Another one....
Link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/soldier-shot-at-national-war-memorial-in-ottawa-1.2808710)
Shots fired inside the parliament too.
The hell?
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 09:35:47 AM
Another one....
Link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/soldier-shot-at-national-war-memorial-in-ottawa-1.2808710)
Shots fired inside the parliament too.
Do dear.
Ant the best thing Ottawans can do is, turn up at work tomorrow like it's just another day and not change their behaviour or schedule at all. No matter what is happening at the moment.
Another homegrown converted muslim?!
Homegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization. :glare:
And the apologists are already at work - it's not about Islam - even though the perpetrators themselves claim it is - these are just individual psychos...
I take the metro every day - and I see an increasing number of those bearded nutjobs reading their evil book. I'm certain something will happen in there at some point.
G.
Suspect has been killed, according to Conservative MP.
I'm impressed that grallon can tell he's a muslim from the description we have so far: "man running with double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans."
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 09:59:28 AM
I'm impressed that grallon can tell he's a muslim from the description we have so far: "man running with double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans."
Yeah, he's that good. ;) :P
The Atlantic gives more details though:
QuoteAn eyewitness of the incident told The Globe and Mail that the shooter "got away," and described them as having long, dark hair. Another eye witness told the CBC that the shooter is a male, tall, thin with a black and white headscarf, carrying a long gun.
The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/shooter-canadian-parliament/381767/)
Still, no confirmation it's one of these homegrown terrorist. Could be a lunatic like the one in Moncton who shot 3 RCMP agents last summer.
Witness hear shots from Château Laurier (a 5* hotel near the Parliament). More than one shooter apparently.
Gun shot exchange in the Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGqoISd-do&list=UUsZYUb8C_19bWOCKF9jRwSg)
Talks of 3 shooters, 2 dead.
1 solider injured and maybe another person. It's hard to tell with live events like this, info & rumours are mixed.
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 09:59:28 AM
I'm impressed that grallon can tell he's a muslim from the description we have so far: "man running with double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans."
Grallon is being is usual asshole self but you know the odds this is muslim related are astronomic.
2nd assailment was apprently shot by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliement. That might be a first.
Didn't an Islamoid run down two Canadian soldiers a couple of days ago?
Its hard to tell exactly what is happening. Could be one gunman who was seen going from the first shooting to Parliament. Could be multiple shooters. But the report is the police are assuming multiple shooters. Everything is locked down. Military bases across the country are also now on lockdown and military personal who are off base have been told to stay inside and secure until the nature and scope of the threat can be determined.
Despite all the confusion I think one thing is certain. This attack is going to change the way Canadians think about terrorism.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 22, 2014, 10:48:49 AM
Didn't an Islamoid run down two Canadian soldiers a couple of days ago?
Yes and the likelihood is that this is another such attack but we dont know enough details yet to be sure.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
2nd assailment was apprently shot by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliement. That might be a first.
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
2nd assailment was apprently shot by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliement. That might be a first.
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
He should be knighted by the Queen. :bowler:
NY Times reports the soldier has died :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
2nd assailment was apprently shot by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliement. That might be a first.
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
would have been cool if he got him with the mace
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2014, 10:58:17 AM
NY Times reports the soldier has died :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
:( RIP
Quote from: HVC on October 22, 2014, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
2nd assailment was apprently shot by the Sergeant at Arms of Parliement. That might be a first.
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
would have been cool if he got him with the mace
That is exactly what my wife said as we were listening to the radio on the way to work. :)
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 10:40:22 AM
Talks of 3 shooters, 2 dead.
1 solider injured and maybe another person. It's hard to tell with live events like this, info & rumours are mixed.
Three shooters? Yeah, that makes it much more likely it's a coordinated terrorist attack rather than a single lunatic.
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 10:40:22 AM
Talks of 3 shooters, 2 dead.
1 solider injured and maybe another person. It's hard to tell with live events like this, info & rumours are mixed.
Three shooters? Yeah, that makes it much more likely it's a coordinated terrorist attack rather than a single lunatic.
I don't know that's been confirmed, there are always rumors flying around in this kind of situation.
Quote from: HVC on October 22, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2014, 10:58:17 AM
NY Times reports the soldier has died :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
:( RIP
CTV reported that he's alive.
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 11:03:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 10:40:22 AM
Talks of 3 shooters, 2 dead.
1 solider injured and maybe another person. It's hard to tell with live events like this, info & rumours are mixed.
Three shooters? Yeah, that makes it much more likely it's a coordinated terrorist attack rather than a single lunatic.
The one shooter that is known was seen moving from shooting the soldier to Parliament Hill which is only about 150 meters away. A witness said the shooter wore a scarf with arabic writing on it. If that report is accurate it seems likely that this is not a "lunatic" but rather another radicalized terrorist.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 11:18:36 AM
The one shooter that is known was seen moving from shooting the soldier to Parliament Hill which is only about 150 meters away. A witness said the shooter wore a scarf with arabic writing on it. If that report is accurate it seems likely that this is not a "lunatic" but rather another radicalized terrorist.
Yeah, though it's probably better to wait until we have more facts to draw any real conclusions.
Depending on when the shootings occurred, they look close enough to have been done by one man
map
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0kEVftCcAAVuE5.jpg
Are there many terrorists that are not radicalized?
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 11:18:36 AM
The one shooter that is known was seen moving from shooting the soldier to Parliament Hill which is only about 150 meters away. A witness said the shooter wore a scarf with arabic writing on it. If that report is accurate it seems likely that this is not a "lunatic" but rather another radicalized terrorist.
Yeah, though it's probably better to wait until we have more facts to draw any real conclusions.
Agreed. Which is why I was pointing out that the conclusion that the shooter was a "lunatic" may be a mischaracterization of what is really going on :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 11:27:17 AM
Agreed. Which is why I was pointing out that the conclusion that the shooter was a "lunatic" may be a mischaracterization of what is really going on :)
Good point :)
You know you are in Canada when the follow up conversation after stating the latest news in the ottawa shooting is to ask : Is the NHL game in Ottawa tonight still on?
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2014, 11:24:47 AM
Are there many terrorists that are not radicalized?
Guns for hire.
This is all over the news here, constant coverage. Hard to get real details as yet since things are still ongoing, obvioiusly. The news station did have one or two MPs speaking who were in the building and had to be evacuated. Wednesdays are the days when Parliament has some kind of formal meetings? So I'm assuming this was timed for today for that reason.
I also heard that a few years ago that a large group of terrorists were caught before they could make an attack on Ottawa. So this kind of thing has some background to it. Also that Ottawa isn't as fortified as Washington or London, making it an easier target for the crazies.
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2014, 01:06:14 PM
Wednesdays are the days when Parliament has some kind of formal meetings? So I'm assuming this was timed for today for that reason.
Its caucus day. This is the day when Parliament begins its proceedings in the afternoon to allow time for the parties to hold their internal caucus meetings in the morning. Its actually the worst time for the attacker(s) because nobody would have been walking around Parliament at that time - everyone of any significance was in meetings. I think we can thank the poor timing of this attack for the fact that no one in the Parliament buildings was shot.
On a normal day Parliamentary proceedings would have started in the morning and there would have been a large number of potential targets walking about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2014, 01:06:14 PM
Wednesdays are the days when Parliament has some kind of formal meetings? So I'm assuming this was timed for today for that reason.
Its caucus day. This is the day when Parliament begins its proceedings in the afternoon to allow time for the parties to hold their internal caucus meetings in the morning. Its actually the worst time for the attacker(s) because nobody would have been walking around Parliament at that time - everyone of any significance was in meetings. I think we can thank the poor timing of this attack for the fact that no one in the Parliament buildings was shot.
On a normal day Parliamentary proceedings would have started in the morning and there would have been a large number of potential targets walking about.
Which again points to below intelligence attackers, no doubt vulnerable/isolated individuals latching onto or being indoctrinated by skilled preachers/activists. And ending up doing something stupid, in a stupid way, for a stupid cause and ending with a stupid waste of life.
This is pure speculation, but I heard there was some intelligence about this and maybe even arrests. In which case this could have been a desperate move to get some shots in before they all got rounded up.
Quote from: Jacob on October 22, 2014, 09:59:28 AM
I'm impressed that grallon can tell he's a muslim from the description we have so far: "man running with double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans."
He knew Muslims were involved in the Norway bombing and massacre as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2014, 01:06:14 PM
Wednesdays are the days when Parliament has some kind of formal meetings? So I'm assuming this was timed for today for that reason.
Its caucus day. This is the day when Parliament begins its proceedings in the afternoon to allow time for the parties to hold their internal caucus meetings in the morning. Its actually the worst time for the attacker(s) because nobody would have been walking around Parliament at that time - everyone of any significance was in meetings. I think we can thank the poor timing of this attack for the fact that no one in the Parliament buildings was shot.
On a normal day Parliamentary proceedings would have started in the morning and there would have been a large number of potential targets walking about.
Good that the shooter at Parliament was stopped before he could do any damage there, and that apparently there weren't many people for him to get to at the time before he was shot by security. I guess he's the one who did shoot the soldier at the memorial though.
As expected, homegrown.
QuoteLaw enforcement and U.S. government sources tell CBS News the dead shooting suspect is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, born 1982, and he is believed to be Canadian-born.
EDIT: from Montreal. <sigh>
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2014, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2014, 11:24:47 AM
Are there many terrorists that are not radicalized?
Guns for hire.
I don't want to chase this too far, as I have no interest in nit-picky semantics debates, but to me one of the main things about a terrorist is a political motive. I suppose a terrorist organization could hire some no-believing mercenaries but that would be a strange approach and I can't think of an example of that happening.
My original point, was that "radicalized terrorist" as used above seemed very redundant but I Googled 'radicalized' while writing this and the first two pages are all about the radicalized Canadians that carried out these attacks, so I suppose Canuck was just using terms that had become commonplace.
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2014, 03:34:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2014, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2014, 11:24:47 AM
Are there many terrorists that are not radicalized?
Guns for hire.
I don't want to chase this too far, as I have no interest in nit-picky semantics debates, but to me one of the main things about a terrorist is a political motive. I suppose a terrorist organization could hire some no-believing mercenaries but that would be a strange approach and I can't think of an example of that happening.
Carlos "The Jackal" apparently received a lot of personal cash for taking OPEC hostages; Abu Nidal was often described as, essentially, a mercenary terrorist.
Quote from: sbr on October 22, 2014, 03:34:27 PM
My original point, was that "radicalized terrorist" as used above seemed very redundant but I Googled 'radicalized' while writing this and the first two pages are all about the radicalized Canadians that carried out these attacks, so I suppose Canuck was just using terms that had become commonplace.
The reason these people are referred to as "radicalized" is because they were otherwise normal citizens who took a significant turn in their world view. The person from Quebec, for example, is a good example of a person who became radicalized.
But not all people who are radicalized are terrorists and not all terrorists are radicalized. For example a person may always hold a paricular world view and turn to terrorism to achieve their ends.
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
As expected, homegrown.
