Quebec Mosque Shooting
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
So if an individuals interpretation makes Trump the problem, I submit even one jihadist makes Muhammad the problem.
That cool with you?
I'd say it's more the inflammatory imam's problem. The UK had been trying for ages trying to get Anjem Choudary for his hate-laced, inflammatory praise of violent jihad and finally did when he signed an oath to ISIS. And yes, I support the UK in that effort.
I believe in free speech but with limits and responsibilities. The old nugget about yelling fire in a crowded theater applies (or should apply...) to presidents and religious zealots as much as anyone.
This happens every time a similar event unfolds, and every time the conspiracy nuts come out with the same tinfoil nonsense. I don't understand why its hard for people to understand that there is a high level of confusion in hectic situations.
When that moron in Ottawa shot the defenceless soldier, there were reports of multiple gunmen and even an explosion at the Rideau centre! If you were watching and listening live, you believed it was a wide scale terrorist attack (bombings included) in the city.
People are information-hungry and commerical news outlets are profit-hungry. First with the scoop satiates a public need for any info and makes the media outlet money in some indirect way. Of course it also leads to confusing, "fake news" claims and the like. With this practice commonplace now it's important that the constant flow of commentary and "news" carry clarifications and corrections when new info comes along.
We have to go with the facts that emerge after the dust settles, not necessarily what seems apparent in the immediate confusion after the event.
It's quite apparent now that of the 2 people who were detained and initially called "suspects", one really was the suspect, and the other one was a witness.
This should not be hard to understand, nor should it be grounds for people to develop conspiracy theories.
It's quite apparent now that of the 2 people who were detained and initially called "suspects", one really was the suspect, and the other one was a witness.
This should not be hard to understand, nor should it be grounds for people to develop conspiracy theories.
Inflammatory imam's you say.. can you show me a quote where Trump tells people to go out and attack people of the Muslim faith? You seeing my point yet? Your ilk will say and link anything, no matter how flimsy the connection, in a pure unadulterated hate for one man. Bravo.
Not at all, it is the fog of the situation. Only two original suspects.
One guy was there helping wounded and when the cop walked in with a gun he ran thinking the shooter came back. Once he realized it was the cops he complied but because he ran they thought he was a perp. After a night in jail they sorted that out. Lots of people here want him to be the bad guy because it fits their narrative. He should consider himself lucky he was not shot, if it was the US he would be dead, here maybe a 50/50... They gave two different last names for this guy in the news by mistake (I think mixing in a middle name), but it is the same guy--maybe that is where you are confused.
The other guy (White Right Christian Trump Supporter) was the shooter and called and basically turned himself in on the bridge.
Hats off to the police that responded for not just shooting them.
I love when people are only able to think in black and white. Your ilk are prone to take the specious position that unless two examples equate down to the quantum level they are incomparable. Try thinking in "degrees of rhetoric" and perhaps you'll start to understand.
Trump is smart enough to use the white fright card without telling people to directly go out and kill. But there have been many US right wing ministers that have come out and said it one way or another:
Robert Doggart
Franklin Graham
Benny Hinn
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell
Jimmy Swaggart
Chuck Baldwin
and those are just the well known ones. Now they tend to also "try" and skirt the line, the usual is something along the lines we are under attack and we have to fight back. They are the devil, etc. The idea is to insight this type of violence without fully crossing the hate speech line (although they have crossed it many times). IMO, not much different than than the Imams that do the same, just more dooochy. Some will argue that it is just a response, some will argue it is an escalation, some will argue they are insighting terrorism. Many of these turds also say things like the bible was right to stone gay people, but they don't say stone gay people...see how that works.
Also, keep in mind historically terrorism was a Christian (prot vs cath) thing and a Jewish thing. Muslim terrorism at this scale is a modern thing (1900s and on). IMO if your magical sky man and his earthly mouth pieces tell you to do bad things, get a new magical sky man (or none at all).
Oh I understand, said as much back here
Keep it up, radical assertions like yours only strengthen the opposition to the left in it's entirety. You're doing good work son.
Does this excuse the fact that modern day terrorism against Western ideals is a Muslim domain?
As for your list, I can only think of one recent mass attack which might be contributed to Christian beliefs and that would be Robert Dear. Just about every other event is Islam. Can we just call a spade a spade? The current threat of terrorism is the domain of one group of people.
So attack them... or as the point I made earlier suggest, if it's okay to go after Trump as the source, then it's okay to go to Muhammad as the source... can't have it both ways guys
I disagree and six dead people and five others wounded in Quebec also prove this wrong. The right wing threat is a large concern, the difference is the current label. When the kid in Calgary killed the other students and said Jesus made me do it, why was that not labelled terrorism? The right wing nut that killed all those black people in the church in the US, that was not called terrorism, why not, it was. The list goes on, even in Quebec, chargers are six murder and five attempted, I still hold out terrorism will be added but it should have been first. If you say greater threat, sure I give you that, only threat NO WAY. BTW don't forget the guy in Norway.... the list is very long but the label is not always there.
They are all bad, so yes. Just don't WHITE wash the actions of the right wing terrorists and those that encourage them (pun intended). In fact there have been left wing terrorists in the past as well....
Again, if your magic sky man or his earthly mouth pieces tell you to do bad things, find a new magic sky man or none at all.
To be fair, Quebec has been doing a master class in racism for the past while that predates Trump. However, having a nice figurehead in the Whitehouse that appears to provide support for warped racist ideals can't help.
Agree totally.
I meant that Islamic terrorism is the predominant kind. I never said it was the only kind.
Looking at a list of US terrorist attacks of recent years, I feel I'm very much right. The biggest, most notable, and most impactful attacks (not just in North America) are almost exclusively committed by Islamists.
Last edited:
