Faisal Hussain - the evolving story

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

A handful perhaps

Yep. Those are the ones we're talking about. 

Quote

one that has a sporadic populist gravitas due to the fucked over state that most Islamic people exist in.

Those people have no problem fucking each other over, you know. Apparently the group that kills the most Muslims is... other Muslims. 

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yep. Those are the ones we're talking about. 

Bullshit, you're talking about most of them.

Quote

Those people have no problem fucking each other over, you know. Apparently the group that kills the most Muslims is... other Muslims.

So what, the same is true of North Americans, Russians, Africans - its pretty much universal.  It's an idiotic observation that doesn't excuse anything.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit, you're talking about most of them.

I know you want to believe that because it makes you feel better. Show me where I've ever said "most of them".

Quote

So what, the same is true of North Americans, Russians, Africans - its pretty much universal.  It's an idiotic observation that doesn't excuse anything.

Yep, like most of your views are idiotic, fella. Go take your medication again.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I know you want to believe that because it makes you feel better. Show me where I've ever said "most of them".

Seems pretty clear when you talk about "these people", inherently" and 'belief'all in the same sentence...you do realize 'these people' nearly constitute 1/4 of the human population right?

[scribblet]

We still do not know the names, ages, wounds of all the victims of the Danforth Shooting, similar to ke the Van Attack - they have not confirmed identities yet,  why the stonewalling of Canadians?

 

 joe warmingon when asked why no ninformation.   

Pressure really on those who would bring this information to light - smear campaigns, name calling, pressuring employers etc. Freedom is not free, nor is information - especially if powers-that-be lock it down. Most media threw in the towel on this Danforth long ago. But not all

Edited August 3, 2018 by scribblet

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Our environment shapes us.

I agree.  This fact establishes that no single environmental factOr should be used for exclusion.

[OftenWrong]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree.  This fact establishes that no single environmental factOr should be used for exclusion.

Yeah I understand you. I think what most people who are"anti-Islam" want is for them to leave those undesirable traits, misogyny, desire to attack the infidels, hatred of Jews, back in their home environment. When they live in this environment, that they become one of us.

But to the point you made earlier which I called you on, you "projected" Islam upon yourself, and could not fathom you ever becoming violent. Rightly so. I think that it really underscores the problem with Liberalism, equating otherness back to oneself, and then making a judgement based on ones personal bias, without understanding the cultural context of people who live in a completely different environment. This is a dangerously naive attitude.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

We still do not know the names, ages, wounds of all the victims of the Danforth Shooting, similar to ke the Van Attack - they have not confirmed identities yet,  why the stonewalling of Canadians?

Freedom is not free, nor is information - especially if powers-that-be lock it down. Most media threw in the towel on this Danforth long ago. But not all

You have to wonder why this has happened? What do the authorities not want us to know and why have mainstream media outlets for the most part been so docile in not apparently seeking to obtain, much less reveal, details concerning the investigation? The incident has virtually been buried and we know little more than we knew the day after the shooting. I can't think of another instance in this country nor in any other Western democracy where such an incident has been handled in this manner. This is serious stuff that calls into question the essence and efficacy of our democracy and institutions.

Edited August 3, 2018 by turningrite

[Centerpiece]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I disagree completely.  There is now a body of anti-Muslim press happening to feed an appetite for anti-social communication.

2. Or that we had, in 2017, a massacre of Muslims in a mosque ?  

3. What a horrible metric.  Effectively, you are setting the abuse of Jews as a standard by which hate is measured.  How flippantly awful and cynical.  

1. Where's your proof of this anti-Muslim press? Quite the opposite actually as you can see by the dearth of reporting in the Danforth episode - if there was ever an opportunity to feed an anti-Muslim narrative, that was it. There's still plenty of Islam-related bombs and killings going on around the world that don't even gain a mention in our media. The media and Canadians have so far been able to move on from the Toronto 18, Parliament, Richelieu, Edmonton and Yonge Street terror acts. While the residue may be starting to build, I see very little if any forming your "body of anti-Muslim press".

