voices doesn't count when he talks to "God"?

Feel free to quote examples. We can try to apply the various definitions of terrorism. It's possible some might apply. Christians might be perceived as hearing voices by many, the question is do those voices attributed to God by them, result in terror attacks? And, why do those voices also seem to motivate massive numbers of positive things like hospitals and schools and social support organization all over the developed world, on a scale not matched even remotely by any other 'voice-hearing' system?

I'm not sure why we point out other criminals' mental health, but in the case of a Muslim here....well, his scripture tells him to kill. So it must be that. All scriptures tell people to kill. The Bible promotes all kinds of violence. There's passages where "God" speaks to Moses telling him to decapitate the non-believers and hang their heads on display (Numbers 25:3-4). So if some Christian was hearing the voice of God when he decapitated someone, would you point to scripture? There are even laws to murder your own children if they don't believe in God (Deuteronomy 13:6). So will we bring that up next time a Christian engages in domestic homicide? Maybe we can argue that Sikhs who engage in "honour" killing are following the Christian Bible.

To the best of my knowledge, what you are referring to is old testament. The main figurehead in Christianity is Christ, who's teachings are found in the new testament. Feel free to indicate where you think a person would be justified based on that.

There is a difference between having some personal or marginal or cultural belief system, and doing bad stuff, vs doing bad stuff specifically because said belief system motivated one to do it, according to that person.

Edited March 23, 2016 by hitops

[Guest]

I wish it were that simple.....just reflect for a moment with how Islam aligns with the basic tenets that you've described. What percentage of Muslims world-wide do you think would accept our concept of those tenets - especially as it relates to women? Almost exclusively here in Canada, we see the most liberal, forward-thinking Muslims that Islam has to offer - yet we still find ourselves at odds from time to time. Just try and imagine how much trouble more traditional/conservative Muslims have in adapting to those tenets.

Yes, if only it was that simple.

There are many high profile Christian misogynists, homophobes and racists while there are also very progressive liberal Muslims. So is it just Islam that is the problem or instead is it one involving religion and problematic cultures?

Human rights abuses in Muslim majority countries are certainly a greater problem than in the west, but hate is hate regardless of religious affiliation. Far right fascism is on the rise without any help from the Muslim world. That's why it's important not to paint terrorism or extremism as just a Muslim problem. Not only does it anger the innocents, but it lets the rising number of authoritarian, Christian, fascists off the hook. At the same time, it is very important to acknowledge that extremism is a greater problem in the Muslim world and the root of the problem isn't western imperialism. This position puts me at odds with most on the right and many on the left.

The solution to the problem isn't easy. It will require building grassroots support for democratic values, equal rights and fundamental freedoms in some very authoritarian countries. Here is a short Ted Talk by a guy that has founded multiple organizations doing just that. At the same time we need to fight the far right in the west as they seek to force their own Christian religious ideologies into secular law. This growing fascist movement won't end with Trump and Cruz.

[Argus]

Why are Muslims subject to anti-terror laws and KKK are not?

You don't think the KKK is penetrated six ways from sunday by government agents? And when was the last time they set off a bomb at an airport or train station?

[cybercoma]

Feel free to quote examples. We can try to apply the various definitions of terrorism.

The point is that the OP was NOT terrorism.

To the best of my knowledge, what you are referring to is old testament. The main figurehead in Christianity is Christ, who's teachings are found in the new testament. Feel free to indicate where you think a person would be justified based on that.

Does Christianity cut the old testament out of the Bible? Of course not. But for your edification, here are the words of Christ in the New Testament.

(Matthew 5:17-19 [emphasis mine]) 17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Edited March 23, 2016 by cybercoma

[hitops]

There are many high profile Christian misogynists, homophobes and racists while there are also very progressive liberal Muslims. So is it just Islam that is the problem or instead is it one involving religion and problematic cultures?

Human rights abuses in Muslim majority countries are certainly a greater problem than in the west, but hate is hate regardless of religious affiliation. Far right fascism is on the rise without any help from the Muslim world. That's why it's important not to paint terrorism or extremism as just a Muslim problem. Not only does it anger the innocents, but it lets the rising number of authoritarian, Christian, fascists off the hook. At the same time, it is very important to acknowledge that extremism is a greater problem in the Muslim world and the root of the problem isn't western imperialism. This position puts me at odds with most on the right and many on the left.

I appreciate that you view is somewhat nuanced. At least not the usual 'well all religions do it' false equivocation. Look at the top 20 conflicts worldwide, and how many involved involve self-described religiously-motivated actors. 'They all do it' when describing Muslims vs Christians (or others) is a lot like saying a crime has happen in Tokyo, and therefore Tokyo is like inner-city Detroit because 'crime happens everywhere'.

[cybercoma]

It's not a "they all do it argument," it's the fact that you take the actions of people in politically unstable regions to be representative of their religion as a whole. Is it really surprising that there's less barbarism in Christian nations when the West has been more or less politically stable for the last 65 years?

[hitops]

The point is that the OP was NOT terrorism.

Give your definition of terrorism. Please think about whether routine murders in the hood would qualify under it, and modify as necessary.

Does Christianity cut the old testament out of the Bible? Of course not. But for your edification, here are the words of Christ in the New Testament.

(Matthew 5:17-19 [emphasis mine]) 17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The 'accomplished' part of this, refers to Christ's coming, according to anyone I have ever heard talk about it. Do Christian eat pork? Pretty much every non-vegetarian one I know does. Ergo, Jewish law is not followed. Regardless, the message being conveyed in the passage you quoted actually has nothing to do with old testament law. It was Jesus telling people that his purpose was not a Judaism-destruction operation, but rather the completion of it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by hitops

[Argus]

My point is that there are many terrorists who are not Muslim, but we don't call them terrorists or charge them under anti-terror laws ... because they are not Muslim.

Names, please.

[cybercoma]

Give your definition of terrorism. Please think about whether routine murders in the hood would qualify under it, and modify as necessary.

The 'accomplished' part of this, refers to Christ's coming, according to anyone I have ever heard talk about it. Do Christian eat pork? Pretty much every non-vegetarian one I know does. Ergo, Jewish law is not followed. Regardless, the message being conveyed in the passage you quoted actually has nothing to do with old testament law. It was Jesus telling people that his purpose was not a Judaism-destruction operation, but rather the completion of it.

Imagine that, you're demonstrating exactly my point. "Real Christians," whatever they are, believe one thing. Those who follow the exact letter of the book are not "real." You can see those variations. You can separate some Christians from others. Yet all of Islam is the same to you and others, despite there being different sects of Islam and no central authority. It's tough to take someone seriously when they're so biased in their thinking that they're able to see variation within one group but not another. It's even worse when that's pointed out and they double down on the idea that "those people" are all the same.

Edit: For the record, all is not "accomplished" until Christ returns again. It was not accomplished with the resurrection. Christians are still waiting for the "rapture" or "second coming," as the scriptures prophesize.

Edited March 23, 2016 by cybercoma