Muslims Shot and Killed in Quebec City

[Topaz]

Well, now they are saying the Moroccan, is a witness and not part of the killings,,really? Could it be a false flag gone wrong and this authorities are doing a coverup? Not sure but people who knew the shooter  say they can't believe he did it. I  wouldn't question this but this is Canada and not the US were anything is possible.Many questions unanswered.                                                           http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170500/White-student-sole-suspect-Quebec-mosque-massacre.html      

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid thread drift. 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Topaz said:

Well, now they are saying the Moroccan, is a witness and not part of the killings,,really? Could it be a false flag gone wrong and this authorities are doing a coverup? Not sure but people who knew the shooter  say they can't believe he did it. I  wouldn't question this but this is Canada and not the US were anything is possible.Many questions unanswered.                                                           http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170500/White-student-sole-suspect-Quebec-mosque-massacre.html      

The White Canadian guy phoned the police, said he did it and told them where he was.  The police arrested him and found weapons in his car.  

Everybody always says "I can't believe he did it" when someone they know commits an act of extreme violence.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The White Canadian guy phoned the police, said he did it and told them where he was.  The police arrested him and found weapons in his car.  

Everybody always says "I can't believe he did it" when someone they know commits an act of extreme violence.

Yeah, just once I'd like to hear someone say:

"Oh yes, he was a complete nutter.  We knew he'd do something like this one day.  What an absolute jerk."

[Peter F]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Why murder?    Did anyone explain why he didn't get charged with terrorism?

Because the powers-that-be had only just arrested him a few hours before. It takes some time for the legal types to figure out exactly what charges are going to be laid. But they need to charge him with something in order to keep him under arrest so he is charged right now with  six  murders

Further charges will be added on when they are ready to prosecute.  Maybe terrorism will be one of them. I'm not sure what the point of a terrorism charge would be when he has apparently already copped to 6 murders and lord knows how many attempted murders.  I think an actual charge of terrorism in this case would be an unnecessary complication.

If he had have been sombody else who, say, drove the car or supplied the weapon or helped plan, well then yes , terrorism would be a fine thing to charge him with. But he wasn't so no immediate need. Maybe a terrorism charge will be there when they have all the charges neatly set up for his pleading before a judge.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Peter F
originally said he was charged with one murder but thought I should confirm that and he is charged with 6

[Topaz]

There's one problem...other witnesses said there were TWO hooded men and then the police  say no just one and then a reporter asked if HE was a witness why was he held in jail overnight...cop said this is our story and walked away from the reporter.

[bush_cheney2004]

So for now it is just garden variety mass murder and not terrorism ?  Wooo...that's a relief !

[eyeball]

Well it was just a garden variety right winger, not a racist so.

[Boges]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, just once I'd like to hear someone say:

"Oh yes, he was a complete nutter.  We knew he'd do something like this one day.  What an absolute jerk."

The guy who shot up the Airport in Fort Lauderdale was having mental problems and warned people he was hearing voice. So it was somewhat predictable. 

[Peter F]

in answer to Topaz above:

Quote

There's one problem...other witnesses said there were TWO hooded men and then the police  say no just one and then a reporter asked if HE was a witness why was he held in jail overnight...cop said this is our story and walked away from the reporter.

It's not unusual in these situations (where cops enter a building where shootings occurred with no information of exactly how many shooters there are or what they are armed with) for cops to grab whoever they think needs grabbing. According to the guy who was held but later released, he fled when he saw black suited armed men not realizing they were police. these black suited armed men caught him and arrested him (he was fleeing) and hauled him off to be questioned. Things were cleared up and he was released. Is that strange and bizarre and totally against what is normal? 

Of course, there is the hypothetical possibility that he really was a shooter and the cops knew he was a shooter and then somebody somewhere ordered this guy to be released and the Quebec cops just realeased him knowing very well he was a shooter because somebody somewhere told them to etc etc.  But that sort of hypothetical requires conspiracy thinking wherein if I could imagine it working that way then how I imagine it must be the truth . Which is something that leads to all sorts places where there is no factual support for such travels of the mind.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well it was just a garden variety right winger, not a racist so.

 

Well it is Quebec....so.....

[Argus]

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I see that as a completely different issue. I agree that we need to consider our immigration numbers, I have been saying that for a long time. Our immigration has been driven for many decades by the economists saying we need to grow the population in order to grow the country. This is a problem with our economic policy, let's look at that and not point to someones skin colour or religion as the problem.

