Faisal Hussain - the evolving story

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Maybe it was ISIS?  I know that groups loves taking responsibility for every terror attack that happens.

Some of his friends are coming forth and telling us this person has had some issues for a while. Now some would say 'YA CAUZE HE IS MUSLIM!!!' .  but everything I hear about this, is that this person was simply very mentally ill.

Yes well, the voices in some people's heads are suggesting ok, perhaps he was mentally ill but that was likely partly maybe caused by Islam.  They also seem to be possessed with some belief they can spread this deluded view by word of mouth.  Their ignorance of the nature of psychosis not to mention cause and effect is as bad as it ever was in medieval times.

[Centerpiece]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm sorry for those of you who are so eager to post that religion is the cause of this disaster that you are upset that it *may* be mental illness as the cause.  Let rational inquiry never ever get in the way of your anger-tainment.

Almost as bad to completely ignore that elephant in the room. Here's a simple recap. The perpetrator is Muslim. The question is whether he killed people because he was mentally ill or was it a Jihadi act. Keep in mind that to carry out a despicable, mass murder act, one pretty well has to be mentally unstable to begin with. With everything that has gone on in Europe - and our own Yonge street debacle, it's pretty easy - if not pragmatic - to  think that this might be a "Jihadist" act. I haven't detected the "anger" that you're accusing posters of. When facts are either not reported or are marginalized, people like me suspect something is afoot. Still to be determined....results of the investigation into the belief that he may have lived for awhile in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Also, two law enforcement people have indicated that he was very, very good with a gun. One said he was the best that he had seen. So where and why was he trained. Much more to peel back on this. No anger yet - but there may be some when all the facts are in.

[capricorn]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Maybe a stroke predicated by a drug overdose?

But ya, I noticed the same thing.

Yes, I'm certain a drug overdose could cause a stroke. IMO though, the average person who reads that someone had a stroke would not link the stroke to a drug overdose but to heart disease.

[capricorn]

11 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Still to be determined....results of the investigation into the belief that he may have lived for awhile in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

This may be a hint.

Quote

Toronto shooter and family are from Jhelum in Pakistan

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/toronto-shooter-and-family-are-from-jhelum-in-pakistan/625786.html

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Betsy - my apologies - I had suggested that it was because he was targeting women. I was mistaken - 8 were male, 8 were female. The information I came across was related to the Yonge street carnage - which was targeted at women. So it does seem that Mr. Singh's "speculation" was likely correct.

So than one can only assume right now that this guy wanted to target and shoot only white infidel men and women because when this Singh guy met this murderer in an alley he said to Singh, don't worry, I am not going to shoot you. So this must prove that the killer was not mentally ill at all but was out on a killing spree to kill white people. What else can one come up with?   

Edited July 26, 2018 by taxme

[taxme]

3 hours ago, capricorn said:

Have you noticed, some media are reporting the shooter's brother who is in a coma, suffered a stroke and others report he had a drug overdose. Come on, there's a vast difference in the two conditions. Reporting a stroke raises sympathy from some people for the shooter's family. On the other hand drug overdose raises the specter of a criminal life.

Sounds like a wonderful family. LOL.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

1.) Your explanation of what you meant is every bit as garbled but

2.) its clear you're still missing the point that psychosis negates any thinking or planning going thru the head of people suffering it.

3.) I'm quite familiar with people who suffer severe mental illness and especially how moral, political and religious ignorance produces much of the stigma that goes with it. 

4.) And that's exactly what you and other people obsessed with the co-incident Islamic aspect here are doing. 

 

1.) This, conveniently, is your opinion.

2.) I believe you're incorrect. It's my understanding that planning and premeditation are generally held to suggest that a person is not acting in an irrational or disorganized fashion and undermines a defense grounded in not being criminally responsible due to a mental defect. The standard defining those held not to be criminally responsible due to mental defect is actually quite difficult to meet. You seem to suggest there is little or no delineation whatsoever between mental illness and criminal responsibility, which is simply not the case.