QuoteLaw enforcement and U.S. government sources tell CBS News the dead shooting suspect is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, born 1982, and he is believed to be Canadian-born.
EDIT: from Montreal. <sigh>
The message is obvious: we cannot trust people from Quebec.
;)
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
:o Wow. Did Black Rod personally arrest him too? :mellow:
QuoteWhich again points to below intelligence attackers, no doubt vulnerable/isolated individuals latching onto or being indoctrinated by skilled preachers/activists. And ending up doing something stupid, in a stupid way, for a stupid cause and ending with a stupid waste of life.
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
I feel the comma is saving that sentence from being utter garbage.
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
True, but as I was hearing the reports coming in this morning I reflected on how much worse it could have been if this guy had ready access to the kind of weaponry Americans can purchase.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2014, 06:16:48 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
True, but as I was hearing the reports coming in this morning I reflected on how much worse it could have been if this guy had ready access to the kind of weaponry Americans can purchase.
On that there can be no argument.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
I came in to remark on this - rumour has it that the sergeant-at-arms for the House of Commons personally shot an assailant - pretty sure that's a first.
:o Wow. Did Black Rod personally arrest him too? :mellow:
QuoteWhich again points to below intelligence attackers, no doubt vulnerable/isolated individuals latching onto or being indoctrinated by skilled preachers/activists. And ending up doing something stupid, in a stupid way, for a stupid cause and ending with a stupid waste of life.
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
Yeah, that's a great film, truthful, funny and tragic. And from who else but Mr Brassneck. :cool:
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:07:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
As expected, homegrown.
QuoteLaw enforcement and U.S. government sources tell CBS News the dead shooting suspect is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, born 1982, and he is believed to be Canadian-born.
EDIT: from Montreal. <sigh>
The message is obvious: we cannot trust people from Quebec.
;)
I was gonna say we cannot trust people from Montreal ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
Most guns are legal for purchase in Canada, you just can't buy them at a Wal-Mart on a sunday morning ;)
Those that can't be bought legally can be bought illegally. It's about as hard to find as drugs.
Ammo is the hard part, no?
It's the little pointy part.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2014, 08:26:36 PM
Ammo is the hard part, no?
It's getting the license to own a non hunting rifle that is hard.
You need to belong to a shooting club, be a hunter, be a collector or prove you really need a gun. Then the cops check on you, and if everything clears, you may be allowed to buy one.
Some models available in the US are totally forbidden though, but not that many.
And if the non hunting rifles aren't registered, you can not legally buy ammo.
Hunting rifles like the one used are ok outside of Quebec.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/pittsburgh-penguins-show-solidarity-by-playing-o-canada-1.2809639
QuotePittsburgh Penguins show solidarity by playing 'O Canada'
After a tragic day in Ottawa, the NHL and the Pittsburgh Penguins proved that they are about more than just hockey. The Penguins decided to play the Canadian national anthem prior to their game against the Philadelphia Flyers Wednesday night.
The lyrics to "O Canada" were placed on the scoreboard to encourage fan participation in the singing of both anthems. It was a touching moment that emphasized that this is more than just a game.
Fans and Canadians showed their appreciation to the Penguins on Twitter.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0l6pHiCIAAXe3n.jpg)
The Sergeant-at-Arms killed the gunman :cool:
I think Mr Vickers can expect another medal from her maj soon :cool:
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
getting rid of the political correctness nonsense takes a while
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
getting rid of the political correctness nonsense takes a while
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
So 1 dead & 2 wounded. This isn't even the worse shooting in a Parliement in Canada.
In 84, man in quebec killed 3 & wounded 13. Perpetrator is still alive, actually he's free. Iirc, he was jailed for ~10 years.
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
Not sure what difference that would have made in these circumstances.
"Attacker, shot dead in parliament, was brandishing a
registered long gun ..."
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2014, 08:07:25 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
Not sure what difference that would have made in these circumstances.
"Attacker, shot dead in parliament, was brandishing a registered long gun ..."
Is this social media sourced, bbc reported photo likely to be both real and the suspect?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78466000%2Fjpg%2F_78466921_84345dab-b7ce-4650-b469-631032701f8e.jpg&hash=57eeaf1060465a594179d54c9da224c02cb5a89a)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 23, 2014, 01:57:04 AM
The Sergeant-at-Arms killed the gunman :cool:
I think Mr Vickers can expect another medal from her maj soon :cool:
An odd dramatic experience to have near the end of his career, it seems he's been a very senior career police officer, though he might well have never shot someone, so he takes up this important, but also ceremonial job and has to kill an attacker.
The sort of decision you'd expect a young front-line city policeman to have to make and yet at around the age of 60 he finds himself having to make that sort of correct split second decision. :cool:
His mom works for the I immagration board. Feel kind of bad for her that they released her info and picture.
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 09:03:46 AM
His mom works for the I immagration board. Feel kind of bad for her that they released her info and picture.
Yeah, that's pretty shoddy journalism.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
getting rid of the political correctness nonsense takes a while
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
Sadly I say a third of the board already has. I repost something that libertarians showed me, I get all sorts of shit from people. grallon goes on about genocide: Not a fucking peep. If I stand up against that kind of bullshit Dguller calls me "defender of the faith".
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2014, 08:58:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2014, 08:07:25 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
Not sure what difference that would have made in these circumstances.
"Attacker, shot dead in parliament, was brandishing a registered long gun ..."
Is this social media sourced, bbc reported photo likely to be both real and the suspect?
It's being used here, too. So I assume so.
Check out these pics - as it turns out, the Seargent-at-Arms was wearing his ceremonial garb at the time of the shootout! [Well, minus the hat, chain of office, and mace]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804397/Canadian-sergeant-arms-58-hailed-hero-shooting-dead-terrorist-Zehaf-Bibeau-exchange-gunfire-30-year-career.html
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 09:19:21 AM
Sadly I say a third of the board already has. I repost something that libertarians showed me, I get all sorts of shit from people. grallon goes on about genocide: Not a fucking peep.
You should take it as a compliment. We all realize there is no point in responding to Grallon.
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2014, 09:15:49 AM
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 09:03:46 AM
His mom works for the I immagration board. Feel kind of bad for her that they released her info and picture.
Yeah, that's pretty shoddy journalism.
Remarkably so.
I saw on TV a story titled something like "attacker's mom revealed to be [name]" with her pic.
This is news?
The more you learn about our Sergeant-at-Arms the more you have to admire the guy.
From Wente'e piece in the Globe today:
QuoteAnd I learned that I had woefully underestimated our quaint parliamentary traditions. I'd always thought our sergeant-at-arms was just some guy whose job was to re-enact one of our dustier traditions by dressing up in funny clothes and carrying around a mace (whatever that is). Who knew he was also a crack shot?
But Kevin Vickers, who is 58 and looks it, reportedly can aim and fire with deadly precision when his nation is attacked, then go back into his office to reload. He'll never brag about it, either. That would be un-Canadian.
Mr. Vickers is the reason why terrorism doesn't have a chance in this country. He has made a career of reaching out to Muslims, Sikhs, First Nations, and others who haven't always been included in this country. When the Idle No More movement marched on Parliament Hill, he formally exchanged tobacco with a First Nations chief and said, "I understand your frustration. I understand the conditions in which you people live and I also understand the importance of tobacco and what it means as not only a gift, but as a sign of respect for your people." After the Quebec National Assembly banned the kirpan, he made sure the ceremonial dagger would be allowed in the House of Commons. As he told one gathering of Sikhs, he doesn't like the word "tolerance." "No," he said. "As head of security, I am going to accept and embrace your symbol of faith within the Parliamentary Precinct."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/terrorists-dont-have-a-chance-in-this-country/article21252026/
Man arrested in Halifax, guns found in a bus stop.
News piece (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-police-arrest-man-recover-firearm-on-city-bus-1.2810019).
Probably not related, most likely another lunatic "inspired" by current events.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 09:45:10 AM
The more you learn about our Sergeant-at-Arms the more you have to admire the guy.
From Wente'e piece in the Globe today:
QuoteAnd I learned that I had woefully underestimated our quaint parliamentary traditions. I'd always thought our sergeant-at-arms was just some guy whose job was to re-enact one of our dustier traditions by dressing up in funny clothes and carrying around a mace (whatever that is). Who knew he was also a crack shot?
But Kevin Vickers, who is 58 and looks it, reportedly can aim and fire with deadly precision when his nation is attacked, then go back into his office to reload. He'll never brag about it, either. That would be un-Canadian.
Mr. Vickers is the reason why terrorism doesn't have a chance in this country. He has made a career of reaching out to Muslims, Sikhs, First Nations, and others who haven't always been included in this country. When the Idle No More movement marched on Parliament Hill, he formally exchanged tobacco with a First Nations chief and said, "I understand your frustration. I understand the conditions in which you people live and I also understand the importance of tobacco and what it means as not only a gift, but as a sign of respect for your people." After the Quebec National Assembly banned the kirpan, he made sure the ceremonial dagger would be allowed in the House of Commons. As he told one gathering of Sikhs, he doesn't like the word "tolerance." "No," he said. "As head of security, I am going to accept and embrace your symbol of faith within the Parliamentary Precinct."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/terrorists-dont-have-a-chance-in-this-country/article21252026/
I read that this AM and also thought it was awesome.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 09:19:21 AM
Sadly I say a third of the board already has. I repost something that libertarians showed me, I get all sorts of shit from people. grallon goes on about genocide: Not a fucking peep. If I stand up against that kind of bullshit Dguller calls me "defender of the faith".
It gets better :hug:
I would buy Mr. Vikers a beer. :cheers:
By the way, what did the perp have? A shotgun or rifle? It sure was loud in the videos.
Vickers gets a standing ovation
http://globalnews.ca/video/1631103/emotional-standing-ovation-for-sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-as-house-returns-to-work
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 23, 2014, 10:25:22 AM
I would buy Mr. Vikers a beer. :cheers:
By the way, what did the perp have? A shotgun or rifle? It sure was loud in the videos.
A rifle, imho.
He tried to shoot a first soldier but his gun jammed. A shotgun doesn't jam like that, I think?
So, anyway, the first soldier went into hiding, but he had time to shoot the second one once his gun fired again.
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
Vickers gets a standing ovation
http://globalnews.ca/video/1631103/emotional-standing-ovation-for-sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-as-house-returns-to-work
I suppose he won't have much trouble maintaining points of order in the future ... :D
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 09:51:18 AM
Man arrested in Halifax, guns found in a bus stop.
News piece (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-police-arrest-man-recover-firearm-on-city-bus-1.2810019).
Probably not related, most likely another lunatic "inspired" by current events.
Yeah, there was a bit of "man with gun sighted, police responding, details unclear!!!!" panic cycling around in Vancouver as well at the time.
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2014, 09:53:58 AMI read that this AM and also thought it was awesome.
Indeed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
You should take it as a compliment. We all realize there is no point in responding to Grallon.
You people refuse to admit the nature of the enemy, which boggles the mind considering what they've already accomplished.