I've never mentioned skin colour, nor, to my knowledge, has Trump. But an inextricable part of the debate about how many immigrants we want in and the cultural impact they have is what kind of immigrants we have from where. Thus their cultural background, particularly where it is reinforced by their religion, is a necessary part of the discussion. If we were getting 300,000 people here every year from the UK, France, Ireland, Australia, the US and New Zealand the cultural issues would be largely minor, if not non-existent. The further away from those who share our language, religion and values you get the more our culture will be threatened by the large numbers.

[Smallc]

58 minutes ago, Topaz said:

There's one problem...other witnesses said there were TWO hooded men and then the police  say no just one and then a reporter asked if HE was a witness why was he held in jail overnight...cop said this is our story and walked away from the reporter.

Memory of traumatic events is not reliable.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

Anti-Islamic rhetoric has been increasing over the last few years, followed by anti-Muslim crimes, and now this.

Anti Islamic rhetoric has followed the rise of Muslim violence, particularly in Europe from Muslim migrants and with Trudeau deciding to bring in tens of thousands of people from the same region.

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

You claim that 97% of Muslims support killing gays, and you provide the Pew Research cite.   When I go check that cite, it turns out that 97% of Muslims answered a survey by saying that Muslims could not live a moral life if they were gay.    That's a misrepresentation of the facts because there's a huge difference between "support for killing gays" and "gays cannot live a moral life".

But their opposition to gays comes from the Koran, and Sharia law which requires gays be killed. And if you think opposition to gays is merely people who think they can't live a moral life you might pause to wonder why there are NO openly gay people in the Muslim world, no gay clubs, no gay pride marches no gay organizations. If you are gay in the Muslim world you better damn well hide it if you don't want to to risk dying in prison.

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

When you dismiss, belittle and disregard any proof that Muslims can be just as moral, intelligent and progressive as any Canadian, and push the notion that they are unable to fit in because they are inherently violent and backward, that's not legitimate discourse. 

Never said that. Using words like 'all' would be idiotic in the context of a large population. There are always variations, after all. But when I talk of immigration I speak of the macro, not the micro. That means referring to demonstrated characteristics of the group, or statistically important percentages of the group. For example, your arguments seem to be that if half of a group are okay, the fact the other half are violent and intolerant should not be taken to allow condemnation of the group. To which I have long asked the question '"If 50% of that model of refrigerator were known to catch fire would you buy one?"

Especially when other models were available at the same price which virtually never burst into flames?

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

And it's the false rhetoric describing Muslims as incompatible to our Canadian way of life, a threat to our values and a group unable to change or progress

Islam, as currently interpreted throughout the world, is not compatible with secular, tolerant values. There are NO Muslim nations which are secular and tolerant. There are NO Muslim nations which practice equality between men and women or between Muslims and non-Muslims. And while there are some individuals within those societies who would have it otherwise, there seems very little overall enthusiasm from their countrymen for change in that direction. According to PEW the children of Muslim immigrants to Canada are more, not less religious than the parents, which shows us that the assumptions of progressives that the Canadian born would throw away those old, rigid religious values was so much nonsense. Did the children of the Amish or Hutterites do so when their parents came to Canada? Not even generations later.

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

Your claim that 'legitimate discourse' is being shut down when people such as myself present facts that do not jive with your narrative is just your own inner snowflake coming out.   

Really? Kellie Leitch proposed actually interviewing potential immigrants do see how well they would fit into Canada based on our values. The great majority of Canadians agreed with this fairly commonsense idea in the one poll I've seen on the subject. All of the political and media elites, however, recoiled in horror. Every one of them condemned her, along with every media entity. They couldn't abide the mere thought that Canada might actually give some consideration to screening out some of the retrograde social values which are inimical to our own secular culture.

And yet, we still have that poll, which showed 70% of Canadians supported the idea - Canadians, I might add, from all political and social spectrum, and not limited to 'old stock' citizens. But their wishes are ignored by the elites and dismissed with a curled lip. So maybe, just maybe, if that weren't the case, guys like this wouldn't feel driven to violence. Maybe if we assured him that the Muslims who come here are the liberal ones who see the barbarity of some of the social values Islam currently espouses, and disbelieve them, and if they were selected for their earnest desire to become Canadian and cast off those old ways we'd not only have a better quality of immigrant but there'd be less of that 'rhetoric' which so bothers you.

[dialamah]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

To which I have long asked the question '"If 50% of that model of refrigerator were known to catch fire would you buy one?"

This might be a good analogy if 50% of Muslim refugees/immigrants carried out acts of violence and intolerance once they got to Canada.  Even if 25% or 10% did.  But that's not the case, not even close.  The vast majority of Muslims obey the laws of Canada, regardless of their personal beliefs, exactly as do the vast majority of all other people who live in Canada.

BTW, Sharia law does not require putting gays to death.  That is just an interpretation some Muslim sects and governments have decided upon.   Some Muslim countries do put homosexuals to death and some jail them. Some do nothing.  Some Christian-majority countries also jail gays, and at least one of those countries tried for the death penalty but international objection had them backing off.    Ignorance and oppression is not a specifically Muslim trait, despite your claims.

There are some very progressive Muslims living in Canada, in the States and in the UK; there are Muslim organizations around the world who continue to push their religious and governmental leaders for more modern and progressive values.  I have posted all of this before with cites, all of which you ignore or dismiss because it does not fit your narrative of Muslims being unfit to live in Canada.   

 

 

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

Memory of traumatic events is not reliable.

Yup.   I saw a woman hit by a car and I was certain I saw the exact car that hit her.  I was so wrong, I even had the car going in the wrong direction.   And nobody was even shooting at me.

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

Anti Islamic rhetoric has followed the rise of Muslim violence,

Argus doesn't know what he's talking about. Muslim violence followed the descent of the Anglo-American Empire into savage interference in the Muslim world.

The anti-Islamic rhetoric is simply a part and parcel of western denial of any complicity and wrong doing on our part.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Argus doesn't know what he's talking about. Muslim violence followed the descent of the Anglo-American Empire into savage interference in the Muslim world.

The anti-Islamic rhetoric is simply a part and parcel of western denial of any complicity and wrong doing on our part.

Sure.  When one group commits acts of horror against innocents it's understandable, but when another group does it it's not.  Depending on your own personal biases.

I abhor both.

[?Impact]

Whiter than white right wing terrorist kills 6, and this thread devolves into discussing Islam. Get a grip folks.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Sure.  When one group commits acts of horror against innocents it's understandable, but when another group does it it's not.  Depending on your own personal biases.

I abhor both.

It's not understandable at all why the west has been committing acts of horror for so long throughout so much of the Muslim world. I don't see you abhorring that very much if at all. 

[Goddess]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/mosque-shooting-narrative-1.3958357

This made me chuckle....it's all here in this thread!  

 

Quote

It is, perhaps, a bit too doe-eyed to think the first 12 hours of a tragedy could be just about that tragedy — and not about whittling the corners of that square peg to land another blow against Leitch, or the mainstream media, or Trump, or Trudeau. It's nevertheless worth remembering that prayers for a desired narrative are a luxury afforded only to those removed enough — literally and figuratively — from the events to preoccupy themselves with fighting futile battles on the internet. Surely, there's a better way to spend those first 12 hours.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's not understandable at all why the west has been committing acts of horror for so long throughout so much of the Muslim world. I don't see you abhorring that very much if at all. 

Sorry, I thought you were saying that somehow Muslim violence was understandable.

 

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sorry, I thought you were saying that somehow Muslim violence was understandable.

 

It is understandable however that's not what I was saying.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It is understandable however that's not what I was saying.

Okay, I guess all violence is understandable by somebody.  I was getting it mixed up with justified.  My mistake.

[Peter F]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Anti Islamic rhetoric has followed the rise of Muslim violence, particularly in Europe from Muslim migrants and with Trudeau deciding to bring in tens of thousands of people from the same region.

Anti islamic rhetoric has certainly followed the rise of muslim violence from Muslim migrants - turning a blind eye to the rise of nationalist violence due to muslim migrants - certainly true in Europe, but how does that extrapolate to Canada? Is there a rise in muslim violence in Canada from all those tens of thousands of islamic immigrants?  If there isn't any noticeable rise is muslim violence in Canada then your point only applies to Europe , not Canada . You and others have posted many times about islamic violence in Europe but cannot show that the same is happening here. The best you can do is, in the manner of Mark Steyn, propose that all those things happening in Europe will also happen here. But they haven't. 

Quote

But their opposition to gays comes from the Koran, and Sharia law which requires gays be killed. And if you think opposition to gays is merely people who think they can't live a moral life you might pause to wonder why there are NO openly gay people in the Muslim world, no gay clubs, no gay pride marches no gay organizations. If you are gay in the Muslim world you better damn well hide it if you don't want to to risk dying in prison.

