Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bush_cheney2004

Muslims Shot and Killed in Quebec City

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Don't worry you come thru loud and clear and there's no ambiguity whatsoever.

I'm usually ambivalent about ambiguity, but not where this stuff is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

That's what the 'powers that be' want, have all of us bitch at each other instead of talking about the problem.

I will say that this was indeed 100% terrorism.

 

Depends whether or not he had a goal to which those who were not killed are now terrorised such that he is closer to it.

He could just be a right bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Depends whether or not he had a goal to which those who were not killed are now terrorised such that he is closer to it.

He could just be a right bastard.

Right, he should have shot ALL of them, maybe that would get you to recognize what terrorism is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-alexandre-bissonnette-profile-1.3959581

Quote

A shy chess-player, a bullied introvert, a moderate conservative turned far-right troll — these are the descriptions being offered of Alexandre Bissonnette since he was accused of perpetrating a deadly shooting at a Quebec City mosque. 

Bissonnette looked nervous during his brief court appearance on Monday. He didn't say a word and shuffled in his handcuffs; before being escorted out, he was charged with 11 counts of murder and attempted murder. 

He could still face more charges as the RCMP examine whether to add terrorism to the list of offences.

Why the F are they not calling this terrorism? RIGHT, it's because he's not Muslim!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GostHacked said:

Right, he should have shot ALL of them, maybe that would get you to recognize what terrorism is?

Can't shoot all of them.  There's about 1.5 billion of them.  His barrel would melt.

I know what terrorism is.  Or should I say, I knew.  That's the problem.  It used to mean one had a goal in mind towards which a certain amount of terror might contribute. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Can't shoot all of them.  There's about 1.5 billion of them.  His barrel would melt.

I know what terrorism is.  Or should I say, I knew.  That's the problem.  It used to mean one had a goal in mind towards which a certain amount of terror might contribute. 

 

Can't shoot all of them?  Geeze and to think I was going to post that I thought people here might actually applaud what he did.  You included on that list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GostHacked said:

Can't shoot all of them?  Geeze and to think I was going to post that I thought people here might actually applaud what he did.  You included on that list?

Is that how you reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-alexandre-bissonnette-profile-1.3959581

Why the F are they not calling this terrorism? RIGHT, it's because he's not Muslim!!!!!!!

well they certainly could and, as bcsapper points out, Have called it terrorism. But in this case, I do not see the point. Murder charges are going to put him away as good as anything. Now, if there was more than him planning and plotting away then certainly a Terrorism charge would be appropriate to him and whatever compatriots he had.

But, it seems this was a lone wolf thing. Murder charges will do just fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GostHacked said:

I don't understand your question.

How did you get from my replying to your comment that he should have shot all of them to putting me on a list of people who applaud what he did?

I might have to read it in the morning.  It's bedtime in Alberta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Can't shoot all of them.  There's about 1.5 billion of them.  His barrel would melt.

 

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

How did you get from my replying to your comment that he should have shot all of them to putting me on a list of people who applaud what he did?

What what now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Right, he should have shot ALL of them, maybe that would get you to recognize what terrorism is?

 

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Can't shoot all of them.  There's about 1.5 billion of them.  His barrel would melt.

I know what terrorism is.  Or should I say, I knew.  That's the problem.  It used to mean one had a goal in mind towards which a certain amount of terror might contribute. 

 

 

How does that put me on your list?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm usually ambivalent about ambiguity, but not where this stuff is concerned.

No, it's crystal clear you think understanding something is the same as supporting it.  Stephan Harper did the very same thing when he accused Tom MulCaire of being with the terrorists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all coming out now....Quebec's ugly "ethno-nationalism" has been around for a very long time, and indeed encouraged:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ethnic-nationalism-quebec-1.3960340

Easier for Quebec/Canada to just hide behind Donald Trump than to face its own ethnic/racist demons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it's crystal clear you think understanding something is the same as supporting it.  Stephan Harper did the very same thing when he accused Tom MulCaire of being with the terrorists.

Actually, no.  That was the question I asked of you.  I'm glad to see we're on the same page.  Finally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is the new normal.  What sucks is this kind of thing is just going to get much worse before it gets better.  More Muslims and non-white immigrants will keep immigrating to white-majority western countries over the coming decades and likely the rest of the 21st century, and white-western populations will continue to shrink (1.5 babies per white couple in western countries) while Muslim and non-white populations in western countries will continue to get bigger.  As these types of people feel culturally and racially threatened existentially, violence and discriminatory gov policies are inevitable.  Trump is not the last of his kind in the West either.

What you describe is how we got Trump. Open immigration and a welfare society don't mix. Full stop.

Muslims don't help with the birth rate problem if they're not ready and willing workers. We can have lots of people at the snap of a finger by providing them with transportation and then welfare benefits when they get here. And lots of mouths to feed as well.