No matter, in the end it is *I* who will be proven right about the Muslim filth. And I'll be here waiting, to rub it in your collective faces.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 23, 2014, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
You should take it as a compliment. We all realize there is no point in responding to Grallon.
You people refuse to admit the nature of the enemy, which boggles the mind considering what they've already accomplished.
No matter, in the end it is *I* who will be proven right about the Muslim filth. And I'll be here waiting, to rub it in your collective faces.
G.
I think you have exemplified the "nature" of the "enemy" we need to confront while we also address the security issues we face.
I thought this was a very effective and moving editorial cartoon.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-10-23-editorial-cartoon
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
Quote from: Grallon on October 23, 2014, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
You should take it as a compliment. We all realize there is no point in responding to Grallon.
You people refuse to admit the nature of the enemy, which boggles the mind considering what they've already accomplished.
No matter, in the end it is *I* who will be proven right about the Muslim filth. And I'll be here waiting, to rub it in your collective faces.
G.
Contrast with:
http://www.apmo786.org/ph_2009.htm
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2014, 11:51:23 AM
I thought this was a very effective and moving editorial cartoon.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-10-23-editorial-cartoon
:cry:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
You know how those old world societies are. Sort of like how Serbs are ethnically Orthodox and the French are ethnically Catholic even if they are not practicing (or even if their family has been Calvinist for 400 years). Bosniaks are distinct because of their religion for example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
What I meant (as if you don't know) that ethnic links to nationalities whose homeland is predominantly Muslim.
And BTW I can understand that. If you are feeling disattached to the mainstream society (you don't have to be a muslim teenager to feel like that), you try finding one that you can attach yourself to. That has to be easier when there are pre-existing links. And radicals can exploit that.
I think most of the kids going to Syria for ISIS are just hormone-clouded idiots. Still they go to fight on the opposite side than their home country, so never letting them back in seems reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
Arabs.
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
Vickers gets a standing ovation
http://globalnews.ca/video/1631103/emotional-standing-ovation-for-sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-as-house-returns-to-work
:)
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
What I meant (as if you don't know) that ethnic links to nationalities whose homeland is predominantly Muslim.
Ah, like the white kid in Quebec who killed the soldier. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
What I meant (as if you don't know) that ethnic links to nationalities whose homeland is predominantly Muslim.
Ah, like the white kid in Quebec who killed the soldier. ;)
No. Like the shooter in Parliament whose father was Libyan. Or the UK ISIS fighters. etc.
BTW. In Hungary, a considerable portion of the politically active far-right (ie. Hungarian nationalists, or, radical youth) consist of people who are at max a couple of generations away from one or both parents being part of a non-Hungarian nationality (usually this means German or one of the Slavic nationalities)
In that light it might be a bit odd that these radical youths in Britain for example choose to violently (by joining ISIS or radicalising via Islam) disown the majority society, instead of overcompensating in proving their loyalty to it.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 12:41:03 PM
BTW. In Hungary, a considerable portion of the politically active far-right (ie. Hungarian nationalists, or, radical youth) consist of people who are at max a couple of generations away from one or both parents being part of a non-Hungarian nationality (usually this means German or one of the Slavic nationalities)
In that light it might be a bit odd that these radical youths in Britain for example choose to violently (by joining ISIS or radicalising via Islam) disown the majority society, instead of overcompensating in proving their loyalty to it.
It's a desire to develop a strong sense of identity when living somewhere where it isn't cut and dried that they belong. It can jump one way or another (or even change over time for the individual), but what's important for the person is to feel that strong connection with something.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
getting rid of the political correctness nonsense takes a while
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
the classic political correct answer. Refusing to accept what the problem is when it's kicking you in the shins, just because the origin of the issue is a religion/ideology.
As an aside:
it's not bigotry to say that the perps and ISIS-scum base their actions on the core handbook of islam.
neither is it bigotry to say that a number of members in the anti-ISIS-coalition basically have the same goal as ISIS, but differ only in the means to achieve that goal. Same goes for a lot of muslims. If they believe in their religion they all want that their religion/ideology to achieve world-domination. They just differ in the means (just like Stalin and Trotsky differed in the means to achieve the communist ideal).
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
And given all that wanting to get rid of the religion/ideology that is islam is no more bigotted than wanting to get rid of fascism, national-socialism, communism or any other ideology that's willing to build it's utopia on the corpses of the millions that do not want to submit.
Quote from: HVC on October 23, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
Vickers gets a standing ovation
http://globalnews.ca/video/1631103/emotional-standing-ovation-for-sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-as-house-returns-to-work
Well deserved!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2014, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Yep. There's a reason they're buying Islam for Dummies before getting on a plane to Syria. I always think there's a lot to the view in Four Lions. Contra Grallon it's the guys in beards and shalwar kameezes that you shouldn't worry about.
These guys in beards don't have any role in radicalizing the converts?
They are buying islam for dummies since all they know is what the guys with beards dressed in bedsheets tell them. Unfortunately for the world that is kill/murder/rape as they are instructed to do in the koran and as the prophet did as the example they are to follow.
getting rid of the political correctness nonsense takes a while
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
the classic political correct answer. Refusing to accept what the problem is when it's kicking you in the shins, just because the origin of the issue is a religion/ideology.
As an aside:
it's not bigotry to say that the perps and ISIS-scum base their actions on the core handbook of islam.
neither is it bigotry to say that a number of members in the anti-ISIS-coalition basically have the same goal as ISIS, but differ only in the means to achieve that goal. Same goes for a lot of muslims. If they believe in their religion they all want that their religion/ideology to achieve world-domination. They just differ in the means (just like Stalin and Trotsky differed in the means to achieve the communist ideal).
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
And given all that wanting to get rid of the religion/ideology that is islam is no more bigotted than wanting to get rid of fascism, national-socialism, communism or any other ideology that's willing to build it's utopia on the corpses of the millions that do not want to submit.
The problem here is conflation. Not all Muslims are ISIS-inspired maniacs, and treatung them as if they were is likely to get more young dudes to think ISIS has a point.
The gunman our Sergeant-at -Arms shot may have been a "Muslim", but so were these guys, who presented the same Sergeant-at-arms with an award:
QuoteASSOCIATION OF PROGRESSIVE MUSLIMS OF CANADA [2009] - This year, the Association honoured Mr. Kevin Vickers, Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons. He was recognized for his "long outstanding service to our country" and for his "efforts to promote bias-free policing and diversity in the workplace".
We want to
encourage Muslims who live here to think of themselves as "us, but with a different religion", and
discourage those - whether Muslims or not - who would divide us into "us" versus "them".
http://www.apmo786.org/ph_2009.htm
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
Too bad all the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of their religion didn't understand "what Jesus would do" as clearly as you seem to think. Also it is difficult to explain all the peaceful Muslims if "what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think.
Deus Vult and all that ;)
Quote from: Grallon on October 23, 2014, 11:33:47 AM
And I'll be here waiting, to rub it in your collective faces.
No, you won't. If they win and we are wrong, you'll be among the first against the wall.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
Too bad all the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of their religion didn't understand "what Jesus would do" as clearly as you seem to think. Also it is difficult to explain all the peaceful Muslims if "what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think.
Deus Vult and all that ;)
ah yes, the old "the christians did it too" trope. Also a favourite of the po-co brigade brigade. Wether or not Christians did this isn't relevant to the fact that there's far too many muslims doing the same.
"what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think." -> it's clear enough. That many muslims have the decency not to do it speaks in their favour, but it doesn't make them better muslims, more the opposite. Regardless, they may be the majority
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
I was just thinking about the whole "western idiots join ISIS ranks". Truly, it seems to be almost limited to people with ethnic ties to Muslim people, but otherwise I think it is no different than, say, the Anarchists we had earlier.
What makes someone ethnically Muslim?
What I meant (as if you don't know) that ethnic links to nationalities whose homeland is predominantly Muslim.
Ah, like the white kid in Quebec who killed the soldier. ;)
No. Like the shooter in Parliament whose father was Libyan. Or the UK ISIS fighters. etc.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.news.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F10%2Fmartin-rouleau-61.jpg%3Fw%3D620&hash=be9969703fc3b01ac884e9907fefc923dea87fbd)
This is one of those ethnically muslim killer. He ran over 3 soldiers on Monday, killing one, injuring another. A recent convert to Islam too.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
No, you won't. If they win and we are wrong, you'll be among the first against the wall.
And you people wonder why I abhor them! :rolleyes:
But then again you'll all change your tune when one of these mongrels nuke a city in Israel or somewhere in the West.
G.
to be more precise:
I hope the situation as Malthus described it is going to be the result without too much loss of life but I'm very pessimistic about it.
It's seems far more realistic that millions will perish before the adherents of islam figure out that maybe they need to a) stop taking their book literally, b) stop seeing muhammed as a person te be emulated and c) that the whole medina-part of the quran needs to be ditched as it abrogates the mecca-part(roughly) (which is generally considered to be the more tolerant section, due to mohammed being in a position of inferiority in relation to the other religions/political entities).
But they'll have to figure that out on their own, nothing we can do about it. But it would be preferred if they kept their shit inhouse instead of bothering the rest of the world with it, cause most of the world isn't as forgiving as the West.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
As an aside:
it's not bigotry to say that the perps and ISIS-scum base their actions on the core handbook of islam.
True. But there a lot of people who read other books and have commited crimes. And not all, not even the majority of those reading the core book of Islam kill people who don't share their view of the world. Or we do share their view of the world and they don't kill us because they feel we're on their side? I don't know... ;)
Quote
neither is it bigotry to say that a number of members in the anti-ISIS-coalition basically have the same goal as ISIS, but differ only in the means to achieve that goal.
True.
Quote
Same goes for a lot of muslims.
Lots of Christians too. Look at US politics where every religious nutjob can become a Republican Senator.
They differ on the means, as they don't preach killing non believers, but they do have a similar conception of the world.
Quote
If they believe in their religion they all want that their religion/ideology to achieve world-domination. They just differ in the means (just like Stalin and Trotsky differed in the means to achieve the communist ideal).
Hitler wanted to achieve world domination, was he a communist?
Quote
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
Ah, here, you have half a point.
Yes, Mohammed was a war leader. And he committed atrocities, or what we would consider atrocities today against the non believers, more so in the case of the Jewish tribes he subdued.
However, how exactly did Christianity spread in the ancient world? By preaching love and tolerance? Part of it, yes. Praying to the disenfranchised until they represented a problem for the governing body of the time, namely the Roman Empire.
And once it took over the Roman Empire, than it expanded by trampling other religions mercilessly, forbidding any other cult, destroying artifacts of pagan worship. It burned people to the stakes, it killed non believes, it killed those who did not believe in what Rome said was the official cult.
In as much as history goes, Christianity is no different then Islam.
Quote
And given all that wanting to get rid of the religion/ideology that is islam is no more bigotted than wanting to get rid of fascism, national-socialism, communism or any other ideology that's willing to build it's utopia on the corpses of the millions that do not want to submit.
Your mistake is to assume that there is 1 billion muslim out there who want to decapitate you.
That'd be the same as saying you want to eradicate all Russians because of the communist threat. That'd be the same as executing every German in 1945 because of the threat of national socialism.