3.) So, you have no actual training in mental health issues, as I suspected to be the case. Most of us know or have known people with mental health problems. You seem to have missed the point that most of those who suffer mental illness do not commit crimes and even fewer commit serious crimes and by conflating mental illness with a lack of criminal responsibility I believe you are serving to stereotype and stigmatize the mentally ill.

4.) You seem to be pursuing an agenda by arguing that those who challenge the mental health explanation that's been communicated thus far by media outlets are operating on anti-Muslim motives. Some may be, but others have simply and fairly pointed to the differential treatment accorded this incident and perpetrator by public officials and the media, particularly in comparison to other recent events like the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Yonge St. van massacre. The salient concerns that apply are why this incident appears to have been handled with kid gloves and whether this is part of a broader political/social agenda to manage or manipulate public opinion. As more information slowly becomes available, some media outlets are now changing their approach and pointing out that the mental health explanation is essentially speculative. In a democracy, a skeptical public is a wise public.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It would help if the police disclosed what this was about, and if he was under treatment, or had ever been under treatment, what type of treatment was disclosed and what medical authority diagnosed him.

A news broadcast last night shed a bit more light on this in revealing that after making comments about violence to a teacher the police detailed Mr. Hussain under the provisions of the province's Mental Health Act. It's my understanding that those so detained are kept in a hospital or mental health facility for a period of up to three days to assess whether a mental illness that poses a risk to the person detained or the public applies. There was no indication of the outcome of the assessment nor have I heard or read anything to indicate that Mr. Hussain was at that time or any other diagnosed with and/or treated for a serious mental illness. But because such information is inherently private he may have been.  I believe, then, that the mental illness explanation remains speculative.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.  many believe officials may be withholding crucial information and that in the vacuum that's been created

2. media outlets are imposing a narrative about mental illness that may or may not be credible.

3. We know that all too often in this country an elite consensus rather than evidence drives public perception,

4. so we've justifiably become cynics.

1. So there's a conspiracy theory brewing is there ? 

2. Saying something may or may not be credible is saying exactly nothing.

3. An 'elite consensus is driving public opinion' ?  Damn, that's a pretty hard thing to dispel isn't it ?   How do you break an 'elite consensus' ?  Maybe a single article indicating that something is bullshit would do it.

4. People started making up shit after 9/11, and other people believed it, and it's all bullshit... but it's justifiable... ok.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) This, conveniently, is your opinion.

No its a medical and legal fact that mental illness negates everything you apparently think and have said otherwise.

Quote

2 .) I believe you're incorrect. It's my understanding that planning and premeditation are generally held to suggest that a person is not acting in an irrational or disorganized fashion and undermines a defense grounded in not being criminally responsible due to a mental defect. The standard defining those held not to be criminally responsible due to mental defect is actually quite difficult to meet. You seem to suggest there is little or no delineation whatsoever between mental illness and criminal responsibility, which is simply not the case.

What adjudicators look for to inform them are medical expertise and diagnoses on a case by case basis to ensure the delineation is clear as possible.  I believe your understanding of mental illness is grounded in ideological salad.  You do realize that untreated psychosis does actual damage to brain tissue right?  I've seen it pointed out to me on a brain scan by an expert.

Quote

3.) So, you have no actual training in mental health issues, as I suspected to be the case. Most of us know or have known people with mental health problems. You seem to have missed the point that most of those who suffer mental illness do not commit crimes and even fewer commit serious crimes and by conflating mental illness with a lack of criminal responsibility I believe you are serving to stereotype and stigmatize the mentally ill.

I think what I have is a better ethical and moral background for understanding and advocating for mental health issues than you.  I believe your twisting things around to make it seem you're the advocate here is hilarious. 

Quote

'4.) You seem to be pursuing an agenda by arguing that those who challenge the mental health explanation that's been communicated thus far by media outlets are operating on anti-Muslim motives.

No, my agenda is calling out the bullshit people generally fling when mental illness is associated with some galvanizing event.

You're flinging it for the same reason Islamophpbes do except you're triggered by the media and liberals and the bizarre belief they're in some sort of official conspiracy to advance the cause of political correctness.

Quote

Some may be, but others have simply and fairly pointed to the differential treatment accorded this incident and perpetrator by public officials and the media, particularly in comparison to other recent events like the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Yonge St. van massacre. The salient concerns that apply are why this incident appears to have been handled with kid gloves and whether this is part of a broader political/social agenda to manage or manipulate public opinion. As more information slowly becomes available, some media outlets are now changing their approach and pointing out that the mental health explanation is essentially speculative. In a democracy, a skeptical public is a wise public.

That's fine but in the future I'd suggest you base your speculation on what you actually know to be true about mental health and not what you believe, otherwise you might get called on it.

Edited July 27, 2018 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

1. The perpetrator is Muslim.

2. The question is whether he killed people because he was mentally ill or was it a Jihadi act.

3. I haven't detected the "anger" that you're accusing posters of.  

1. Ok.

2. Ok.

3. If it was reported that he was mentally ill, why would somebody declare that false except because they harbour a quiet hatred of Muslims I ask.  

That's pretty much it.  There's no story here unless you want to make up one, as far as I can see.    I read the National Post and they seemed to get most of it:

https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/not-a-normal-person-toronto-gunman-faisal-hussain-quiet-didnt-seem-to-have-friends-neighbour-says?video_autoplay=true

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

There seems to be as much cause to blame the media especially the massive one. As exposed as we are to that we're likely all psychotic. We're all racists now so why not nuts?

I for one don't like to make a hobby of making up shit then getting my like-minded friends to declare it's true and make up more shit.  Well, I used to like to do that but then I hit puberty.

[Centerpiece]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.

2. Ok.

3. If it was reported that he was mentally ill, why would somebody declare that false except because they harbour a quiet hatred of Muslims I ask.  

That's pretty much it.  There's no story here unless you want to make up one, as far as I can see.    I read the National Post and they seemed to get most of it:

https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/not-a-normal-person-toronto-gunman-faisal-hussain-quiet-didnt-seem-to-have-friends-neighbour-says?video_autoplay=true

 

Being mentally ill or mentally unstable is only one part of the puzzle and quite frankly, I don't care if he was - or wasn't. Sadly, there are too many people in Canada who are burdened with mental illness - but they don't go on killing sprees. So the other piece is why Faisal Hussain did so. His apparent advanced skills with the gun is also troubling - as is the possible targeting of white people - as is his visiting of ISIS sites - as is his possible/likely living in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. And you can't discount the still-fresh impact of the Yonge street Jihadist episode. Even the Ottawa Parliament killing was "Isis inspired".  People have the right to think "what now?". Of lesser concern at this time is the claim by ISIS that he was one of their "soldiers" - because they've been known for unproven bluster. In summary, there's lots more than idle speculation in play. To say there is "no story here" is an ostrich-worthy comment.

 

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

 To say there is "no story here" is an ostrich-worthy comment.

The story ended a few days ago.  This part of it is the 'no story' part.  Yes, crazy people kill people all the time - do you need a cite ?

[Centerpiece]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The story ended a few days ago.  This part of it is the 'no story' part.  Yes, crazy people kill people all the time - do you need a cite ?

Still don't know what you mean by "no story" - but yes, please do give me a Canadian cite  that shows a "crazy person" exploding and randomly killing/shooting a bunch of people.

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So there's a conspiracy theory brewing is there ? 

2. Saying something may or may not be credible is saying exactly nothing.

3. An 'elite consensus is driving public opinion' ?  Damn, that's a pretty hard thing to dispel isn't it ?   How do you break an 'elite consensus' ?  Maybe a single article indicating that something is bullshit would do it.

4. People started making up shit after 9/11, and other people believed it, and it's all bullshit... but it's justifiable... ok.

