This Kingston guy arrested for terrorism.

[Argus]

Some guy. We don't know what he did or wanted to do. We don't know his name or anything much about him. That's about it. Oh, we do know that this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Politicians have rushed to reassure the Muslim population that of course, they are deeply loved and respected and to caution the rest of you filthy 'old stock' types that if you even mouth a suggestion otherwise the government will come down on you!

This follows a kind of a pattern we've seen in Canada and elsewhere. The moment there's an arrest of a Muslim terrorist the local liberal politicians run screaming through the streets in horror  - not of Muslim terrorists but of in fear that someone might somehow take this as an indication that they should in any way be suspicious of Islam (the religion of peace!) or those who practice it. So the politicians and their police lackeys keep all information close to the vest, wanting the story to go away. Thus the RCMP hold a press conference and refuse to say anything, except that this has nothing to do with Islam (of course). And a community leader emergency response team headed out to scream to everyone that there should be no backlash or anything.

Community leaders are working to calm fears and find ways to prevent an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant backlash in the wake of two arrests related to an alleged terrorist plot in Kingston, Ont. — yet the probe already has touched off a political debate over security screening for refugees.

Think about that for a moment. SHOULDN'T there be a political debate about security screening for refugees? It's pretty damned threadbare, after all, given we mostly don't even know who these people are since they have no papers. And we wouldn't be investigating their backgrounds to see if they were appropriate citizens even if we did. Because, somehow or other, that's wrong.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/community-backlash-kingston-terrorism-muslim-1.4992672

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-a-terror-plot-but-all-we-got-was-hot-air

[OftenWrong]

As with the Danforth guy, it seems they are trying to suppress the information. To what end, I have no idea. Perhaps because it does not sit well with their virtue-signalling narrative. However what the Liberals are doing is political suicide, and hopefully it will reflect in the polls.

Seems that the British media are desperate to do likewise, keep information from being released to the public. In Germany they are now doing an about-face, the German government is scaling back on the number of migrants they are accepting, and has ramped up deportation. This is in response to growing public opposition to the immigration levels, and the fact that migrants are not being returned to their home countries if/when it is removed from the high-risk countries listing.

[GostHacked]

Maybe because the person is under 18 and I think there are different rules regarding that. Overall cannot disagree with your notions.

[GostHacked]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

As with the Danforth guy, it seems they are trying to suppress the information.

It would be a different story and angle if the person was white.

[turningrite]

All I can say is 'Thank goodness for the FBI' in view of these events. In response to those who constantly berate our relationship with the U.S, which some like to excitedly portray as the 'Great Satan', this instance illustrates why we should be thankful the Americans have the skills and resources to identify such risks. I hope there won't be an ant-Muslim backlash but people are right to be skeptical about whether we have the ability (or inclination?) to adequately screen migrants, including refugee claimants. And, for those out there who aren't paying attention, this issue is now warranting greater attention in the U.S., where some politicians are pointing out that their northern border may be more of a security risk than their southern one. Is this a hit Canada can afford to take in our already strained relationship with our neighbour?

Edited January 27, 2019 by turningrite

[OftenWrong]

Bail hearing underway for the Syrian youth who is in detention for these terrorism-related charges. He was charged in court with several more offences, including taking action to detonate an explosive device.

New charges laid against Kingston youth suspected of terrorism-related activity

[Rue]

I like others want to know why the media and government covered up the terrorist nature of this pretty much like the media was so quiet with the nutcase who killed people in Greektown in Toronto. There seems clearly to  be a need to avoid any reference to terrorism and how these people's version of Islam fueled their terrorist actions. If we report how racism and extremist white supremacist views fuel terrorist attacks we must say the same about the correlation of extremist Islamic views fueling terrorism. Just like all white people are not neo Nazi extremists neither are all Musims terrorists but the government and media seem to be playing us as unable to understand that and now not covering these incidents thoroughly and being selective presenting one method to describe white supremacists and another Muslim extremists. They  both must be described in the same manner. It is crucial the extremism of their views and what those extremist views are based on are explained.

I think the media shows a bias against Canadians thinking when we see Muslim extremist terrorists commit crimes they won't deal with them fearing its unfair to all Muslims but when it comes to some neo nazi, they have no problem discussing it not worrying about the possibility innocent white people might be smeered. Its stupid. The press treats us like idiots and so does this current government which has clear leftist biases that select what information it thinks we should know.

The media needs to start reporting in the same objective neutral manner.

This story is about a Muslim extremist terrorist attack. It is as dispicable and disgusting as the idiot who went into the mosque in Quebec City or the mosques in New Zealand.

Can we stop being selective and report them in the same manner.

I am calling Lisa Laflammes today and complain. I would call Ian Hanamansigh but come on Lisa is the Oprah of Canada-I think she should do  one of her hair blowing in the wind reports live from some street in Wawa, Ontario discussing this. Why Wawa? Its a hot-bed of extremists. Even worse than Forget, Saskatchewan. You should see what they do with their Tim Horton's coffee.

 

[OftenWrong]

23 minutes ago, Rue said:

Lisa is the Oprah of Canada-I think she should do  one of her hair blowing in the wind reports live from some street in Wawa, Ontario discussing this. Why Wawa? Its a hot-bed of extremists.

Yes, I too would like to see her hair blowing in the wind, in that hot-bed. Now back to media distraction,
by the masses,
for the masses.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Rue said:

1. I like others want to know why the media and government covered up the terrorist nature of this pretty much like the media was so quiet with the nutcase who killed people in Greektown in Toronto. There seems clearly to  be a need to avoid any reference to terrorism and how these people's version of Islam fueled their terrorist actions.

2. They  both must be described in the same manner. It is crucial the extremism of their views and what those extremist views are based on are explained.

3.  The press treats us like idiots ...

4. The media needs to start reporting in the same objective neutral manner.

 

1. If it's happening (and let's leave that question aside for now) why do you *think* it would be happening ?  I think it's pretty clear why.
2. Why "must" they ?  I don't think White Racist terrorism results in white people being shot in churches, so it is different.
3. True, that.  Wait.  Do you think some of us are NOT idiots ?
4. Why "need" they ?  They don't need to.

I have gone onto facebook and joined as many Alt-Right groups as possible.  While I believe that White Racist terrorism and Islamic terrorism are on the same scale, they are different.  One of those differences is that I believe White Racist terrorism could get a lot worse than it is.  Just a feeling though.

I respect your intellect Rue, and I want to make sure that you don't take this disagreement with your post as an opportunity to go off on me as you sometimes do.

Shalom.

[OftenWrong]

35 minutes ago, Rue said:

I like others want to know why the media and government covered up the terrorist nature of this pretty much like the media was so quiet with the nutcase who killed people in Greektown in Toronto. There seems clearly to  be a need to avoid any reference to terrorism and how these people's version of Islam fueled their terrorist actions. If we report how racism and extremist white supremacist views fuel terrorist attacks we must say the same about the correlation of extremist Islamic views fueling terrorism. Just like all white people are not neo Nazi extremists neither are all Musims terrorists but the government and media seem to be playing us as unable to understand that

I agree wholeheartedly. Suppression of the facts for the purpose of hiding unpleasant truth only creates more fuel for conspiracy, and leads to further polarization in our politics. Information should only be suppressed when it is necessary by law. The law is the only possible guide out of these politically muddy waters.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Suppression of the facts for the purpose of hiding unpleasant truth only creates more fuel for conspiracy, and leads to further polarization in our politics.

2. Information should only be suppressed when it is necessary by law.

3. The law is the only possible guide out of these politically muddy waters.

1. You mean like the 'fact' that Trudeau secretly converted to Islam ?  And the MSM is keeping it quiet ?  That's what these morons are going on about now.  There's no point in hoping these people come around.  They're an argument against democracy.

2. Maybe the Queen can just decide to repress something here.  She can in Britain.

3. Maybe Trudeau could just find a compromise candidate for PM, install him/her, then step down and suspend elections ?  That's something.

 

[Realitycheck]

While Islam is hardly the "Religion Of Peace" as history is our witness. But not all Islamics are jihadists and it is these latter who are the problem. But there is also a problem with certain Canadians who like to take advantage of any situation to practice their ignorance, racism and anarchy. These are mostly white men will tiny dicks who are compensating for their obvious inadequacy.

But there is the political correctness aspect one must also consider. Politicians are terrified of losing votes if they are seen to be critical of...well, damn near anything, but especially a racial or religious group.

For instance, there are no longer and East Indians in Surrey BC. They are now South East Asians. Well, the encompasses a lot of different people. How did this come about? Pretty much all the criminality in Surrey and environs is committed by East Indians. The community got offended by this fact and insisted pols, police and media now adopt the new definition. Nevertheless, East Indians continue to be the principle cause of crimes in Surrey and environs.

That is a fact. It does not even suggest all East Indians are criminals. However, political correctness rules. 

 

 

 

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If it's happening (and let's leave that question aside for now) why do you *think* it would be happening ?  I think it's pretty clear why.
2. Why "must" they ?  I don't think White Racist terrorism results in white people being shot in churches, so it is different.
3. True, that.  Wait.  Do you think some of us are NOT idiots ?
4. Why "need" they ?  They don't need to.