We're fighting against an ideology, that ideology is summarized/simplified as "radical islam" because it doesn't target only non muslims, it primarly targets muslims who don't conform to their vision of what Islam should be. Not different than the various wars of religion we had in our past. Should we declare war on all religions? The IRA weren't muslims. Those who bombed abortion clinics weren't terrorists. If you look at Europe, the majority of terrorist attacks planned/executed are either commited by the extreme-left or eco-terrorist types. Do we declare war on all left of the center ideology? Do we forbid all "Green" political parties in Europe?
Quote from: Grallon on October 23, 2014, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
You should take it as a compliment. We all realize there is no point in responding to Grallon.
You people refuse to admit the nature of the enemy, which boggles the mind considering what they've already accomplished.
No matter, in the end it is *I* who will be proven right about the Muslim filth. And I'll be here waiting, to rub it in your collective faces.
G.
Exactly what will be "the end"?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:14:24 PM
ah yes, the old "the christians did it too" trope. Also a favourite of the po-co brigade brigade. Wether or not Christians did this isn't relevant to the fact that there's far too many muslims doing the same.
"what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think." -> it's clear enough. That many muslims have the decency not to do it speaks in their favour, but it doesn't make them better muslims, more the opposite. Regardless, they may be the majority
Ah yes the old if one Muslim does something wrong we must blame their relgion and taint all Muslims while not having the same standards for your own religion trope. You and Grallon should go on the road with your act.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:14:24 PM
ah yes, the old "the christians did it too" trope. Also a favourite of the po-co brigade brigade. Wether or not Christians did this isn't relevant to the fact that there's far too many muslims doing the same.
"what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think." -> it's clear enough. That many muslims have the decency not to do it speaks in their favour, but it doesn't make them better muslims, more the opposite. Regardless, they may be the majority
It is relevant when you invoke the historical figure that Muhamad was.
"What would Jesus do" has been used to promote slavery, to justify the Crusades, to bomb the British, to slaughter the Irish Catholics, to slaugther the Protestants in France, to burn witches, to exterminate american indians, to bomb abortion clinics, to burn books, to justify just about anything.
So, no, forgive, but it is relevant, and it doesn't impress me at all.
Well said Viper, in both your posts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 02:36:14 PM
yes the old if one Muslim does something wrong we must blame their relgion and taint all Muslims while not having the same standards for your own religion trope. You and Grallon should go on the road with your act.
not one muslim: the first muslim.
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.
Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time. It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars. The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians. I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused. Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?
If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission. Not much different than many other empires. Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms. Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.
If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there. But is it?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 02:36:14 PM
yes the old if one Muslim does something wrong we must blame their relgion and taint all Muslims while not having the same standards for your own religion trope. You and Grallon should go on the road with your act.
not one muslim: the first muslim.
Ah, all muslims should be blamed because you have a warped view of their religion. Got it.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.
Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time. It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars. The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians. I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused. Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?
If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission. Not much different than many other empires. Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms. Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.
If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there. But is it?
That he was no different in his doings from others 1400 years ago is hardly an issue.
But pray tell: how many of these rulers of old are considered to be the prime example to be followed, today?
Next you'll claim that it is a religion of peace...
And given the practices regarding marriage in far too many islamic countries they're not putting up much of fight against pedofilia
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.
Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time. It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars. The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians. I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused. Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?
If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission. Not much different than many other empires. Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms. Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.
If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there. But is it?
That he was no different in his doings from others 1400 years ago is hardly an issue.
But pray tell: how many of these rulers of old are considered to be the prime example to be followed, today?
Next you'll claim that it is a religion of peace...
And given the practices regarding marriage in far too many islamic countries they're not putting up much of fight against pedofilia
Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?
The the old testament represents the spiritual maturation of humanity tracking the growth of conciousness from the individual to the familt to the tribe to the universal. What about it needs to be reconcilled?
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2014, 03:39:09 PM
The the old testament represents the spiritual maturation of humanity tracking the growth of conciousness from the individual to the familt to the tribe to the universal. What about it needs to be reconcilled?
The other Crazy one takes things literally. For him killing off other tribles would be a bad thing. At least if he was going to be fair in his condemnation of religious texts ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 02:36:14 PM
Ah yes the old if one Muslim does something wrong we must blame their relgion and taint all Muslims while not having the same standards for your own religion trope. You and Grallon should go on the road with your act.
And, of course, Islam as practiced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world through history is irrelevant. They may be good people, but they're bad Muslims. The people who've got the correct interpretation are a relatively recent radical sect of extremists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2014, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 02:36:14 PM
Ah yes the old if one Muslim does something wrong we must blame their relgion and taint all Muslims while not having the same standards for your own religion trope. You and Grallon should go on the road with your act.
And, of course, Islam as practiced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world through history is irrelevant. They may be good people, but they're bad Muslims. The people who've got the correct interpretation are a relatively recent radical sect of extremists.
good point :)
As I've been looking into this it looks like there is less security at the parliament buildings than there is at my local courthouse.
Surely it's not too much to ask that we have armed guards, and ask visitors to pass through metal detectors, prior to entering our halls of government?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.
Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time. It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars. The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians. I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused. Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?
If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission. Not much different than many other empires. Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms. Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.
If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there. But is it?
That he was no different in his doings from others 1400 years ago is hardly an issue.
But pray tell: how many of these rulers of old are considered to be the prime example to be followed, today?
Next you'll claim that it is a religion of peace...
And given the practices regarding marriage in far too many islamic countries they're not putting up much of fight against pedofilia
Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?
myth, legend with a sprinkle of history and art. To be seen as such. No different than the Gilgamesh Epos, Greek/Roman/Germanic/whatever mythology.
christianity is just a lesser evil, when compared to all the other evils (old and new), but only because it has been defanged in the latter quarter of the last century. Before that: startout out well, went south pretty fast and stayed there for all to long.
and while I agree that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (to use a common sense saying wrapped in a biblical, or philosophical -if you like Kant -iirc- more- package. Which just shows how fucked up it is if people aren't capable of doing the right thing without some imaginary being telling them to do so) is the way to go, it's foolish to turn the other cheek indefinately (to use another one of those).
At times it's necessary to go beyond saying that "enough is enough" and make it clear in more, primitive, distasteful ways. So that those who come beyond don't have to.
And repeat at nauseam.
10.000 years of civilization and the end result is cyclical misery.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?
With the New Testament?
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Given your apparent defence of Christianity, pray tell how you reconcile your views with the events portrayed in the Old Testament?
With the New Testament?
That was the view of some Christians but the battle to not include the Old Testament was lost about 1600 years ago, give or take. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.
Well it depends on how you do it...
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.
QuoteHomegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization. :glare:
And the apologists are already at work - it's not about Islam - even though the perpetrators themselves claim it is - these are just individual psychos...
I take the metro every day - and I see an increasing number of those bearded nutjobs reading their evil book. I'm certain something will happen in there at some point.
Wow. Much metaphysical truth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
Yeah keep dreaming if you think most of us will succumb to your bigotry.
Yes because criticizing ideas, values, supposed metaphysical truths and actions is bigoted.
QuoteHomegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization. :glare:
And the apologists are already at work - it's not about Islam - even though the perpetrators themselves claim it is - these are just individual psychos...
I take the metro every day - and I see an increasing number of those bearded nutjobs reading their evil book. I'm certain something will happen in there at some point.
Wow. Much metaphysical truth.
There is only one god, muhammed is his prophet and the quran is the final revalation. That is a supposed metaphysiscal truth.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
As I've been looking into this it looks like there is less security at the parliament buildings than there is at my local courthouse.
Surely it's not too much to ask that we have armed guards, and ask visitors to pass through metal detectors, prior to entering our halls of government?
I guess it's a question of balance, the public thinks security for the white house/national parliaments and so forth should be like in the films, with hair trigger guards prepared to mow down dozens with the most fearsome weaponry available.
The reality is an intruder gets into the white house grounds and gets tacked by dogs and arrested alive, uninjured. It's a much more risky approach, but mitigates against a some possible tragedies. I prefer that to dead innocent civilians who pulled their umbrella out of their coat pocket in a too sudden or odd way.
The times I've been to the House of commons, the security seemed tight or thorough to my untrained eye, would the armed guards have gunned me or someone down if they'd bolted thorough the barriers, I don't think so. I'd guess someone would just try and tackle them given the number of innocent people about waiting to be hit by a stray bullet.
My real concern is suicide bombers, in effect there's not much you can do to stop them, especially if acting as a team, as you see in Syria or Iraq, where one detonates and takes out the outer security point/gate and the other couple then run/drive further into the target to attack more vulnerable/soft targets.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
@Viper37:
Wether you're impressed or not matters nought. And while Jesus may have been invoked to do all these things he -as far as can be known- never committed similar acts. Unlike muhammed. And muhammed, being the 'prophet', is the example against which muslims nominally measure themselves. Excuse me, but he is found wanting. There are better standards than that man.
Muhammad went on to conquer cities&tribes in the name of Allah to spread the faith.
Aside being considered a prophet, he was no different than any ruler of his time. It's not like there were well defined rules of war and codified treatment of prisoners of wars. The Byzantines weren't exactly saints, nor were the Persians. I seem to recall Richard Coeur de Lion slaughtering prisoners himself after the ransom was refused. Is he remembered the same way as Genghis Khan or is he some kind of folk hero?
If you look at Muhamad's conquests, prisoners of wars were offered freedom in exchange for conversion and submission. Not much different than many other empires. Marrying with underage girls was the norm in many empires&kingdoms. Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec city, was married to a 12 year old girl while he was in his 40s.
If you tell me today, muslims in the general population, are preaching for the legalization of pedophilia, you might have a point there. But is it?
The difference between Mohammed and Richard the Lionheart (I prefer the comparison to Egil Skallagrimsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson) who was a true scumbag who has cultural cache in iceland) is that today Richard is a historical figure and man of his time while Mohammed is supposed to be a prophet with access to gods final revelation for mankind, as well as being a supposed model for religious muslims. Richard's crimes are just that. Mohammed's crimes need to be justified and good. That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
It's part of the muslim problem with terrorism today. Any act conducted against israeli civilans cannot be absolutely rejected because it seems that whatever is done to the israelis cannot be categorically rejected. Any act performed by the prophet cannot be categorically rejected or even be considered necessary evils since no religious prophet would be forced into making human like choices.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Do we declare war on all left of the center ideology? Do we forbid all "Green" political parties in Europe?
Wouldn't be the worst thing we've ever done in the West.
QuoteAnd, of course, Islam as practiced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world through history is irrelevant. They may be good people, but they're bad Muslims. The people who've got the correct interpretation are a relatively recent radical sect of extremists.
How relatively recent is relatively recent? When Omar sacked Ctesiphon and raped the women of the Sassanid court, or when Mahmud of Ghazni or Timur made pyramids of the skulls of Hindus?
If you go through the history of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs you are not ever, under any circumstances, going to come away with the idea that Islam as the first generation practiced it resembles the wishy-washy psuedo-Unitarianism of Reza Aslan or Irshad Manji.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all
muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which
the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.