Edited by jbg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smallc said:

It really is.  That isn't the experience in Canada.  That isn't the experience of individual Muslim people.

Of course it's not the experience in Canada. Muslims only make up 3.2% of the population. When I point out such information it is to suggest that we should be looking much more carefully at the immigrants we draw from that population out in the world which feels that way. I'm sure twenty years ago the French and British and Germans and  Swedes were similarly nonchalant about what was going on elsewhere, and also had few problems when their Muslim population was very small. Now you have Angela Merkel, the queen of multicult and open arms passing a law against wearing face coverings, and police with machineguns guarding Christmas markets.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smallc said:

You're probably right (though I'm not sure how you can broad brush an individual).  The reality is, we've done a a pretty good job of picking immigrants, based on our outcomes.  

On what basis do you make that statement? According to every study I've read over the past ten years immigrant economic outcomes continue to deteriorate. Immigrants are more likely to be unemployed than the Canadian-born while in the US, immigrants are LESS likely to be unemployed than the American-born. Are Canadian immigrants more assimilated than American immigrants? I don't see any evidence of this. I think they are less so, actually. Are Canadian Muslims less likely to hold anti-social views than American Muslims? I haven't seen any evidence of this, either.

We and the Americans have done a better job of integrating immigrants than the Europeans, but that's probably because almost all the immigrants to Europe have been migrants, mostly Muslims from the middle east and north Africa, while we and the US have drawn in immigrants from all across the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Individual Muslim people, not person.

I fully agree that your quality of immigrant is top drawer.  Splendid, in fact!

And on what basis is this opinion made? Every social housing area I've ever heard of or seen is packed with non-white faces speaking non-English languages. Every police most-wanted poster seems filled with non-white faces and very foreign names. And every report I have read, official or from private industry, claims that immigrant economic success has been deteriorating for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smallc said:

Canada has what is probably the most successful system of immigration and refugee settlement in the world.  

Just like we have the best health care system in the world, based upon knowing nothing about anyone elses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smallc said:

And again, we're talking about bad Muslims in a thread where a bunch of good Muslims we're killed by a bad white French speaking guy.

Because people are using the deaths to suggest that those who oppose the social views and ideology of Islam are in part responsible and that they should stop doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smallc said:

The tragedy in Quebec is not a contest.  This is a story of people going bout their lives being killed by someone full of hate.  

True. But when you expand that to suggest those who oppose Islam and its excesses are partly responsible and that they should stop now then you also expand the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

A few posts were taken down because they derail the discussion. Please avoid thread drift.

 

 

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Stick to the topic.

Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain why terrorism is an over used word. To start with when you kill anyone it terrorizes others who witness it or hear about it or survivors. Of course at one level it terrorizes.

However if you are going to use the term in that way then all murders or attempted murders, any assault and/or battery, many other crimes that frighten people en masse o r individually will constitute terrorist acts.

When the word terrorist attack is used, if you use it indiscriminately as Trudeau did and others are, it loses meaning and blurs the definition.

A true terrorist act is organized. It has cells. To carry out the act there is pre-meditated planning. Most often the cells use what we call Algerian disconnected networking. It was made popular by Algerian terrorists fighting the French in Algeria in the 50s'. Each cell working to carry out the act of terror remain disconnected from one another so f each cell is caught, it can't be compelled to disclose what the other cells are doing.

Each cell is given an assigned task and the cells only know the specific task they are given and an "agent" or "handler" or "project manager" assures each cell does what its supposed to do then disbands and gets out of the country.

So one cell is usually in charge of logistics, getting and transferring all the materials needed. One cell does the surveillance and plots the site, and the timing.

An actual attack cell of the actual people who carry out the attack are just the bare no. of people needed to carry it out. They are the most fanatic and are the suicide act  agents of the final act. All the other cells that range from one to many, set up that final act.

The agent and all the other cells blend in to society and get normal jobs, keep very low profiles, and come into the country with fake passports and/or could be residents int he countries born there and recruited.

That's a far cry and much different than one individual who is mentally ill, gets a weapon and goes off on rage killing.

The rage killing we saw in Quebec City, based on preliminary reports appears to be a lobe gunman. If that IS the case, then it is similar to the person who engaged in th shootings in Ottawa, or the rage killings we see at high schools, or the young man who went into a church of praying black people and shot them dead or the person who shot and killed all the people at the gay bar in Florida.

Rage killings are not the same as organized political terrorist killings. The ones you have seen in Paris, Brussels, across Europe, are planned with cells. The planed celled terrorist acts are carried out by cells all unified by an extremist philosophy they all feed into. In most cases we talk of today its been extremist Muslim religious ideology that serves as the glue and ideology behind the motives.

Political terrorism even Muslim terrorist terrorism, is not all the same. Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIL-Daesh, Al Quaeda, Al Nusra, Palestinian Front For the Liberation of Palestine, Intifadah, Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Boka Ratan, all have different methods of operation ranging from very intricate planned out attacks that can take years to quick sporadic attacks thought up quickly.

