Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Faisal Hussain - the evolving story


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.

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

No. We start with the observation, and then ask why this is such typical behavior throughout the Muslim world. In every Muslim nation. It is extremely atypical elsewhere, but entirely typical in Muslim nations. And then we suggest there is a link between such behavior and Islam (not far fetched). Then we examine the religious texts of Islam and we find much justification for the things people are doing, ie beheading and otherwise murdering those they consider to be insulting Islam or violating the tenets of Islamic law. We examine what Islam says about how to treat unbelievers, and find a great deal of support for violence against those who refuse to submit (Islam literally means submission). Again, it is hardly a leap to suggest the behavior is linked to the teachings of Islam.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Hey, I might think the Amish are screwy, but they're not dangerous screwy, and they're not growing by leaps and bounds. I think "our" Muslims would eventually be influenced by Canada's more tolerant beliefs if given the chance to assimilate. But they're not getting that chance. A steady stream of tens of thousands of Muslims is immigrating here every year and bringing those hostile and backwards attitudes and beliefs with them. Saudi Arabia continues to 'generously' fund mosques and Islamic schools and community centres in Canada and even provide them with mullahs trained in Saudi Arabia and religious texts from Saudi Arabia. I think this has the potential to be extremely destabilizing as their numbers grow, and I think we need to greaterly lessen the number of Muslims coming from certain parts of the world, and review their social views before admitting them as immigrants. I also think we need to bar all Saudi money and require that prevent their mullahs from coming to work in Canada.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no comparison to be made here. I respect the right of people to kill themselves. I don't believe, however, that they have any moral or practical right to kill others. I also suspect that it's

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 l

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-mentally-ill-the-media-or-the-murderer?video_autoplay=true We should all be troubled that the state broadcaster has inserted itself into this speci

Posted Images

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So is conjecture a problem ?  If so, then don't engage in it.  I have seen reports by people outside the investigation that he was mentally ill.

2. 9/11 had the exact same complaints.  "Why was the steel from the WTC spirited away before it could properly be analyzed ?" was one question i saw a lot.  Officials, of course, can't anticipate what cover-ups will be suspected in the future nor should they.

3. Well, going back to 9/11, there were a lot of things kept quiet for security reasons as well as to cover up errors I'm sure.  Those are the same thing, to a degree.  You don't want to the enemies your weak spots, even after you ostensibly repair them.  I heard tapes of air traffic control and it was pretty chaotic stuff, but it got out.

1.) People generally engage in conjecture when there is no concrete information available to explain issues that are legitimately in the public realm. It seems you'd prefer that our betters determine the matters that are open for public debate, which if factual seems indicative of an undemocratic instinct on your part. We don't live in a cloistered society. And in a democracy it's wise for people to be skeptical when public officials say little or nothing on controversial matters. As for the mental illness theory, I believe the narrative originated with the family and its advocates, However, other than anecdotal reports that are in their own right conflicting, no actual, firm evidence that the shooter was ever diagnosed with or treated for a mental illness serious enough to constitute an explanation for last Sunday's travesty has been disclosed by authorities. So, there's not much to go on where the mental illness narrative is concerned, unless one wants to make excuses...

2. & 3.) To equate the Danforth shooting with 9/11 is ludicrous .The 9/11 attacks were a well-funded and well-orchestrated conspiracy. And quite specific information started emerging very quickly following the horrendous events that transpired on that day. Of course, it eventually became obvious that a security failure was involved. But I don't recall that either the U.S. government or the mainstream media made efforts to block information from being disseminated as it became available. And in other recent events in this county, including the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Yonge St. van massacre, information about motive emerged very quickly. In the first instance, we were quickly told about the shooter's anti-immigration views, and in the second we heard on the same day as the attack about the "incel rebellion" motive and the attacker's online activities. (I'd never heard of the incel subculture until that day.) As it turns out, the Quebec City shooter also suffers mental illness and the Yonge St. attacker suffers with autism. In neither case, however, were these mental and/or social disorders held as tantamount to an excuse for the atrocities committed by these men.

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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.

An exercise also used with regard to the West's behaviour towards much of the Islamic world.  Whether denying or justifying it. "They gave us no choice and they deserve what they get...they deserve what they get because they gave us no choice."

Its an exercise that should be resulting in western leaders being charged with war crimes plus the addition of a new crime against humanity that of providing financial and material aid to dictators.  We clearly had a choice whether to do that or not. No amount of dancing in circles will ever change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Sun learned Toronto Police had multiple contacts with Hussain dating as far back as 2010 when he was a student at Victoria Park Collegiate Institute and told a teacher “it would be really cool to kill someone.”

“If he was threatening to harm himself or others, that would have been grounds to apprehend him under the Mental Health Act,” one cop explained. “But that whole process is a revolving door and he would have been released soon after.”

Sources have also said the RCMP had spoken to Hussain about visiting pro-Islamic State websites.

But Canada’s Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was quick to deny Hussain was on any federal watchlists.

“As far as we’re aware at this stage based on the state of the investigation…there is no connection between that individual and national security,” he told media.

One source with close ties to the policing world scoffed at Goodale’s comment.

“Most people don’t end up having the RCMP show up at their home to talk to them about their online activity,” said the source, who asked not to be named.

The source said the feds, police chief and others have been “playing with words” and “deceiving the public.”

“It’s all political,” the source said.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/danforth-killer-twisted-trail-that-led-to-deadly-rampage

No wonder we are skeptical of our politicians and security authorities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Argus said:

1. We start with the observation, and then ask why this is such typical behavior throughout the Muslim world.

2. And then we suggest there is a link between such behavior and Islam (not far fetched). Then we examine the religious texts of Islam and we find much justification for the things people are doing,

3. Hey, I might think the Amish are screwy, but they're not dangerous screwy, and they're not growing by leaps and bounds. I think "our" Muslims would eventually be influenced by Canada's more tolerant beliefs if given the chance to assimilate. But they're not getting that chance. A steady stream of tens of thousands of Muslims is immigrating here every year and bringing those hostile and backwards attitudes and beliefs with them.  

 

1. Already you show a bias by assuming the conclusion you reached from the observation is correct.

2. At this point you have already decided the religion is the reason and you are looking to validate your foregone conclusion.  You find violence in the holy books (it is in other holy books too) and conclude that is the reason.

3. Freedom of religion works, and there's no reason to think Muslims will be different than other religions.  What is it in the Amish holy book that makes them separate from us btw ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you are talking about overall observations then fair enough, but it doesn't validate a causative relationship between the religion and behaviour.

You really, really, really underestimate the relationship between religious fanaticism and behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 12:09 PM, scribblet said:

...meanwhile our illustrious pm is still surfing but I bet if this had been an attack on a mosque we would hear from him.  Actually this is an abdication of leadership but I bet he shows at the funerals for photo ops

I heard in an item on yesterday evening's news indicating that Trudeau will be in Toronto today, presumably for the funeral of one of the victims. And I assume it likely he'll make an excursion to the Danforth for photo-ops. He's in town anyway, so why not, eh? Maybe he bought new socks? In a column today in the generally pro-Liberal Toronto Star, 'A little patience won't hurt us'', Andrew MacDougall, while lamenting the proliferation of non-factual theories coming from all corners about the shooter, also notes that in the new media age public authorities must be more transparent than has apparently been in the case in the Danforth shooting. MacDougall states that "A population that knows they'll  be updated regularly is one less likely to troll the wilds of the internet for alternative sources of information." He goes on further to opine that "...the frequent proactive disclosure of information is the best course of action for police." MacDougall's piece tries to have it both ways but in the end reflects the reality that even moderate media voices are becoming aware that the way this growing fiasco has been handled undermines confidence in the objectivity of public institutions. If he speaks at all, I wonder whether the feckless Trudeau, who'll no doubt affect a solemn persona in Toronto, will promote the cause of transparency or, alternatively, lecture us about conclusions we mustn't draw. My money is on the latter. We'll see.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You really, really, really underestimate the relationship between religious fanaticism and behaviour.

