Faisal Hussain - the evolving story

[scribblet]

It’s been nearly a week since the deadly shooting which left  two beautiful girls dead and countless others suffering  but so far we barely know more now than we did the day after the attack, why is this if not a cover up.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, scribblet said:

It’s been nearly a week since the deadly shooting which left  two beautiful girls dead and countless others suffering  but so far we barely know more now than we did the day after the attack, why is this if not a cover up.  

Doesn't seem that different to me than with Alex Bissonnette.  The police don't read these forums so they likely don't know that there is a lot of concern about a cover-up on MLW.

[scribblet]

Mlw isn't the only place where people suspect a cover up.

Meanwhile Trudeau is still on vacation but no doubt if a mosque was attacked instead of Greektown, the PM would be on the first flight back.

I suppose two dead littlre white  girls weren’t the right race or religion for our PM to give a damn.  He will be having lunch  and photo ops with queer  eye star tho 

As far as  most  media is concerned we should all forget  the Danforth ever happened so are now shifting their focus to screwing over  law abiding gun owners and The liberals seem all to happy to oblige.

Edited July 29, 2018 by scribblet

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Meanwhile Trudeau is still on vacation but no doubt if a mosque was attacked instead of Greektown, the PM would be on the first flight back.

It's pretty presumptuous to say that you know what another person cares about, politician or not.   Do you think 'all lives matter' too ?  I guess that's for another thread....

[scribblet]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's pretty presumptuous to say that you know what another person cares about, politician or not.   Do you think 'all lives matter' too ?  I guess that's for another thread....

It's pretty evident, no doubt if a hijab had been cut he would she'd some tears for the cameras

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, scribblet said:

It's pretty evident, no doubt if a hijab had been cut he would she'd some tears for the cameras

Cynical, and also impossible to prove/disprove.  If you think Trudeau is so deceptive it's easy to see how you see conspiracies in the Toronto Police.  Yes there is a lot of mistrust these days.

[Argus]

On 7/27/2018 at 4:44 PM, scribblet said:

If a white male shooter told another white male passerby that he didn’t have to worry about getting shot and then  went on to murder two non white young girls, does anyone here think that it would be reported abkut, a whole lot differently then the Toronto shooting currently is being reported.

If u think is is claims everthing, read this. https://www.independent.co.uk/us

I have seen no claims that this guy told a Muslim he didn't have to be worried about being shot. And I do not understand how a cite with the front page of the Independent is related to this.

[Argus]

On 7/27/2018 at 8:14 PM, Hal 9000 said:

Well, yes you do know.  These are all subcategories, but it comes down to marginalization.  School shootings are almost entirely young white men who have been marginalized by society as a whole.  A

Or not. I remember, I think it was Chris Rock, talking about the Columbine killers. He said something like 'They had five close friends! I didn't have five close friends! What the hell!" All teenagers feel marginalized to an extent, but the Columbine killers were driven, it seems to me, by narcissism, ignorance, and a total lack of empathy for others. I think most of the shooters who don't have heavy mental health issues are driven by similar motivations, other than the religious kooks. Why it's almost always young white men and not young black men, who one would expect to feel MORE marginalized, powerless and angry is not something I really understand. It also usually seems to be young men in suburban or rural communities, not the ones in big cities.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, we already know mental illness is the common thread.  

We do? Maybe you've made that determination but I don't believe that's been effectively established. Certainly we can point to mental health in some cases, although very rarely is there clear evidence of this. How many of these shooters was or had ever been under active psychiatric treatment, for example and ever been diagnosed?  I think there's a predilection to calling them crazy because by the standards of most of us what they did WAS crazy. That does not mean religious extremism could not have motivated them.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let's stop pretending some kind of objective inquiry is finding Islam to be a problem, it's prejudice and nothing else. 

Prejudice means to pre-judge. People are not pre-judging the Muslim world, they're judging it. There is a difference.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Islam is a religion, not a group.  The group would be those who use their religion to justify egregious acts, and I certainly don't like them.  The others I couldn't care less about. 

That's your mistake. The ones who commit the egregious acts would not do so without a common belief system shared with the others. To quote soeone I don't even remember, not all Germans were Nazis, but without those Germans, the Nazis couldn't have accomplished much.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

1) Maybe you've made that determination but I don't believe that's been effectively established.  

2) Prejudice means to pre-judge. People are not pre-judging the Muslim world, they're judging it. There is a difference.

1) Sorry, I was speaking about a subset of the cases under discussion.  I concur that hate/terrorism is also a reason.

2) Pre-judging not just people but causes of events that are still not fully known.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I am not a religious person, but it can be a comfort for some people.  If you want to single out Islam from other religions, may I ask why ?

Because it's not like other religions. Because immense amounts of space in its central religious texts are given over to how believers should treat non-believers, more than half, in fact,. And how they should treat non-believers are, for the most part, not kindly.

[scribblet]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

I have seen no claims that this guy told a Muslim he didn't have to be worried about being shot. And I do not understand how a cite with the front page of the Independent is related to this.

Sorry wrong link ....there are reports of him telling a man not to worry, I won't shoot u.  The man himself assumed it was because of his skin colour 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Because it's not like other religions.

2. Because immense amounts of space in its central religious texts are given over to how believers should treat non-believers, more than half, in fact,. And how they should treat non-believers are, for the most part, not kindly.

1. What is the evidence that it's not like other religions ?

2. There's no proof and no way of proving that religious texts have an impact based on quantity.  The bible has similar tracts and they have no impact.  No civilized person takes such things literally, and no holy book has a hypnotizing effect on a rational reader.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Stereotyping?

Stereotyping has no basis in reality?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The logic used to vilify Muslims is a logical construct that, when used objectively, could be used against any human grouping.  And it's circular logic.

"This group is observed to participate in certain behaviour, therefore the grouping itself is the cause of it."  If you ask for evidence, they go back to the observation.

It's a vain and self-serving exercise.

I'm sorry but this is total bullshit. It's bullshit in two ways. First, because it utterly ignores the underlying religious texts and laws which support much of that 'behavior,' and second because it ignores the logic in the belief that if an overwhelming percentage of a given behavior is exhibited by some group then that group must have SOMETHING in common not shared by the other groups.

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What is the evidence that it's not like other religions ?

Christianity and Judaism went through a reformation period. Islam has not. This is particularly evident in the West, where religion ceased to be the central focus of people's lives and people no longer paid a lot of attention to what religious figures said, particularly on national issues. This has led to a gradual move away from emotional responses to people or situations which challenge or deride those religions. People do not react with fury and rage and violence when someone insults Christianity or one of its subsets, or Judaism in the same manner as we continue to see EVERYWHERE in the Muslim world. With extremely rare exceptions, people do not react with violence towards those who violate the teachings of Christianity or Judaism in the same way Muslims do to those who violate the teachings of Islam EVERYWHERE in the Muslim world.

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. There's no proof and no way of proving that religious texts have an impact based on quantity.  The bible has similar tracts and they have no impact.  No civilized person takes such things literally, and no holy book has a hypnotizing effect on a rational reader.

This is nonsense. You don't understand how religion impacts the lives of believers because you're a typical, modern western man who does not himself take religion seriously. As I've already pointed out, Christians and Jews, esp in the West, have long parted from any belief that society should be guided by ancient religious texts. But that is definitely not the case in the Muslim world, where surveys and polls routinely show the great majority in most Muslim states wish Islam to be the sole law of the land in their nations. The idea that a rumor that a member of a small religion insulted Jesus and that this provoked violent riots and the burning of their temples or mosques or churches is ludicrous in the West. It simply DOES NOT HAPPEN.  Yet this sort of thing happens in the Muslim world fairly routinely. People there are still deeply, deeply devoted to Islam and its teachings in a way I think you simply cannot comprehend.

[dialamah]

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.   

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, capricorn said:

Well don't look to the Liberals to launch such an "objective" inquiry. They're much too afraid the results would put muslims in a bad light. I mean, think of all the lost votes.

Conservatives are just as afraid an objective inquiry would put the West in a bad light.

If you've seen one mainstream political party you've seen them all.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cynical, and also impossible to prove/disprove.  If you think Trudeau is so deceptive it's easy to see how you see conspiracies in the Toronto Police.  Yes there is a lot of mistrust these days.

Mistrust has been with us for years now. What we're seeing today are the consequences of too much unmitigated mistrust.  Welcome to planet Babel.

Edited July 29, 2018 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Christianity and Judaism went through a reformation period. Islam has not.   

2. With extremely rare exceptions, people do not react with violence towards those who violate the teachings of Christianity or Judaism in the same way Muslims do to those who violate the teachings of Islam EVERYWHERE in the Muslim world.

3. This is nonsense. You don't understand how religion impacts the lives of believers because you're a typical, modern western man who does not himself take religion seriously.

1. Ok.

2. Yes, we start with this observation so using it as a reason to explain the observation itself is circular.

3. There are typical modern Muslims also.  If you are trying to say that Islam on its own poisons people then you have to explain that.  If you are talking about overall observations then fair enough, but it doesn't validate a causative relationship between the religion and behaviour.

Even you don't advocate for banning Islam - and why is that ?  Because it is at best a cofactor and indicator of other things that make people violent.  Freedom of religion works and I think we can just keep it as is.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

That's your mistake. The ones who commit the egregious acts would not do so without a common belief system shared with the others. To quote soeone I don't even remember, not all Germans were Nazis, but without those Germans, the Nazis couldn't have accomplished much.

Yeah, I don't like them either.  The ones I don't care about are the ones who don't care about me.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Stereotyping has no basis in reality?

Sure does, but it's a choice to make.  There are times when I think it would be the right choice, but not often.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The logic used to vilify Muslims is a logical construct that, when used objectively, could be used against any human grouping.  And it's circular logic.

"This group is observed to participate in certain behaviour, therefore the grouping itself is the cause of it."  If you ask for evidence, they go back to the observation.

It's a vain and self-serving exercise.

That's why I make it a point only to vilify those who deserve it.  And as Argus pointed out, those who support them too.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

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.

For me, the important part of the mosque shooting was that this guy called the police on himself right afterward, crying about what he'd done, and stayed put until they came to arrest him. Not the typical behavior of one of them thar hard core white supremacist types. It reinforced the belief he had psychiatric issues.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Argus