See how silly that sounds?
and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.
QuoteThen the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged. Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." So Joshua and the army of Israel set out to attack Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Hide in ambush close behind the city and be ready for action. When our main army attacks, the men of Ai will come out to fight as they did before, and we will run away from them. We will let them chase us until they have all left the city. For they will say, 'The Israelites are running away from us as they did before.' Then you will jump up from your ambush and take possession of the city, for the LORD your God will give it to you. Set the city on fire, as the LORD has commanded. You have your orders." So they left that night and lay in ambush between Bethel and the west side of Ai. But Joshua remained among the people in the camp that night.
Early the next morning Joshua roused his men and started toward Ai, accompanied by the leaders of Israel. They camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city. That night Joshua sent five thousand men to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city. So they stationed the main army north of the city and the ambush west of the city. Joshua himself spent that night in the valley. When the king of Ai saw the Israelites across the valley, he and all his army hurriedly went out early the next morning and attacked the Israelites at a place overlooking the Jordan Valley. But he didn't realize there was an ambush behind the city. Joshua and the Israelite army fled toward the wilderness as though they were badly beaten, and all the men in the city were called out to chase after them. In this way, they were lured away from the city. There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not chase after the Israelites, and the city was left wide open.
Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city." Joshua did as he was commanded. As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city. They quickly captured it and set it on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers. When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai. Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped. Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.
When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
The difference between Mohammed and Richard the Lionheart (I prefer the comparison to Egil Skallagrimsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson) who was a true scumbag who has cultural cache in iceland) is that today Richard is a historical figure and man of his time while Mohammed is supposed to be a prophet with access to gods final revelation for mankind, as well as being a supposed model for religious muslims. Richard's crimes are just that. Mohammed's crimes need to be justified and good. That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
It's part of the muslim problem with terrorism today. Any act conducted against israeli civilans cannot be absolutely rejected because it seems that whatever is done to the israelis cannot be categorically rejected. Any act performed by the prophet cannot be categorically rejected or even be considered necessary evils since no religious prophet would be forced into making human like choices.
Serious question: Do you talk to a lot of Muslims about this or are you just getting this entirely from other Athiests?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
Too bad all the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of their religion didn't understand "what Jesus would do" as clearly as you seem to think. Also it is difficult to explain all the peaceful Muslims if "what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think.
Deus Vult and all that ;)
Apparently, according to a Gallup poll done in 2007, 61% of UK muslims (and 71% of young UK muslims) believed homosexuality should be illegal. Not sure how many UK Christians believed that at the time but I suspect the percentage was smaller. Which is why reasoning like yours is pretty fallacious.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
There is no bigotry in stating that their so-called prophet committed numerous atrocities and adapted his 'revelation' to suit him committing these atrocities, thus presenting a nice religious dispensation for his followers (both early and later) to commit more atrocities. The difference between "what would Jesus do" and "what would mohammed do" is quite clear.
Too bad all the Christians who have committed atrocities in the name of their religion didn't understand "what Jesus would do" as clearly as you seem to think. Also it is difficult to explain all the peaceful Muslims if "what Mohammad would do" is as clear as you think.
Deus Vult and all that ;)
Apparently, according to a Gallup poll done in 2007, 61% of UK muslims (and 71% of young UK muslims) believed homosexuality should be illegal. Not sure how many UK Christians believed that at the time but I suspect the percentage was smaller. Which is why reasoning like yours is pretty fallacious.
The claim being made was that Islam is evil but Christianity is good. If we are to measure evil and goodness by the respective stances of each religion on the issue of gays, the Bible suggests that gays should be killed ("If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." ) and certainly there are Christians who still believe the being gay should be illegal. So explain to me how, on your view of what is the defining issue, one religion can be judged more moral than the other?
I don't care what religious text say (and you don't care either, as you said before). What I care about is what people who describe themselves as followers of a given religion say.
Did I claim that no Christians believe that homosexuality should be illegal? No, I claimed the percentage is much smaller than among UK-based Muslims (if I were to guess, among UK-based Christians, it would be 10% or less).
Now, I don't have more recent statistical data so this number may have fallen among UK Muslims, but I would say it highlights a very strong disconnect between this religious minority and the society at large, which has just passed gay marriage.
Btw, thinking that something should be illegal is quite different than disapproving of it morally (and I think Christians, even fundamentalist ones, usually grasp that difference). (Incidentally, a 2009 poll among UK Muslims apparently did not find a single one who did not disapprove of homosexuality morally).
In other news, apparently Muslims (which represent 2% of the UK populace) are responsible for app. 25% of acts of homophobic violence in the UK as well. I am also pretty happy to use willingness to violently beat and/or kill someone because of their sexuality as a measure of evil - do you disagree with that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 05:34:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.
See how silly that sounds?
and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.
Look, if you want to argue which of the Quran and Old Testament is the most evil book in religion and which is the second most evil book in religion then I think you are wasting your time. I think you are sort of making my point for me by comparing The Quran either favorably or comparably to the The Old Testament.
You may have noticed that I am just as vitriolic about the Old Testament as I am about the Quran. There are long tedious threads in Languish devoted to just that.
Now, to the comparison, not so much of the books but of the theology behind them and the behavior they provoke today.
Not insignificant cases of paedophilia/torture/decaptiation/polygamy/FGM/assassination/desacration (which I will refer to as "evil" (the noun) from now on) are being carried out today by muslims with theological justifications. This evil is on a scale many orders of magnitude larger than the evil performed with theological justifications by any other major religion. And, yes, when an act is carried out with a theological justification it is carried out by the religion.
The Old Testament Temple Judaism has been replaced by Rabbinic Judaism and New Testament Christianity in virtually all cases. Rabbinic Judaism spends most of it's theological energy finding out how they can get around the stupid laws in the old testament. Christianity has the theological tools to just ignore anything they dont' like in the old testament. Rabbinic Judaism, like the Ahmadi and Ismaili sects in many places, has had to do it's theology in minority situations where they do not have the power of the state or society to back them up so all three of these sects have adjusted their theology accordingly. Sunni Islam doesn't have the theological tools to do any changes. It is an article of faith with them that they already know what the perfect society is and that is the islamic state in mecca and medina under the prophet.
The Old Testament evils were not general they were specific to time and place. The muslims are commanded by god to do evil to a general class of people (including all of us here on languish). There are some jewish nutjobs that try to claim the palestinians are amalekites or jebusites or whatever. The point there is that muslims are commanded to do evil to named groups still existing today. Me included.
In any case, it is Tu Quoque, and a pathetic one at that when used on a radical atheist such as myself. In any case, so what if the Old Testament is evil? Does that somehow make the Quran less evil?
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 06:30:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 05:34:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.
See how silly that sounds?
and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.
Look, if you want to argue which of the Quran and Old Testament is the most evil book in religion and which is the second most evil book in religion then I think you are wasting your time.
:frusty:
I really wish people would pay attention to what was being said before making stupid comments like this.
The claim being made was that Islam was evil and Christianity was good.
I am not trying to make an argument that one is morally superior. Just that they both have warts. If you want to engage in the silliness of claiming that one is clearly superior to the other then fill your boots but I always thought you comdemned all religion equally.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2014, 06:07:44 PM
I don't care what religious text say (and you don't care either, as you said before). What I care about is what people who describe themselves as followers of a given religion say.
Did I claim that no Christians believe that homosexuality should be illegal? No, I claimed the percentage is much smaller than among UK-based Muslims (if I were to guess, among UK-based Christians, it would be 10% or less).
Now, I don't have more recent statistical data so this number may have fallen among UK Muslims, but I would say it highlights a very strong disconnect between this religious minority and the society at large, which has just passed gay marriage.
Btw, thinking that something should be illegal is quite different than disapproving of it morally (and I think Christians, even fundamentalist ones, usually grasp that difference). (Incidentally, a 2009 poll among UK Muslims apparently did not find a single one who did not disapprove of homosexuality morally).
In other news, apparently Muslims (which represent 2% of the UK populace) are responsible for app. 25% of acts of homophobic violence in the UK as well. I am also pretty happy to use willingness to violently beat and/or kill someone because of their sexuality as a measure of evil - do you disagree with that?
lol, yeah, fundamentalists are well known for their thoughtful position on the issue http://www.defendthefamily.com/index.php?viewmode=resources
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 06:30:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 05:34:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.
See how silly that sounds?
and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.
Look, if you want to argue which of the Quran and Old Testament is the most evil book in religion and which is the second most evil book in religion then I think you are wasting your time.
:frusty:
I really wish people would pay attention to what was being said before making stupid comments like this.
The claim being made was that Islam was evil and Christianity was good.
I am not trying to make an argument that one is morally superior. Just that they both have warts. If you want to engage in the silliness of claiming that one is clearly superior to the other then fill your boots but I always thought you comdemned all religion equally.
Their metaphysical claims are equally silly and stupid, but the difference here is that evil a consistent consequence of islamic epistemology and theology.
The big difference is that the literal reading of the quran leads you to join ISIS and behead journalists and take sex slaves. The literal reading of the new testament leads you to selling your property abadoning your children and becoming a monk. Both are stupid and self destructive, but only one is evil.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 06:30:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 05:34:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things.
That's part of the problem. Paedophilia, Torture, Decapitation, Polygamy, FGM, Assassination and Desecration are for all muslims Christians/Jews good under certain circumstances since there were circumstances under which the prophet did all these things God either ordered that it be done or saw that it was good.
See how silly that sounds?
and just so there is no confusion about how graphic the Bible can get on these topics.
Look, if you want to argue which of the Quran and Old Testament is the most evil book in religion and which is the second most evil book in religion then I think you are wasting your time.
:frusty:
I really wish people would pay attention to what was being said before making stupid comments like this.
The claim being made was that Islam was evil and Christianity was good.
I am not trying to make an argument that one is morally superior. Just that they both have warts. If you want to engage in the silliness of claiming that one is clearly superior to the other then fill your boots but I always thought you comdemned all religion equally.
Their metaphysical claims are equally silly and stupid, but the difference here is that evil a consistent consequence of islamic epistemology and theology.
The big difference is that the literal reading of the quran leads you to join ISIS and behead journalists and take sex slaves. The literal reading of the new testament leads you to selling your property abadoning your children and becoming a monk. Both are stupid and self destructive, but only one is evil.
Consistent? There are 100s of millions of Muslims who are not rushing to join the extremists.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 07:08:13 PM
Consistent? There are 100s of millions of Muslims who are not rushing to join the extremists.
Million of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
I'll take the non-answer as a "no". You don't actually talk to Muslims about what they believe, you just read anti-Muslim screeds.
All religions are pretty stupid guys.
They usually mellow out with time, that's all.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2014, 07:34:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2014, 07:08:13 PM
Consistent? There are 100s of millions of Muslims who are not rushing to join the extremists.
Million of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
Ha! Nice try. :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on October 23, 2014, 07:57:01 PM
All religions are pretty stupid guys.
They usually mellow out with time, that's all.