2) Yes we had our own despicable act. Alexandre Bissonnette. Why was this immediately called an anti-Muslim terrorist attack? Where was the immediate cry that he was mentally ill? 

3) Instead of insults, perhaps you should reflect on the example I provided - instead of reducing it to "metrics". As is statistically shown, Jews have been - and are - subjected to many times more hate crimes that any other race/culture in Canada - yet you have condoned the Islamaphobia "measure" that singles out Muslims. And all this hubbub is done in the absence of true anti-Muslim activity in our society. Discomfort with certain cultural "traditions" like Burkhas or FGM or anti-women mindsets does not constitute anything approaching "hate" - but it can validly represent "discomfort". Big, big difference.

You and I seem to be too far apart to gain any common ground. That's too bad.

[turningrite]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171128/t001d-eng.htm

Crimes towards Muslims did trend up to 2016.  If it is indeed subsiding then great but it did go up.  And specific crimes such as holocaust denial and vandalism do deserve special attention - context is everything.  We also had a massacre at a mosque in 2017.

 

The chart you cite doesn't address the actual nature of the reported incidents, and in particular doesn't delineate between incidents that were violent in nature and those that weren't. And you have to remember that these are reported incidents and do not necessarily reflect the number of cases resulting in charges or convictions. So all one can reasonably claim is that there were more reported anti-Muslim hate incidents in 2016 than in prior years. If one delves into the numbers from 2015 (see Stats Can reference chart I cited in a comment on the previous page), it's clear that most hate-related incidents grounded in religious intolerance reported to police fell into the non-violent category. I suspect this is a growing trend as many are now sensitized to the notion that garden variety offensive and/or rude conduct can now be reported as hate-related harassment and there has been greater encouragement to do so. A decade ago, the police likely wouldn't in many circumstances have taken reports on these kinds of incidents. There has been no explosion in hate-related crime in Canada. According to 2015 stats, the incidence of reported violent hate-related incidents of all kinds, which are far more likely to result in criminal charges or convictions than are non-violent incidents, was lower than the incidence of murder in this country. And I believe Canada has the lowest murder rate in the Western Hemisphere. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

1. Where's your proof of this anti-Muslim press?  

2) Yes we had our own despicable act. Alexandre Bissonnette. Why was this immediately called an anti-Muslim terrorist attack? Where was the immediate cry that he was mentally ill? 

3) Instead of insults, perhaps you should reflect on the example I provided - instead of reducing it to "metrics". As is statistically shown,  

1) inflammatory articles in The Sun and The Rebel for example.

2) He killed people in a Mosque and wasn't himself Muslim

3) A metric is a measure such as a statistic.

You are asking for such obvious things that it slows down the discussion.

Also I didn't 'insult', ie.ad hominem, but denigrated your terrible ideas.

[Centerpiece]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) inflammatory articles in The Sun and The Rebel for example.

2) He killed people in a Mosque and wasn't himself Muslim

3) A metric is a measure such as a statistic.

You are asking for such obvious things that it slows down the discussion.

Also I didn't 'insult', ie.ad hominem, but denigrated your terrible ideas.

Like I said - you and I are too far apart in our thinking......but I am now clear on your perspective.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1. The chart you cite doesn't address the actual nature of the reported incidents, and in particular doesn't delineate between incidents that were violent in nature and those that weren't.

2. And you have to remember that these are reported incidents and do not necessarily reflect the number of cases resulting in charges or convictions.

 

1. I don't think it's germane to the discussion.

2. Ok, but as long as the criteria is the same you can use it as a benchmark other temperature check.

[DogOnPorch]

Seeing Muslims already lie about being victims of 'hate crimes' in Canada, there is no way to determine how many complaints are real or are completely manufactured by Muslim Brotherhood spin doctors.

[turningrite]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think it's germane to the discussion.