I have gone onto facebook and joined as many Alt-Right groups as possible.  While I believe that White Racist terrorism and Islamic terrorism are on the same scale, they are different.  One of those differences is that I believe White Racist terrorism could get a lot worse than it is.  Just a feeling though.

I respect your intellect Rue, and I want to make sure that you don't take this disagreement with your post as an opportunity to go off on me as you sometimes do.

Shalom.

You said:

"2. Why "must" they ?  I don't think White Racist terrorism results in white people being shot in churches, so it is different."

 Muslim extremism does result in Muslims being shot  and killed in mosques and like white racist extremism has resulted in Jews and Christians shot and killed almost anywhere including churches and synagogues as well.

The actual point is any extremist attack can  be used as the pretext by any individual for any reason to justify engaging in one themselves. 

I don't agree with your attempted double standard.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I respect your intellect Rue.

 

 

Lol I don't. I argue with myself all the time.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Rue

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have gone onto facebook and joined as many Alt-Right groups as possible.  While I believe that White Racist terrorism and Islamic terrorism are on the same scale, they are different.  One of those differences is that I believe White Racist terrorism could get a lot worse than it is.  Just a feeling though.

I'm confused about why you'd want to join such groups. Are you looking to get added to some kind of RCMP list of suspicious people?
What is the basis for your belief that far right terrorism will get worse? That hasn't really happened in Europe, even though they have huge demonstrations featuring thousands of the far right there. All we have here are small demos of a few dozen people, mostly middle aged, trying to protest against Islam and immigration.

If you believe that immigration as presently constituted is inciting civil disorder why not call for immigration to be cut back?

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Suppression of the facts for the purpose of hiding unpleasant truth only creates more fuel for conspiracy, and leads to further polarization in our politics.

Stop hiding the unpleasant truth that we bear responsibility for fomenting much of the terrorism that's wracking our world.

I doubt that will do much to ease the polarization but I guess that's what makes it so unpleasant. Its pretty obvious why politicians don't want to go there.

Edited March 31, 2019 by eyeball

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You mean like the 'fact' that Trudeau secretly converted to Islam ?  And the MSM is keeping it quiet ?  That's what these morons are going on about now.  There's no point in hoping these people come around. 

Yet you have brought it up. Clearly it annoys you, so why do you even pay attention to it? It is nothing, let them blather.

Suppressing information, in the context of the thread subject only feeds similar notions that something is wrong. And hey, something REALLY IS wrong. For example, trusting our wonderfully competent government when they claim they can do things like screening large numbers of refugees amid flooding swarms of illegals crossing the border into Canada. Justin Trudeau has opened the Pandora's box with his irresponsible statements and tweets, so there is really no need to raise such outlandish claims.
 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

And hey, something REALLY IS wrong. For example, trusting our wonderfully competent government when they claim they can do things...

You mean like changing a regime or fighting commies without fucking everything up?

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

1. I'm confused about why you'd want to join such groups. Are you looking to get added to some kind of RCMP list of suspicious people?

2. What is the basis for your belief that far right terrorism will get worse?  

3. If you believe that immigration as presently constituted is inciting civil disorder why not call for immigration to be cut back?

 

1.  No, I'm trying to understand what type of people are on those groups.  They're either paid agents or misguided and uninformed people.

2. I said it 'could'.  Because there seem to be a lot of naive people out there believing whatever they are fed.

3. I thought you were a law & order type ?  I guess I could ask... "if free speech gets Antifa so mad, then why allow it ?"

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Yet you have brought it up. Clearly it annoys you, so why do you even pay attention to it? It is nothing, let them blather.

2. Suppressing information, in the context of the thread subject only feeds similar notions that something is wrong.

3. And hey, something REALLY IS wrong. For example, trusting our wonderfully competent government when they claim they can do things like screening large numbers of refugees amid flooding swarms of illegals crossing the border into Canada. Justin Trudeau has opened the Pandora's box with his irresponsible statements and tweets, so there is really no need to raise such outlandish claims.
 

1. I like putting a period, full stop, at the end of a ridiculous argument so that anybody reading it *might* think that the facts shooed the others away.

2. It would if we had an open dialogue.  I'll admit I am playing Devil's Adovcate a bit but we actually don't have open dialogue.  There are people getting bad information out there.

3. So... this is the problem of the 'slippery slope' or maybe the fallacy.  If you want to say that a government exaggerating or, basically, engaging in politics makes it pointless for us to assume there is any truth out there... I don't know.  They actually say Trudeau is a Muslim and is plotting to eliminate the white race.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  No, I'm trying to understand what type of people are on those groups.  They're either paid agents or misguided and uninformed people.