A relationship is not an estimate so I have to guess at what you are saying. Does fanaticism lead to terrorism?  Of course it does.  We are talking about how to process that information though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I heard in an item on yesterday evening's news indicating that Trudeau will be in Toronto today, presumably for the funeral of one of the victims. And I assume it likely he'll make an excursion to the Danforth for photo-ops. He's in town anyway, so why not, eh? Maybe he bought new socks? .

This is a great vista on how the Trudeau haters lay everything out: Last week we heard that Trudeau wasn't paying attention, didn't say enough and sign visit and show respect to the victims.

Now he's doing that and it's depicted as self serving.  If you want to skewer Trudeau no matter what he does, then that's fine but people who actually enjoy discussing the finer points of policy aren't going to engage with you if you are only in it to paint one side as absolutely wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is a great vista on how the Trudeau haters lay everything out: Last week we heard that Trudeau wasn't paying attention, didn't say enough and sign visit and show respect to the victims.

Now he's doing that and it's depicted as self serving.  If you want to skewer Trudeau no matter what he does, then that's fine but people who actually enjoy discussing the finer points of policy aren't going to engage with you if you are only in it to paint one side as absolutely wrong.

It is self serving and then going to a memorial, it is all about him now..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is a great vista on how the Trudeau haters lay everything out: Last week we heard that Trudeau wasn't paying attention, didn't say enough and sign visit and show respect to the victims.

Now he's doing that and it's depicted as self serving.  If you want to skewer Trudeau no matter what he does, then that's fine but people who actually enjoy discussing the finer points of policy aren't going to engage with you if you are only in it to paint one side as absolutely wrong.

Perhaps you didn't fully read my post, which by implication suggests that Trudeau's credibility will probably be best served at this point by saying nothing. He has little or no right to pontificate on the Danforth fiasco by employing his usual preachy bromides. As Heather Mallick noted in her column in today's Toronto Star, the left has in the absence of a credible official explanation for the shooter's motives transformed the perpetrator into a victim while the right has essentially cast him as a terrorist. But, of the two extremes, which one is more defensible? Mallick casts the two views as equally problematic but I doubt that general public opinion does. Trudeau's government has thus far sided with the obscurantists, so he and his colleagues are part of the problem. That's a common sense conclusion.

Obviously you've made you mind up on this topic, which presumably is why you don't appear to want to engage contributors who offer credible opinions on the other side. Your 'ad hominem' critique isn't credible.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turningrite said:

I heard in an item on yesterday evening's news indicating that Trudeau will be in Toronto today, presumably for the funeral of one of the victims. And I assume it likely he'll make an excursion to the Danforth for photo-ops. He's in town anyway, so why not, eh? Maybe he bought new socks? In a column today in the generally pro-Liberal Toronto Star, 'A little patience won't hurt us'', Andrew MacDougall, while lamenting the proliferation of non-factual theories coming from all corners about the shooter, also notes that in the new media age public authorities must be more transparent than has apparently been in the case in the Danforth shooting. MacDougall states that "A population that knows they'll  be updated regularly is one less likely to troll the wilds of the internet for alternative sources of information." He goes on further to opine that "...the frequent proactive disclosure of information is the best course of action for police." MacDougall's piece tries to have it both ways but in the end reflects the reality that even moderate media voices are becoming aware that the way this growing fiasco has been handled undermines confidence in the objectivity of public institutions. If he speaks at all, I wonder whether the feckless Trudeau, who'll no doubt affect a solemn persona in Toronto, will promote the cause of transparency or, alternatively, lecture us about conclusions we mustn't draw. My money is on the latter. We'll see.

When it comes to Trudeau, he is only concerned about his image and nothing more. I mean let's be honest here. If Trump was not doing what he has been doing as far as showing his concern about tragic incidents that have happened in America do you think that Trudeau would be doing it now? Trudeau is being forced to do it and nothing more. That prime mistake of ours has no time for Canadians. The fool shows us that every day. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

 Trudeau's credibility will probably be best served at this point by saying nothing. He has little or no right to pontificate on the Danforth fiasco by employing his usual preachy bromides.