2. Ok, but as long as the criteria is the same you can use it as a benchmark other temperature check.

1.) Why? Because it's inconvenient to your argument? You should explain your contention rather than simply dismiss out of hand an obvious conclusion.

2.) I don't have a clue what you mean by this. Do you? Again, please explain.

[scribblet]

Rex Murphy nails it, even as the cone of silence on this continues.   https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-tough-questions-need-answering-about-the-response-to-the-danforth-slaughter?video_autoplay=tru

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So you are saying the Muslims are "responsible" for hate crimes against them because ?  Other Muslims commit terrorist attacks ?  Do you realize that this principle rationalizes terrorism itself right ?

No. I realize your definition of rational is rather different from mine, though. My point was that antipathy towards Muslims is based on the behaviour of Muslims. I am not justifying illegal acts or even rude acts against individual Muslims. But to suggest the antipathy and ill-feeling towards Muslims, as a group, is not the result of behaviour of Muslims, as a group is utterly blind.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I am not sure.  I think your approach of blaming the victims first is probably a safe bet though. (Sarcasm)

Again, you appear intent on using a word which you clearly misunderstand. I asked why there wasn't the same antipathy towards Hindus or Budhists and your response was that it's probably because I like to blame victims. This is truly strange, Trumpian level logic.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Chinese aren't being blamed for terrorism the way The Rebel, The Sun and now you blame individual Muslims. 

So if I'm reading you correctly your position is that all antipathy towards Muslims is the responsibility of a newspaper chain a tiny percentage of the population reads and a web site virtually no one has even heard of. Have I got that correctly?

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The idea that victims are implicitly to blame for crimes against them is really untouchable and justifies a whole host of historical wrongs.  

So the victims of violence or even rudeness (most Canadian hate crimes amount to rudeness) are never responsible for provoking it in any way?

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I thought you were asking for proof that we have been asking for Muslims to be rounded up/expelled/banned on here.  My feeling is that the M103 issue was a new low for people making outright lies on here, in that people lied, and exaggerated about what the *resolution* was about and they still do.  I don't believe that the level of lies reached that plainness or volume prior to that.

The reason people feared the government's intent behind that proposal is because this government has repeatedly demonstrated how craven its nature is in kowtowing and sucking up to minority groups for votes. Something which reached its nadir during the India trip. Likewise this government has demonstrated little real commitment to freedom of speech or expression. Many progressives, and this is a government run by one, do not believe there should be freedom of speech and expression if it offends members of protected groups.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

Probably at least in part because of people like you, DoP, Trump,  and others who follow the lead and repeat the rhetoric of such anti-Muslim luminaries as Gisele Litman, Mark Steyn, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Bruce Bawer, Daniel Pipes, Patrick Buchanan and others. 

Bullshit. First, I don't read any of those people. I highly doubt many Canadians do. You progressive types seem to have a bizarre hate on for free speech, equating it with every manner of dark intent and malevolent influence. Here's an original thought for you. Try not to run from it. Those who voice suspicion and antipathy towards Islam and its devoted adherents are not causing the public distrust but are a reflection of that distrust.

[dialamah]

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

Bullshit. First, I don't read any of those people.  I highly doubt many Canadians do.

It is still their ideas you and others are repeating.  They've filtered from the far-right fringes and to people who consider themselves "centrist".  

Quote

You progressive types seem to have a bizarre hate on for free speech, equating it with every manner of dark intent and malevolent influence.

What is this constant screeching whinge you regressive types have about free speech whenever you run across a notion you dislike?  Anyway, were it not for free speech, you wouldn't even have all this anti-Muslim rhetoric to disseminate. 

Quote

Here's an original thought for you. Try not to run from it. Those who voice suspicion and antipathy towards Islam and its devoted adherents are not causing the public distrust but are a reflection of that distrust.