Who cares? The alt-right is a very small collection of people. The only reason you and some others get the idea it's larger is because of the habit of so many people on the Left to attach that moniker to almost anyone more than mildly conservative. I think Benjamin Shapiro (an ultra-orthodox Jew) spoke of that recently when the Economist described him as being the 'sage of the alt-right', before retracting it. As he pointed out the 'alt-right' are alt because they're not the right.

Or as Wiki says:  The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right[2] fringe hate groups.[

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I said it 'could'.  Because there seem to be a lot of naive people out there believing whatever they are fed.

I think this is just the same answer as above. The alt-right is not a huge, powerful thing. It's a small collection of idiots and losers. The Left need only stop calling everyone not a progressive conservative 'alt right' and the numbers will plummet.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I thought you were a law & order type ?  I guess I could ask... "if free speech gets Antifa so mad, then why allow it ?"

Because free speech is perhaps the centre and focus of western liberal capitalism and democracy.  The embrace of immigration by the Left is, it seems to me, and as Haidt said, due to their religious like fixation on diversity and inclusion. And so regardless of social harm, or disorder, or any other cost, they must continue to pursue mass immigration. That is why the Democrats down south, though they won't admit it, seem to be headed for something like an open borders policy. I just saw a Democratic Senator interviewed on CNBC and asked about the hundred thousand migrants a month crossing the border, and whether congress has dome duty to help the administration cope with that. His response was to growl about toddlers being separated from their parents. When the reporter asked how detained prisoners could be kept humanely given congress has cut the money available to the Border Patrol to house them he again reverted to a moral argument about the need to deal humanely with people.

This, btw, is how the Democrats are going to lose the upcoming election. Mark that you saw it here first. The EU saw a huge surge in support for anti-immigration parties because of 1.7 million migrants crossing into their territory over 4 years. The US is going to get 1.2 million this year alone.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1. The only reason you and some others get the idea it's larger is because of the habit of so many people on the Left to attach that moniker to almost anyone more than mildly conservative. 

2. Or as Wiki says:  The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right[2] fringe hate groups. I think this is just the same answer as above. The alt-right is not a huge, powerful thing. It's a small collection of idiots and losers.  

3. Because free speech is perhaps the centre and focus of western liberal capitalism and democracy.  The embrace of immigration by the Left is...

 

1. Untrue.  When I engage with people who aren't sad about innocent Muslim children being gunned down in cold blood, and several of them, it's not because they are 'more than mildly conservative'.  But - since you seem to be doing this again - are you saying that conservatives favour hate speech, and are against empathizing with victims of racist terror ?

2. None of what you said is controversial but fringe groups are a threat nonetheless.

3. You are wasting my time by conflating criticism of immigration with hate speech.  I engage with plenty of haters and almost nobody who has well-founded arguments against immigration, even though they are easy to articulate.

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Untrue.  When I engage with people who aren't sad about innocent Muslim children being gunned down in cold blood,

Are you sad about the Christian children gunned down in Nigeria last month? What about the Christian children blown up in Egypt or the Philippines? Are you sad about the Muslim children blown up in Syria last week or in Yemen? What about the Muslim children who died in Sudan? Are you sad about the people who died in the cyclone in Mozambique or the chemical plant explosion in China? What about the ferry sinking in Iraq last week?

I don't want to seem cold but just how sad can we get over the deaths of people we never met? Especially when we get this continuing parade of disaster on our TV screens? 

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

and several of them, it's not because they are 'more than mildly conservative'.  But - since you seem to be doing this again - are you saying that conservatives favour hate speech, and are against empathizing with victims of racist terror ?

So anyone who believes in freedom of speech is someone who favours hate speech? The religious fanaticism is strong in you. I can sense the zeal in your eyes, the determination to punish the sinners wherever they may be found. And if I'm not on side with your blaspheme law I must be eternally damned and cast out!

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. None of what you said is controversial but fringe groups are a threat nonetheless.

Pretty damned small one.

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You are wasting my time by conflating criticism of immigration with hate speech.  I engage with plenty of haters and almost nobody who has well-founded arguments against immigration, even though they are easy to articulate.

Hey, I asked you a question with regard to whether, if high immigration was the root cause of the rise of the far right you would support lowering it and you have refused to even address it. The point I'm making is you want to eliminate the ability of the far right to communicate for fear they will attract more widespread support but won't do anything to to address the only real issue likely to grant them that wider support.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Stop hiding the unpleasant truth that we bear responsibility for fomenting much of the terrorism that's wracking our world.

I doubt that will do much to ease the polarization but I guess that's what makes it so unpleasant. Its pretty obvious why politicians don't want to go there.

We bear some of the responsibility, while others bear the rest. We also give humanitarian aid to underprivileged nations as well. This person was given such aid, and a chance to escape the war zone and start a new life. That kind of support was not good enough.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

You mean like changing a regime or fighting commies without fucking everything up?

Any kind of things.