Are you a troll? You seem obsessed with trying to cast rational analysis as conspiracy theory. I suspect you understand my arguments but have no good counterarguments to provide.

Perhaps before making gratuitous swipes about conspiracy theories you might read Candice Malcolm's column in today's Toronto Sun, 'Media spin on Danforth shooting is troubling', wherein the author states:

"Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness."

Ouch!

Edited July 27, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No its a medical and legal fact that mental illness negates everything you apparently think and have said otherwise.

What adjudicators look for to inform them are medical expertise and diagnoses on a case by case basis to ensure the delineation is clear as possible.  I believe your understanding of mental illness is grounded in ideological salad.  You do realize that untreated psychosis does actual damage to brain tissue right?  I've seen it pointed out to me on a brain scan by an expert.

I think what I have is a better ethical and moral background for understanding and advocating for mental health issues than you.  I believe your twisting things around to make it seem you're the advocate here is hilarious. 

No, my agenda is calling out the bullshit people generally fling when mental illness is associated with some galvanizing event.

You're flinging it for the same reason Islamophpbes do except you're triggered by the media and liberals and the bizarre belief they're in some sort of official conspiracy to advance the cause of political correctness.

That's fine but in the future I'd suggest you base your speculation on what you actually know to be true about mental health and not what you believe, otherwise you might get called on it.

You have no idea about any of this, do you? It's not worth responding to you because you're not interested in facts or rational debate.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

You have no idea about any of this, do you? It's not worth responding to you because you're not interested in facts or rational debate.

Are you aware that untreated psychosis physically damages brain tissue or are you suggesting that's just a debatable opinion?

[turningrite]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Are you aware that untreated psychosis physically damages brain tissue or are you suggesting that's just a debatable opinion?

And do you have any evidence that any of this applies to Mr. Hussain? Do you know something about him that the rest of us do not? I strongly suspect you don't. It's all speculation at this point. I think you've been sucked in by a media narrative that in its own right appears to be weakening with each passing day. Perhaps you should read Candice Malcolm's column in today's Toronto Sun, 'Media spin on Danforth shooting is troubling', wherein the author states:

"Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness."

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. If it was reported that he was mentally ill, why would somebody declare that false except because they harbour a quiet hatred of Muslims I ask.  

That's pretty much it.  There's no story here unless you want to make up one, as far as I can see.    I read the National Post and they seemed to get most of it:

https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/not-a-normal-person-toronto-gunman-faisal-hussain-quiet-didnt-seem-to-have-friends-neighbour-says?video_autoplay=true

 

Because it was also reported he was being watched by CSIS, RCMP and local police due to his apparent interest in ISIS websites. I don't dispute that he was mentally ill, and seems that he wanted kill people even when he was younger, as reported by his high school teacher. BUT- allow me to clarify before knees start jerking. I don't believe he did it simply "because he was a muslim" either. To me it looks like he was crazy, and was inspired by other people who are also crazy (IE. terrorists...).

[eyeball]

Just now, turningrite said:

And do you have any evidence that any of this applies to Mr. Hussain? 

 

 

No, I'm commenting on your implication that it didn't when you brought up Will Baker's psychotic act and said it wasn't criminal because it was spontaneous and unplanned.

  

 

Quote

 

Do you know something about him that the rest of us do not? I strongly suspect you don't. It's all speculation at this point. I think you've been sucked in by a media narrative that in its own right appears to be weakening with each passing day.

 

No I don't but you're implying you do because of some notion you have that planning negates psychosis. Again I ask, are you aware that untreated psychosis can do physical damage to a persons brain?  I mean I get it that acknowledging this blows a huge hole in your notion and implication that spontaneity is some sort of standard or indicator used to differentiate between a rational criminal act and an irrational psychotic act.  At least my speculating about Hussein's possible brain disease is based on the fact its possible.

 

Quote

 

Perhaps you should read Candice Malcolm's column in today's Toronto Sun, 'Media spin on Danforth shooting is troubling', wherein the author states:

"Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness."