Surely you are not including le Culte de l'Être supreme there :(
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 07:36:15 PM
I'll take the non-answer as a "no". You don't actually talk to Muslims about what they believe, you just read anti-Muslim screeds.
My understanding is that Muslim extremism is more about identity politics and nationalism than religion and spirituality.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 07:36:15 PM
I'll take the non-answer as a "no". You don't actually talk to Muslims about what they believe, you just read anti-Muslim screeds.
I'm know a broken record but we really should stop talking to Viking about religion.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 23, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
the classic political correct answer. Refusing to accept what the problem is when it's kicking you in the shins, just because the origin of the issue is a religion/ideology.
As an aside:
it's not bigotry to say that the perps and ISIS-scum base their actions on the core handbook of islam.
The problem is that every "core handbook" has creeps and scum who base their actions on it. The creeps and scum from the Hindu terrorists; the Confucian creeps and scum who bound women's feet in China; the Christian creeps and scum who mutilate their girls in Africa; the Orthodox creeps and scum who murdered Jews in the pogroms; the Catholic creeps and scum who ran the Inquisition or the Protestant creeps and scum that ran its protestant counterparts; the Marxist creeps and scum who ran the KGB or Cheka; Pol Pot's boys; on, and on, and on.
The problem is the creeps and scum, not the handbooks.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 23, 2014, 07:57:01 PM
All religions are pretty stupid guys.
They usually mellow out with time, that's all.
I don't think that's exactly fair. Religion was an attempt to explain the universe at a time before the scientific materialism of the Enlightenment took hold. Moreover, it is an extremely useful tool for maintaining a social order, especially one with enormous inequalities. Sure, religious faith in this day and age is a little bit backwards, but even now it still serves a purpose. Even in the First World, there are plenty of people for whom the empty purposelessness of modern life is filled by religious faith.
If we want to eliminate religion, we're going to have to provide something more compelling than wageslavery.
The best way to have 100 million enemies is to treat 100 million people as if they are your enemy, rather than the 1 million that actually are.
Quote from: frunk on October 23, 2014, 09:28:36 PM
The best way to have 100 million enemies is to treat 100 million people as if they are your enemy, rather than the 1 million that actually are.
I don't see anyone doing that in this thread, with the possible exception of Grallon.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 07:36:15 PM
I'll take the non-answer as a "no". You don't actually talk to Muslims about what they believe, you just read anti-Muslim screeds.
I'm know a broken record but we really should stop talking to Viking about religion.
If his knowledge his of Islam is like his knowledge of Christianity then it's pretty fucking dismal. I have a strong feeling that his arguments come from the books and articles of anti-Muslim yahoos. It's like reading Der Sturmmer to get an idea what Jews believe (Viking mentioned Nazis, so I can as well). His Nazi analogy fell flat because "Islam" isn't a distinct national group like "German". It is a religion and more broadly a civilization. A better comparison would be perhaps "Christendom", or better yet "Western civilization". Of course making the same argument that Millions of Westerners weren't camp guards but were millions were NSDAP members results in the absurd notion Western Civilization is bad because radical members of it formed Nazism and Communism and all sorts of nasty things. Likewise saying Islam is bad because some radicals have done bad things is just as absurd.
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
I don't see anyone doing that in this thread, with the possible exception of Grallon.
Quote from: VikingMillion of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
Quote from: frunk on October 23, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
I don't see anyone doing that in this thread, with the possible exception of Grallon.
Quote from: VikingMillion of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
It's my country too.
Besides, if we break from our routine of shitting up threads, the terrorists win.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
Agreed. The difference between extremists and "moderates" isn't usually that different when it comes to Islam. More a matter of means than ends really.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 23, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
I don't see anyone doing that in this thread, with the possible exception of Grallon.
Quote from: VikingMillion of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
I get a lot of flak if I criticize libertarianism. I wonder if that's because I'm right.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 10:37:42 PM
I get a lot of flak if I criticize libertarianism. I wonder if that's because I'm right.
I would say the insane anarchism you criticize is probably fit to be criticized.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on October 23, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
Agreed. The difference between extremists and "moderates" isn't usually that different when it comes to Islam. More a matter of means than ends really.
Yeah well we do not really care about their ends, just their means. If their means include being good productive citizens then whatever their vile ends may be I will take it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2014, 10:42:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2014, 10:37:42 PM
I get a lot of flak if I criticize libertarianism. I wonder if that's because I'm right.
I would say the insane anarchism you criticize is probably fit to be criticized.
What does it say about those who gave me flak?
:lol:
Quote from: dps on October 23, 2014, 05:16:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Do we declare war on all left of the center ideology? Do we forbid all "Green" political parties in Europe?
Wouldn't be the worst thing we've ever done in the West.
probably not :P
But we still respect difference, so long as it's not violent. This is what we are. :)
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:01:18 PM
Quote from: dps on October 23, 2014, 05:16:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Do we declare war on all left of the center ideology? Do we forbid all "Green" political parties in Europe?
Wouldn't be the worst thing we've ever done in the West.
probably not :P
But we still respect difference, so long as it's not violent. This is what we are. :)
:yes:
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:18:57 PM
CrazyIvan seems to be leaning in this way too. And also Viking.
Where has Viking said anything about treatment?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
If we start branding all Christians as lunatics, because some of them bomb abortion clinics and the majority of them are opposed to abortion, what do you think will happen:
a) Christians massively abandon their faith
b) Christians radicalize themselves and we see more lunatics ready to commit murders
?
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:23:09 PM
If we start branding all Christians as lunatics, because some of them bomb abortion clinics and the majority of them are opposed to abortion, what do you think will happen:
a) Christians massively abandon their faith
b) Christians radicalize themselves and we see more lunatics ready to commit murders
?
Nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 11:19:43 PM
Where has Viking said anything about treatment?
Forget about it, I deleted my post.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:23:09 PM
If we start branding all Christians as lunatics, because some of them bomb abortion clinics and the majority of them are opposed to abortion, what do you think will happen:
a) Christians massively abandon their faith
b) Christians radicalize themselves and we see more lunatics ready to commit murders
?
We'll pray for you brother Viper37.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:18:57 PM
CrazyIvan seems to be leaning in this way too. And also Viking.
Where has Viking said anything about treatment?
Various threads defending whatever Dawkins or Sam Harris says.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:23:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
If we start branding all Christians as lunatics, because some of them bomb abortion clinics and the majority of them are opposed to abortion, what do you think will happen:
a) Christians massively abandon their faith
b) Christians radicalize themselves and we see more lunatics ready to commit murders
?
The problem is statistics like the ones I quoted do not really support the convenient myth that it is just a very small minority of Muslims who are extremists, and the majority are ordinary moderates, no different from your vanilla protestants or catholics.
Whether it is causation or correlation (most muslims in Europe are first or second generation immigrants from shitholes with abysmal cultures), the fact remains that Muslims more than any other religious group in Europe are responsible for a disproportionate amount of hate crimes (whether against Jews, gays or women, frequently originating from their own communities). This is a problem we need to address. I am not saying kill them all or send them all back - but we need to recognise the fact instead of hiding behind multiculti bullshit and start actively assimilating Muslim immigrants by curbing the ability to practice their backwards customs (such as wearing a hijab in a public place) and not allowing them to bring in hate clerics to "educate" their children.
Terror attack in Queens, or just the Daily Mail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805675/Crazed-ax-wielding-man-shot-dead-police-Queens-slashing-one-head-arm-random-attack.html
QuoteQuoteNew York terror fears as crazed hatchet-wielding discharged Navy man with a criminal past slashes Queens cop in the head and another in the arm before being shot dead
The suspect, identified as Zale Thompson, lunged at police with a hatchet in Queens
Authorities are investigating whether Thompson was motivated by Islamic terrorists calling for attacks in the US
An officer was slashed in the head and another one was slashed in the arm before one officer was able to fatally shoot the attacker
A 29-year-old female bystander was critically injured after being shot by an errant police round and is listed in 'grave' condition
Both officers are being treated and one was listed in critical condition
Thompson has a criminal record in California and was discharged from the U.S. Navy for misconduct but authorities have not revealed his record nor have they detailed his Naval discharge
New York police fear that a crazed hatchet attack on four police officers in Jamaica, Queens, today could be linked to terrorism.
Suspect Zale Thompson, 32, pictured in surveillance footage, was shot dead on the scene after slashing one cop in the arm and the other in the head at around without warning about 2pm.
The officer struck in the head was critically injured.
A 29-year-old female bystander a half-a-block away from the attack was critically injured after being shot by an errant police round. She is currently recovering from surgery at Jamaica Hospital and is listed in 'grave' condition.
Police say they were investigating whether Thompson's attack on the cops was linked to Islamic terrorism. ISIS has urged fighters to launch lone wolf attacks in the United States.
Thompson's Facebook page features a photograph of a man dressed in Middle Eastern garb and a cover photo displaying Arabic writing.
Two attacks in Canada this week by radicalized converts to Islam have killed two Canadian soldiers.
In one, a man ran down two soldiers in his car in Quebec, killing one, before being shot dead.
On Wednesday a convicted felon ambushed a soldier outside Canadian Parliament, fatally wounding him, before running the Parliament building and opening fire.
DNA Info reports that on Thursday afternoon a freelance photographer approached the group of rookie cops and asked to take their photograph.
As the officers were posing for the camera, Thompson charged towards them swinging an 18.5 inch hatchet without uttering a single word.
One 24-year-old officer was slashed in the arm
Another 25-year-old officer was slashed in the back of head and taken to Jamaica Hospital where he is being treated in critical condition, reports CBS.
The two remaining police shot at Thompson who dropped his hatchet then died at the scene.
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said he's not ruling out terrorism especially in the wake of recent terror attacks in Canada, reports CNN.
'There is nothing we know as of this time that would indicate that were the case. I think certainly the heightened concern is relative to that type of assault based on what just happened in Canada,' said Bratton.
CNN reports that Thompson has a criminal record in California and that he was discharged from the U.S. Navy for misconduct. Details of his criminal record and his misconduct are not known at this time.
His Facebook page says that Thompson graduated from Columbia Teacher's College and that he resides in Queens.
CNN reports that New York police were alerted to be on the lookout for random attacks following Thursday's incident.
DNA Info spoke with witnesses on the scene.
'We heard pop, pop, pop, pop,' said Rafael, 44, who works at Overseas Travel nearby where the incident occurred.
'She was screaming,"'Help me." She couldn't get up,' said Ericka Babb, a medical assistant at Priority Medical Center in Queens.
'We were way too scared,' said Rafael.
Officers say they shot the hatchet-yielding suspect but it's not clear how many rounds were fired.
'It was a completely unprovoked attack,' said NYPD Chief Kim Royster, a department spokeswoman.
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said during a news conference that all of the police involved are recent graduates of this summer's Police Academy class.
'Three rookie cops, absolutely modest about what happened today and what they did,' de Blasio said.
During the conference Bill De Blasio lauded the officers' training and their fast response to the unprovoked attack.
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2014, 09:09:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 23, 2014, 07:57:01 PM
All religions are pretty stupid guys.