I expect Canadians will get a good tongue-lashing from him for causing this person to open fire on the public.  Sort of like his "Canadians have no appreciation for Canada, only refugees appreciate Canada" speech for Canada's 150th Birthday - that was nice.  Or maybe like his indignant speech to chastise Canadians immediately after the hijab-cutting hoax.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. Perhaps you didn't fully read my post, 

2. Obviously you've made you mind up on this topic

3.  you don't appear to want to engage contributors who offer credible opinions on the other side.  

1. I did.

2. I haven't really expressed any opinion on Trudeau but TDS stands for Trudeau Derangement Syndrome as well as Trump.  Many people seem to have one of these.  Can you admit it ?

3. I can accept that more information should have come out by now.  Is that enough of an engagement ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, scribblet said:

My guess is political interference is behind lack of information. ..

Did we just dodge a 9.11. 2.0.  https://canadafreepress.com/article/did-we-just-dodge-9-11-2.0

That is a stunning link. Carfentanil in that quantity, 42 kg, could only be intended for use as a chemical weapon.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scribblet said:

My guess is political interference is behind lack of information. ..

Did we just dodge a 9.11. 2.0.  https://canadafreepress.com/article/did-we-just-dodge-9-11-2.0

Canada Free Press ... Happy to publish misleading information and deny science to support right wing and Christian agendas.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Canada Free Press ... Happy to publish misleading information and deny science to support right wing and Christian agendas.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/

Yes that is a horseshit source as we all know, but as has been pointed out it's been a week now.  If the government doesn't provide information then leeches and subhumans like these and The Rebel will step into the void.

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

Yes that is a horseshit source as we all know, but as has been pointed out it's been a week now.  If the government doesn't provide information then leeches and subhumans like these and The Rebel will step into the void.

What part of the link do you call horseshit? I provided another link to show that the claims it makes about this chemical are quite true, including the very high toxicity, and concerns about its use as a chemical weapon by terrorists. These concerns were raise by the Assistant US Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs who served under Obama. Do you call that horseshit as well?

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

1. What part of the link do you call horseshit?

2. I provided another link... 

3. Do you call that horseshit as well?

1. The paper is horseshit and not a credible source.  I wouldn't quote Pravda on here and expect you to believe it.  This is a hack partisan rag.

2. Ok.

3. No, I do not.  Government sources are ok.

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

1. The paper is horseshit and not a credible source.  I wouldn't quote Pravda on here and expect you to believe it.  This is a hack partisan rag.

2. Ok.

3. No, I do not.  Government sources are ok.

And yet by your own admission in this instance that partisan rag is telling the truth about the potential use of this substance as a weapon. The dosage needed to use it recreationally is very very small. These people had 42 kg, enough to overdose millions of people. I think it makes sense to assume they were planning on using it for something other than selling it as drugs.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, 

Obviously any source correct or not is horse sh.t if u don't agree with it, and yes, the Info. About the chemicals is fact.  We dodged a bullet.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2873243/rcmp-say-theyve-seized-unique-substance-more-lethal-than-fentanyl/amp/?

And..  Chris Doucette of the TheTorontoSun reports 2 wks before the mass shooting a security guard saw FaisalHussain with a gun & called  TorontoPolice who were apparently too busy to check it out. https://t.co/TV0OTIPApQ

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by scribblet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

leeches and subhumans like these

Here's where you go over the top. You like to believe you are fair and non-biased, non partisan, not stuck in believing certain "memes". Well Mimi, I hate to say it but you get the irony award again.

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Obviously any source correct  or not is horse sh.the. if u don't agree with it, and yes, the Info. About the chemicals is fact.

 

Yes scribblet, I agree. Without this info we would have no idea what the Hussain's were up to. Thank you for having the courage to post it.

As if there were not enough bullshit being flung around these by days. Even the "trusted" government seems to want to lie, and fool us.

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1
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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...