Here is an idea for you.  Take a look through history, at accusations levelled against Catholics in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and compare the similarities to the accusations you have levelled against Muslims.   Some samples:

Quote

The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics.^[23] This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. Irish Catholic immigrants were blamed for spreading violence and drunkenness.^[24]

 

Quote

Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. 

How easy would it be to substitute Islam and Muslims for Catholic and Catholics in the above excerpts and be describing the stuff that is posted here and elsewhere daily.   

Quote

Here's an original thought for you.

Perhaps if you could muster an original thought you wouldn't have been duped by professional xenophobic commentators.

This thread is for those people who have already decided Hussain is a terrorist and unless authorities confirm that, they are going to believe information is being withheld.  It is just another opportunity to demonize Muslims.  This happens regularly throughout history, and the pushers of this kind of hatred are no different from each other in behavior and rhetoric, whether it's Muslims demonizing non-believers, Nazis demonizing Jews or Protestant Americans demonizing immigrant Catholics.   

Edited August 3, 2018 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It is still their ideas you and others are repeating.  They've filtered from the far-right fringes and to people who consider themselves "centrist".  

What is this constant screeching whinge you regressive types have about free speech whenever you run across a notion you dislike?  Anyway, were it not for free speech, you wouldn't even have all this anti-Muslim rhetoric to disseminate. 

Here is an idea for you.  Take a look through history, at accusations levelled against Catholics in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and compare the similarities to the accusations you have levelled against Muslims.   Some samples:

 

How easy would it be to substitute Islam and Muslims for Catholic and Catholics in the above excerpts and be describing the stuff that is posted here and elsewhere daily.   

Perhaps if you could muster an original thought you wouldn't have been duped by professional xenophobic commentators.

This thread is for those people who have already decided Hussain is a terrorist and unless authorities confirm that, they are going to believe information is being withheld.  It is just another opportunity to demonize Muslims.  This happens regularly throughout history, and the pushers of this kind of hatred are no different from each other in behavior and rhetoric, whether it's Muslims demonizing non-believers, Nazis demonizing Jews or Protestant Americans demonizing immigrant Catholics.   

 

You're free to support Islam and the violence and terror it brings.

[turningrite]

52 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Rex Murphy nails it, even as the cone of silence on this continues.   https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-tough-questions-need-answering-about-the-response-to-the-danforth-slaughter?video_autoplay=tru

Thanks for the link. It's an excellent article and given that almost a week later we have no clearer understanding of the shooter's circumstances and motives than was the case when Murphy wrote the article, the official silence is even more problematic. To hide behind supposed ISU jurisdiction in this case amounts to an enormous public disservice. As Murphy notes, if ever there were a valid reason for police to justifiably kill a suspect, assuming that's what happened to the Danforth shooter, this was it. One has to believe that the police and public officials know a lot more than we are being told. Trudeau's opaque comment about citizen safety, uttered when he was in Toronto a few days ago, suggested that he knew a whole lot more than he was willing to acknowledge. He avoided direct questions about the Danforth incident and looked like he wanted to get out of town as quickly as possible. I'm even more concerned that Canadian media outlets have for the most part been so apparently deferential about the Danforth investigation. Without an inquisitive, free and critical press, do we even live in a functioning democracy? Hmmm...

[GostHacked]

Interesting that this thread has been hijacked by people screaming ISLAM, when right from the start it was his mental state that caused the issues. Anything ISLAM has already been debunked in this thread. 

Hang on I'll start the next person's response with ' You are free to *.*'. ....   too predictable.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Interesting that this thread has been hijacked by people screaming ISLAM, when right from the start it was his mental state that caused the issues. Anything ISLAM has already been debunked in this thread. 

Hang on I'll start the next person's response with ' You are free to *.*'. ....   too predictable.

 

It's mental illness and not Islamic terror because the Muslim Brotherhood said so.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Interesting that this thread has been hijacked by people screaming ISLAM, when right from the start it was his mental state that caused the issues. Anything ISLAM has already been debunked in this thread. 

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