Those may or may not be the punishments in Muslim lands BUT those are not the rules that apply in Canada (and they only became enlightened within the last 15 or so years, I wish to add).  So whatever the laws are in other lands do not matter here, in Canada. Your contention seems to be that if we allow non-criminal muslims to immigrate here then those muslims will start killing gays or advocate for the killing of gays. Yet, with tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants already here this has not happened.  Again you are ignoring what Canadian muslims haven't done and continue to claim that they will.  Also ignoring all the Canadians who fought tooth and nail for years to make sure Gay people only had very limited rights in this country. Its ok that we Canadians can take part in the democratic process of arguing who should or should not have what rights when but goddamn if any muslim should take part in that process - Thats just wrong.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

when I talk of immigration I speak of the macro, not the micro. That means referring to demonstrated characteristics of the group, or statistically important percentages of the group. For example, your arguments seem to be that if half of a group are okay, the fact the other half are violent and intolerant should not be taken to allow condemnation of the group.

If half the group are fine according to your broad brush, then why should the individuals of that group be denied?  Does your broad brush recognize that, yes there are gays muslims in Iran that will be killed or otherwise unjustly punished if they remain but - hey, sorry - the broad brush says the individual in danger is a barbaric killer of gays?

You keep saying this same argument. This is what the group is like therefor, while acknowledging there are exceptions, never mind the exceptions and don't allow anyone from that group in.   

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Islam, as currently interpreted throughout the world, is not compatible with secular, tolerant values. There are NO Muslim nations which are secular and tolerant. There are NO Muslim nations which practice equality between men and women or between Muslims and non-Muslims. And while there are some individuals within those societies who would have it otherwise, there seems very little overall enthusiasm from their countrymen for change in that direction. According to PEW the children of Muslim immigrants to Canada are more, not less religious than the parents, which shows us that the assumptions of progressives that the Canadian born would throw away those old, rigid religious values was so much nonsense. Did the children of the Amish or Hutterites do so when their parents came to Canada? Not even generations later.

True lots of Muslim nations are intolerant, or nonsecular and intolerant or don't recognize equality of the sexes or even of religion or even all of the proceeding put together! Who gives a shit? This is Canada not Saudi Arabia! We DO recognize all those things that they don't. So whats the problem? That someone wants the hell out so's they can enjoy the wonders of Canada should on no account be allowed in because they come from a barbaric and backwards country? Doesn't make any sense to me.  They can come to Canada and enjoy being a muslim in a non-sharia secular land - just like the tens of thousands of muslims already here. And so can their kids and maybe even grandchildren.

 

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Kellie Leitch proposed actually interviewing potential immigrants do see how well they would fit into Canada based on our values. The great majority of Canadians agreed with this fairly commonsense idea in the one poll I've seen on the subject. All of the political and media elites, however, recoiled in horror. Every one of them condemned her, along with every media entity. They couldn't abide the mere thought that Canada might actually give some consideration to screening out some of the retrograde social values which are inimical to our own secular culture.

And yet, we still have that poll, which showed 70% of Canadians supported the idea - Canadians, I might add, from all political and social spectrum, and not limited to 'old stock' citizens. But their wishes are ignored by the elites and dismissed with a curled lip. So maybe, just maybe, if that weren't the case, guys like this wouldn't feel driven to violence. Maybe if we assured him that the Muslims who come here are the liberal ones who see the barbarity of some of the social values Islam currently espouses, and disbelieve them, and if they were selected for their earnest desire to become Canadian and cast off those old ways we'd not only have a better quality of immigrant but there'd be less of that 'rhetoric' which so bothers you.

Oh my goodness. There's a bunch of elites and people like me that recoil in horror at the thought of your stupid broad-brush Canadian values ideas! Why, how very undemocratic. How very unfree-speech. Where do we get off being horrified by such a prospect?  And they (and I) gave some consideration to that goofy idea and rejected it. I, among others, have repeatedly pointed out that such a goofy values test is applied to immigrants then why would it not be applied to Canadians? If good ol Canadians are allowed to hold non-canadian values then why the hell can't immigrants hold non-canadiana values? Your broad-brush macro thing answers that question: Canadians cannot possibly have non-canadian values! Only immigrants do!

And you have a poll that shows 70% of Canadians support the idea! Wonderful...get the political machinery in gear and get such a policy enacted! Don't rely on a poll to do it for you. Its just a poll of a handful of people why by answerring that poll in one way or the other, have no ramifications or accountability for their answers. Not that I am trashing the science of polls! As you say, 70% support a stupid canadian values test. Then whats the problem? 70% support should make such a policy easy as pie to push through parliament, right?  I will be among the 30% who will contest such a thing, a mere flunky of a minority. Should have no problems whatsoever enacting such policy. Right?  

As far as wether 'guys feel driven to violence' by shooting a bunch of folks minding their own business: Fuck guys who feel driven to violence. Fuck them completely. Or is that some Canadian value i'm treading upon?