They usually mellow out with time, that's all.
I don't think that's exactly fair. Religion was an attempt to explain the universe at a time before the scientific materialism of the Enlightenment took hold. Moreover, it is an extremely useful tool for maintaining a social order, especially one with enormous inequalities. Sure, religious faith in this day and age is a little bit backwards, but even now it still serves a purpose. Even in the First World, there are plenty of people for whom the empty purposelessness of modern life is filled by religious faith.
If we want to eliminate religion, we're going to have to provide something more compelling than wageslavery.
Yeah, Socialism :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
It's Languish.org, it's what they do. :P
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2014, 08:58:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2014, 08:07:25 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 22, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
So, much for Canadian gun control.
Perp was allegedly using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada.
And doesn't have to register it.....for some reason :hmm:
Not sure what difference that would have made in these circumstances.
"Attacker, shot dead in parliament, was brandishing a registered long gun ..."
Is this social media sourced, bbc reported photo likely to be both real and the suspect?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F78466000%2Fjpg%2F_78466921_84345dab-b7ce-4650-b469-631032701f8e.jpg&hash=57eeaf1060465a594179d54c9da224c02cb5a89a)
That is a lever action rifle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
The comparison he made was Germany:NSDAP :: Islam:terrorists and extremists. That's a comparison thats saying we should be going to war with the muslim world, not just pointing out defects in a religion. Germany (Islam) needed to be defeated before the NSDAP (terrorists and extremists) could be rooted out.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 24, 2014, 02:29:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
It's Languish.org, it's what they do. :P
Far from "shitting on a thread" this thread shows how Canadians have generally responded to the attack. The only Canadian here who has advocated for treating Muslims as the Other is Grallon. No need to say more on that point :P
To my knowledge no Canadian politician of any stripe has done so. We understand that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, productive and positive members of our communities. We also understand that there is a radical element of Islam in the world that needs to be dealt with. But we Canadians are generally smart enough not to confuse one group with the other.
I think our response to the attack was best captured by the speech Mulcair gave in the House yesterday in which he made the point that while security was important for Parliament it should still remain a place where the public was welcome. His point was that we should not give in to terror by closing ourselves off. He was speaking about our society as much as he was about Parliament. He received applause from everyone in the House for his comments and politicians of every stripe have echoed his words.
We will not go down the path of treating our Muslim community as the Other. On Languish we sometimes have debates about what it is to be Canadian. That is what it means to be Canadian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 23, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
I don't see anyone doing that in this thread, with the possible exception of Grallon.
Quote from: VikingMillion of germans weren't concentration camp guards but millions were NSDAP members. You don't need 100s of millions to make life a living hell for a country you just need thousands. The 100s of millions are the sea in which those thousands of fish swim. The 100s of millions are the ones who don't want to blow themselves up on a school bus, but thinks that it is good that somebody does. The 100s of millions are the ones that teach their kids to believe that the book which tells them to hate and fight the infidel is true and good.
It's a BS argument to say that less than X% of muslims are radicalized murderous nutjobs when the number X is larger than the membership of the NSDAP. The crusades only needed a small percentile active nutjobs to cause mahem. It also needed the "100s of millions" equivalent to make that percentile possible.
If pointing out the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of someone's religion turns that person into your enemy, perhaps that's further proof of the violent, psychotic, and dysfunctional nature of that religion.
I just note that people aren't trying to defend the position of "no the 100s of millions don't hold ideas which in the hands of literalist fanatics leader to evil". Furthermore the idea that we should not express an honest opinion of the underlying ideas, values, ethics, laws and commands within islam on the grounds that the people who love these ideas will be angry if we say so is silly, dishonest and ultimately self defeating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 11:18:57 PM
CrazyIvan seems to be leaning in this way too. And also Viking.
Where has Viking said anything about treatment?
So far I have only suggested saying that their religion is untrue and that it's teachings are immoral and it's consequences are harmful. Which is incidentally the same recipe I have for all other religions.
We should absolutely definitively not be lying to ourselves in the hope that believing it will make it so.
The 100s of millions are saying that Mohammed was a moral example to be followed that God's revelation in the Quran is good and perfect. Many of them will riot if we say anything else. The problem is that Mohammed did evil (as I defined earlier) and the Quran either permits or commands evil. If we can say this and formulate policy with this understanding then nothing we do will ever work.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on October 23, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
Agreed. The difference between extremists and "moderates" isn't usually that different when it comes to Islam. More a matter of means than ends really.
Think of Muslims and Islam as pigs at a trough; while 9 out 10 will be docile creatures and only one will be vicious - they all greedily lap the same slop.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 24, 2014, 07:29:54 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on October 23, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
Agreed. The difference between extremists and "moderates" isn't usually that different when it comes to Islam. More a matter of means than ends really.
Think of Muslims and Islam as pigs at a trough; while 9 out 10 will be docile creatures and only one will be vicious - they all greedily lap the same slop.
G.
One of the reasons I despise the religion is Islam is that it's scripture compares certain people to pigs (or claims they are pigs depending on which "interpretation" you use). If you want to maintain the moral high ground avoid sinking to their level.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2014, 06:56:15 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 24, 2014, 02:29:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
It's Languish.org, it's what they do. :P
Far from "shitting on a thread" this thread shows how Canadians have generally responded to the attack. The only Canadian here who has advocated for treating Muslims as the Other is Grallon. No need to say more on that point :P
To my knowledge no Canadian politician of any stripe has done so. We understand that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, productive and positive members of our communities. We also understand that there is a radical element of Islam in the world that needs to be dealt with. But we Canadians are generally smart enough not to confuse one group with the other.
I think our response to the attack was best captured by the speech Mulcair gave in the House yesterday in which he made the point that while security was important for Parliament it should still remain a place where the public was welcome. His point was that we should not give in to terror by closing ourselves off. He was speaking about our society as much as he was about Parliament. He received applause from everyone in the House for his comments and politicians of every stripe have echoed his words.
We will not go down the path of treating our Muslim community as the Other. On Languish we sometimes have debates about what it is to be Canadian. That is what it means to be Canadian.
I don't know. Do you think Canadian politicians if say instead of just one Candian soldier killed, say it was terrorist attack taking place in Canada that killed several hundred Canadians?
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2014, 07:32:57 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2014, 06:56:15 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 24, 2014, 02:29:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
It's Languish.org, it's what they do. :P
Far from "shitting on a thread" this thread shows how Canadians have generally responded to the attack. The only Canadian here who has advocated for treating Muslims as the Other is Grallon. No need to say more on that point :P
To my knowledge no Canadian politician of any stripe has done so. We understand that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, productive and positive members of our communities. We also understand that there is a radical element of Islam in the world that needs to be dealt with. But we Canadians are generally smart enough not to confuse one group with the other.
I think our response to the attack was best captured by the speech Mulcair gave in the House yesterday in which he made the point that while security was important for Parliament it should still remain a place where the public was welcome. His point was that we should not give in to terror by closing ourselves off. He was speaking about our society as much as he was about Parliament. He received applause from everyone in the House for his comments and politicians of every stripe have echoed his words.
We will not go down the path of treating our Muslim community as the Other. On Languish we sometimes have debates about what it is to be Canadian. That is what it means to be Canadian.
I don't know. Do you think Canadian politicians if say instead of just one Candian soldier killed, say it was terrorist attack taking place in Canada that killed several hundred Canadians?
We have had two separate attacks within a day of eachother. The second attack could have resulted in many deaths if it had been timed better. One would think that would be ample opportunity for a politician to take the Grallon/Viking/Crazy Ivan approach.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2014, 07:32:00 AM
One of the reasons I despise the religion is Islam is that it's scripture compares certain people to pigs (or claims they are pigs depending on which "interpretation" you use). If you want to maintain the moral high ground avoid sinking to their level.
I don't have that pretension Viking. I leave that to the others here who like nothing so much as strut about and posture about their moral superiority. I judge people by their deeds not by the verbal diarrhea they spew to justify whatever it is they're advocating. And in this case I know I'm right. All I need to do is open a paper or the TV or a net channel to see what Muslims and Islam are about.
Are they all bloodthirsty murderers? Of course not. I know and work with and like several of them. But then again those are mostly like us - Muslim in name only like I'm a Catholic in name only - not wearing a hidjab, not really practicing except for the odd ritual here and there like a bit of Ramadan, a Christmas mass or a baptism. However like the North-American natives with alcohol they're all susceptible to the effects of the death cult they grew up with.
Which is what you've tried explaining to the gaggle of peacocks parading in this thread but they are far to enamored with the patterns of their own rhetoric to see or hear anything else.
G.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 24, 2014, 02:06:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2014, 09:09:53 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 23, 2014, 07:57:01 PM
All religions are pretty stupid guys.
They usually mellow out with time, that's all.
I don't think that's exactly fair. Religion was an attempt to explain the universe at a time before the scientific materialism of the Enlightenment took hold. Moreover, it is an extremely useful tool for maintaining a social order, especially one with enormous inequalities. Sure, religious faith in this day and age is a little bit backwards, but even now it still serves a purpose. Even in the First World, there are plenty of people for whom the empty purposelessness of modern life is filled by religious faith.
If we want to eliminate religion, we're going to have to provide something more compelling than wageslavery.
Yeah, Socialism :)
I don't know. Socialism might be useful as an economic tonic (and I'm sure that would be helpful), but it really doesn't do anything to address the social bonds between people, which have been broken now for some time. Closing somewhat (although not entirely) the gap in lifestyle between the lucky few and the unlucky multitudes would help create commonality, but something more is needed to turn them into a society.
After all, the European social democracies are having an even harder time with religion than we are.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2014, 12:52:59 AM
Whether it is causation or correlation (most muslims in Europe are first or second generation immigrants from shitholes with abysmal cultures), the fact remains that Muslims more than any other religious group in Europe are responsible for a disproportionate amount of hate crimes (whether against Jews, gays or women, frequently originating from their own communities). This is a problem we need to address. I am not saying kill them all or send them all back - but we need to recognise the fact instead of hiding behind multiculti bullshit and start actively assimilating Muslim immigrants by curbing the ability to practice their backwards customs (such as wearing a hijab in a public place) and not allowing them to bring in hate clerics to "educate" their children.
that's not the same as targetting all muslims, targetting Islam as an "evil religion" while other Faith would be strickly peaceful.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2014, 06:56:15 AM
I think our response to the attack was best captured by the speech Mulcair gave in the House yesterday in which he made the point that while security was important for Parliament it should still remain a place where the public was welcome. His point was that we should not give in to terror by closing ourselves off. He was speaking about our society as much as he was about Parliament. He received applause from everyone in the House for his comments and politicians of every stripe have echoed his words.
Like BB said, having armed security agents and metal detectors wouldn't be so bad, yet it would add security to the building.