Other terrorists motivated by other religions or philosophies have similar methods of operation but none are identical. Each has as many unique traits as dismilar ones.

Now all the info above you can read on public information sites. Its there. We live in a democracy if you want to take the time, you can read and educate yourself about it.

What we should be careful about however, is not to lump all crimes into one definition.

The idiot who shot up the mosque in Quebec City is not a political terrorist in the sense the cells were in say Paris. He's working alone, his ideology its true isinfluenced by what he hears from politicians but his most prominent characteristic is he operated lone, he's not organized, and he has identifiable psychiatric pathology, i.e., there is something that makes him anti social and has probably made him that way and what we call border-line, a person one always one step from exploding.

Mentally ill people who go on rage killings unlike true political terrorists don't have political thoughts that are developed to the point where they have spent years rehearing, praying, subscribing to a higher authority. They have no higher authority. In their mind, all decisions begin or end with them not a higher authority. That's a huge difference when profiling and explaining the methods of operation in carrying out the crime.

For one thing there are no multiple cells. The next, the actual rampage is limited to the abilities of the one person in the rage and so knock on wood does not do as much critical and collateral damage both to people and property.

It is possible you can have rage killings carried out by a duo but after that, the more people involved and the more planning is involved, then as the organization hets more developed, then it switches from isolated rage killing to premeditated organized crime, which in turn could be political terrorist if there is organized political thought behind it to an identified political cell or ideology.

Now I hope that explains it because its absolutely pointless to call all rage  killings terrorist. It makes the word redundant. Its like calling any multiple murder a holocaust.

We have to be careful what words we use. We  have to be careful because when one equates a rage killing to a political terrorist act it enables acts of mental illness or rage to become politically exploited.

Just look at how that political exploitation arose on this thread. We get negative generalizations about all Liberals, all Conservatives. If someone says this is a rage killing and not a political one, out comes the name calling of such people as being ant Muslim.

I will give you another specific example. You saw on this forum in response to this incident one poster provided a video fed of what he called Trump supporters saying anti Muslim things. That technique of smeering all Trump supporters as anti Muslims and no different than this rage killer is no different an exercise than in stereotyping ll Muslims as terrorists. Either way we see how people take a tragic issue and use it to engage in negative generalizations of an entire category of people.

That to me is b.s. I try take the time to explain why but I know most people won't read what I write. The few that do I know don't need me saying what I do.

This killing was an act of rage by a mentally ill man because he generalized ALL Muslims as being evil. His beliefs are a mix of anti-Islam (religious) and also as a result of a constellation of personality disorder (psychiatric) characteristics that caused his emotional and cognitive development to build over time until it was triggered to explode. That ability to explode was there for quite some time. The final moment that triggered him into action is something so slight and subtle it can not be predicted. For example it could have been a perceived dirty look while walking by a visible Muslim. It could have ben a reaction to something on t.v.

You and I will not know. It will take a skilled psychiatrist to find out the exact constellation of abnormal development that led to the trigger and then to detect the trigger.

That is a far cry from political terrorist cells where there is no trigger like with a rage killer. The rage killer's trigger can be predicted by a skilled profiler if this killer has been on a spree leaving behind crime scenes but otherwise its not predictable nor can it be prevented. Political terrorists can be. They have no irrational trigger. Their methods are based on a chain of rational command not irrational impulse like the rage killer.

I hope that explains it.

I mean the bottom line is innocent people died while praying. That is dehumanizing, shocking and in this case one of its basic ingredients was Islamophobia that mixed in this rage killer's mind with other thoughts.

It was not however the same political terrorist type act we saw in Paris or Bonn and to say it is, is not helpful in understanding and trying to prevent both..

This individual is mentally ill, clearly. It may trigger copy cat killers. It may be used as a pretense in years to come by terrorists. Terrorists take such acts, engae in terror and say, well our terror only came about as a response to the rage killer. Bull crap. When and if terrorists attack and if they use such an incident as an excuse to engage in terror, they manipulate the very people who can't tell the difference between rage killing and actual terrorist. That is why you must differentiate the two. No act of terrorism is acceptable.

On this forum many posters have defined terrorists as only doing what they do because they react to injustice. That is crap. They do not engage in terrorism because of injustice. The vast majority of us when faced with injustice to not react by killing innocent people and becoming terrorist That is an insult to those of us who have overcome injustice and hardship by engaging in rational discourse.

Rage killings are acts of mental illness. Terrorism is premeditated and deliberate and uses anything and everything as its excuse to justify it. No terrorist has justification for what they do. There is NO reason or rational for a rage killing or a terrorist act. Please distinguish the two because if you don't terrorists will use such incidents of rage and mental illness as their excuse to do what they do and have you then turn around and blame Trump or Zionists, or Jews or whoever it is they claim "made them do it"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...