 

Do Candice Malcolm or you have any actual evidence that journalists in this country are deliberately conspiring to distort truth and lie to Canadians?  In any case when you speculate against the possibility that mental illness has anything to do with it do so by citing and acknowledging actual facts about mental illness.  The fact you can't or won't only undermines whatever else you've been saying - which was ridiculous enough on its own.

  

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. Are you a troll? You seem obsessed with trying to cast rational analysis as conspiracy theory.  

2.  "Journalists in this country are deliberately spinning the news. They have their own agenda and don’t want Canadians to know the truth — in this case, that police are still probing whether or not the shooter was indeed motivated by his Islamic faith. Instead, media outlets across the country downplay ties to terrorism, while frantically pushing an unverified claim about mental illness." 

1. Rational analysis requires objectivity.  You are not engaging in objective inquiry, but instead are looking beyond what is available.

2. This is called an opinion piece.    Here's what the police say:
 https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/isil-claims-responsibility-for-toronto-danforth-shooting-but-releases-no-evidence-of-terror-link

Quote

Toronto police said the claim does not match what their investigation has so far uncovered. “At this stage, we have no evidence to support these claims,” said Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders.“Since Sunday evening, all areas of the Toronto Police Service have been involved in this investigation. We have received assistance from law enforcement partners at every level and I have been updated regularly,” Saunders said in a written statement. “Accurate information about this investigation will only be released by the Toronto Police Service. We will continue to explore every investigative avenue including interviewing those who knew Mr. Hussain, reviewing his online activity, and looking into his experiences with mental health.”

If you want to provide a link to the opinion piece in the Sun go ahead.  They have been rightly criticized for speculating and fomenting angertainment by the dullened masses.  Sun Ann Levy is ridiculous and unprofessional:

Quote

Gang member? Refugee? Terrorist?

https://twitter.com/SueAnnLevy/status/1021413914259554305

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Still don't know what you mean by "no story" - but yes, please do give me a Canadian cite  that shows a "crazy person" exploding and randomly killing/shooting a bunch of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

There are quite a few aren't there ?  Including a mosque shooting that is still before the courts I think.  

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I don't dispute that he was mentally ill, and seems that he wanted kill people even when he was younger, as reported by his high school teacher. BUT- allow me to clarify before knees start jerking.

2. I don't believe he did it simply "because he was a muslim" either. To me it looks like he was crazy, and was inspired by other people who are also crazy (IE. terrorists...).

1. Ok.  Neither do I.

2. Right, just as the mosque shooter was sparked to violence by far-right websites.  These things are called triggers and while they are protected speech (to a degree) organizations should be more responsible than to publish them.  The National Post and the Sun have the same publisher but the latter is very happy to inflame people to get attention.  It's shameful.

 

[Centerpiece]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

There are quite a few aren't there ?  Including a mosque shooting that is still before the courts I think.  

You've made a small point - but almost all of the references have clear motivations or are gang related. The Dawson College one was troubling - as was the Mosque killings - so going completely nuts for reasons other than Islamic extremism does happen. That doesn't change the fact that Canadians are rightly very wary of the potential for extremist violence. How could they not? Europe has had countless mass killings in the name of Islam - and those were only the "successful" ones. We've had the Toronto 18. the Yonge Street massacre, Ottawa Parliaments, St. Jean sur Richelieu, the 2017 Edmonton attacks - all of these were at least inspired by some twisted interpretation of Islam. So forgive us all for trying to rationalize all the tidbits of information to understand the motives behind this particular attack. Being force-fed the convenient and sole explanation of being mentally ill is a tough sell. Showing pity for the perpetrator and literally showering sympathy on the family at this stage is an injustice to the victims and their families.

One last word with a bit of a wink and a nudge. Isn't that what this board is all about? Get our frustrations out in the open for banter back and forth? By the way - I still like Eyeball - love the name. His middle name is Hairy.