About the gun: Winchester model 94 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-zehaf-bibeau-get-his-gun-1.2811249)
The shooter couldn't legally obtain gun, so the RCMP is tracking where it came from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2014, 06:56:15 AM
Far from "shitting on a thread" this thread shows how Canadians have generally responded to the attack. The only Canadian here who has advocated for treating Muslims as the Other is Grallon. No need to say more on that point :P
To my knowledge no Canadian politician of any stripe has done so. We understand that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, productive and positive members of our communities. We also understand that there is a radical element of Islam in the world that needs to be dealt with. But we Canadians are generally smart enough not to confuse one group with the other.
I think our response to the attack was best captured by the speech Mulcair gave in the House yesterday in which he made the point that while security was important for Parliament it should still remain a place where the public was welcome. His point was that we should not give in to terror by closing ourselves off. He was speaking about our society as much as he was about Parliament. He received applause from everyone in the House for his comments and politicians of every stripe have echoed his words.
We will not go down the path of treating our Muslim community as the Other. On Languish we sometimes have debates about what it is to be Canadian. That is what it means to be Canadian.
And for those of you not familiar with Canadian politics, Mulcair is the leader of the NDP. CC praising him is like Spicy praising Obama - pretty rare.
Yellow powder in Canadian, German and Belgian consulate of Istanbul.
The shot soldier's dogs are waiting for him to come home.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F2201816%2Fthumbs%2Fo-CIRILLO-DOGS-1-570.jpg&hash=e63b9c089510a4782f85d8fab6b6b638202244bf)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F2201814%2Fthumbs%2Fo-CIRILLO-DOGS-2-570.jpg&hash=ce8f30abadcafc9defde7506d73a377f6053e63a)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0p44BcCAAAZhFd.jpg)
:cry:
:(
:cry:
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 09:45:48 PM
Would you guys please stop shitting on a thread about a terrorist attack on my nation's capital?
What Beeb said.
How is a serious discussion about an issue that's directly related to the attack "shitting on the thread?"
I think you guys are being a little anal.
Ask and you shall receive.
I still want astral.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2014, 04:07:50 PM
How is a serious discussion about an issue that's directly related to the attack "shitting on the thread?"
I think you guys are being a little anal.
I guess we should also stop talking medicine, science and health care in the ebola thread as more than 2 people died of ebola too.
Corporal Cirillo being taken home to Hamilton.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBb1x9yP.jpg&hash=24e593813fe04910c718c0e6478074a94a4cedfe)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2oJ3eax.jpg&hash=1105c299dc2150a24ee607002349f0f8a4c9c5a2)
So question.
Are we maybe over reacting by calling this a "terrorist act"?
given that what we know now, that he was a lone shooter. While he was Muslim and had plans to travel to the Mid East to "study Koran", he wasn't directly, or indirectly, tied to any terrorist organization. He was mentally unstable. In other circumstances, we may just say he "went postal."
this is not, of course, to down play the death of the soldier or the serious risk to the prime minsiter and other government people and staffers that took place (surprised the head of RCMP hasn't stepped down yet) and that a serious look at the security of government buildings needs to taken immediately.
But is it an act of terror? the Harper government plans on tabling new bills that will give CSIS more power. Does this act justify it?
It is a good question. At least part of the answer may be contained in a video the shooter apparently made just before the attack. It seems his mother may have been wrong about him him. In any event I think you raise a very important point that we should not over react. From news reports it seems the police wanted to detain the fellow who killed the soldier in Quebec but lacked the power to do so. I am not sure what power they didnt have that they thought they needed.
QuoteThe man who committed the brazen attack on Parliament Hill that left a Canadian soldier dead was driven by a political and ideological motive, the RCMP said, as it provided new details that shed light on the assault that shook Ottawa last week.
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau prepared a video shortly before he shot a Canadian soldier at the National War Memorial and stormed Parliament, according to police. The video is being analyzed by the RCMP and will not be immediately released. But RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson said in a statement that police had uncovered "persuasive evidence" of Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau's motivation.
The interwoven questions of whether Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was mentally ill, whether he was ideologically motivated, whether he thought he was acting on behalf of the Islamic State and whether he moved on his own will take on added significance this week as the Conservative government is expected to table legislation that would enhance the power of intelligence agencies.
Reached by The Globe and Mail Sunday night, Commissioner Paulson said that the video was a short one in which Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau appeared "lucid and purposeful."
He said the RCMP cannot release the video or give further details about it at this time. "It may be evidence," he said. Still, Mr. Paulson said, the public should know about its existence. "There's no agenda to putting it out," he said. The RCMP statement provided details that illuminate some aspects of the attack, including how an apparently homeless, drug-addicted drifter was able to fund his assault.
Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau had worked in the Alberta oil sands and had amassed a considerable sum of money, the RCMP said. That helps explain how he was able to purchase a used car that he drove up to Parliament Hill before hijacking a minister's car. The police said they continue to investigate how Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau distributed the rest of that money prior to his killing.
The question of how Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau acquired a gun remains under investigation, they said. He was prohibited from possessing weapons due to previous criminal convictions, but the RCMP said they believe the knife he was carrying during the attack was retrieved from an aunt's property in Mont Tremblant, where he had lived years earlier. Investigators are looking into the possibility that the weapon used to kill Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial, a .30-30 Winchester lever action rifle, might have been similarly hidden on the property. They called it an "old and uncommon" gun.
"The RCMP is also investigating Zehaf-Bibeau's interactions with numerous individuals in the days leading up to this attack," Mr. Paulson said in the statement. "The investigation is focusing on whether these interactions could have contributed or facilitated, in any way, the terrorist attack subsequently committed by Zehaf-Bibeau."
In her letter, Ms. Bibeau said the RCMP got it wrong about her son's intended destination, something she said she brought to their attention and wondered if they had publicly corrected. She said she believed her son felt trapped because his application for a passport had been held up, which frustrated him to the point that he "wanted death." Or he may have wanted to "strike back at the government that had refused him," she wrote in a statement published by Postmedia over the weekend. She said she felt angry and ashamed in the wake of her son's actions, but said he was an unhappy person "at odds with the world." "For me, mental illness is at the centre of this tragedy," she wrote.
The RCMP announced that it had asked the Ontario Provincial Police to take over the investigation into the shooting of Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau, who was brought down by a hail of bullets after bursting through security at a guarded entry to Parliament's Centre Block.
"The RCMP is confident we will have an authoritative and detailed account of the shooting, including a complete reconstruction of the heroic actions of those involved, in the weeks to come," the statement said.
The video will be interesting to see what he said. But again, it's just the equivalent of a 1000 page manifesto written in fine penmanship that crazies since time memorial have done.
I'm just wondering why this is labelled an act of terror, and say the shooting of all those women in Montreal around 25 years ago isn't. In both cases a specific type (soldier or women) was targeted.
My concern is that we start watering down "terrorism", if any random act of violence is a terrorist act. Or worse, if every violent act by a muslim is a terror act.
I agree with your concern that there could be an over reaction. But one thing to keep in mind is that he does appear to have been responding to an ISIS call for action. So I am not sure your characterization that he had no connection with a terrorist organization is without doubt.
Yeah. My personal point of view is, given what I know, this does not rise to the level of what I consider terrorism.
I mean, I suppose it could technically be made to fit into a definition of terrorism, but then terrorism does not - again IMO - justify an extraordinary response by itself.
This seems to me to be one deranged individual acting out. That he lashed on to poorly understood Islam, as opposed to shittily articulated Satanism, badly mangled misogyny and MRA BS, some kind of white nationalism, homophobia, anarchism, or any other kind of ideology is neither here nor there.
Strikes me that "terrorism" is simply a description for the motivation of the attacker - that is, whether or not the attack was designed to create terror, in the service of some sort of ideology.
The analysis of whether the guy was mentally unstable is somewhat besides the point. Most terrorists are likely to be at least somewhat mentally unstable - particularly the ones who don't care if they live or die. In any event, sane or crazy makes no difference to the threat they pose.
The issue of what actions, if any, we should take in response is another issue. I'm not a big fan of 'security theatre', and I'm not convinced that anything can really dissuade a lone attacker from killing people anyway; we should definitely avoid the temptation to sign away civil liberties.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 12:58:37 PM
Strikes me that "terrorism" is simply a description for the motivation of the attacker - that is, whether or not the attack was designed to create terror, in the service of some sort of ideology.
The analysis of whether the guy was mentally unstable is somewhat besides the point. Most terrorists are likely to be at least somewhat mentally unstable - particularly the ones who don't care if they live or die. In any event, sane or crazy makes no difference to the threat they pose.
The issue of what actions, if any, we should take in response is another issue. I'm not a big fan of 'security theatre', and I'm not convinced that anything can really dissuade a lone attacker from killing people anyway; we should definitely avoid the temptation to sign away civil liberties.
I agree.
Looking at the pictures of the caravan carrying the slain soldier is very moving. Great and heartfelt response by the Canadian people.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 12:19:49 PM
That he lashed on to poorly understood Islam, as opposed to shittily articulated Satanism, badly mangled misogyny and MRA BS, some kind of white nationalism, homophobia, anarchism, or any other kind of ideology is neither here nor there.
Of all the groups you mention there is only one that is calling on believers to attack Canada. That cannot be ignored. But also am not sure more needs to be done other than have a greater awareness of the possible threat.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 12:58:37 PM
Strikes me that "terrorism" is simply a description for the motivation of the attacker - that is, whether or not the attack was designed to create terror, in the service of some sort of ideology.
The analysis of whether the guy was mentally unstable is somewhat besides the point. Most terrorists are likely to be at least somewhat mentally unstable - particularly the ones who don't care if they live or die. In any event, sane or crazy makes no difference to the threat they pose.
The issue of what actions, if any, we should take in response is another issue. I'm not a big fan of 'security theatre', and I'm not convinced that anything can really dissuade a lone attacker from killing people anyway; we should definitely avoid the temptation to sign away civil liberties.
Yeah, the taxonomy of causes and intents sometimes muddles the water on what an appropriate response is.
As I see it, there's a spectrum of sorts.
On one end, you have your lonely individual who acts out violently against society in the service of some sort of ideology they've mainly picked up from the media or developed themselves. I think this guy fits in there, as does some of the various misogyny mass shootings (Eliot Rodgers, Marc Lepine), the Unabomber, and those dudes at the Boston Marathon (though there were two of them). At that end, I think it's a matter of alienation and an attraction to drastic action rather than the ideology itself; as in, the ideology is tacked on and sought out to justify the action - almost on aesthetic grounds - rather than vice versa.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are large organizations with actual leadership cadres, funding mechanisms, and political objectives that explicitly embrace terrorist actions as a form of warfare. I mean groups like Al Qaeda, the IRA etc. I think they actively try to recruit from the group mentioned above, and that they turn out propaganda, theory, and social environments that can provide ready-made justifications for disaffected individuals to latch on to due to their high profile.
In between, I guess, I'd place smaller groups like the German Red Army Faction, the FLQ etc, where personally disaffected individuals and ideologues have found each other and crystalized their cause and plan of action and aim to use terroristic actions to influence the course of politics but lack structure outside of their own cell.
While each of these can be termed terrorism in that they aim to create political change through violence and terror, the difference in organization and coherence of goals suggests to me that different responses are appropriate.
... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 01:18:21 PM
... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.
I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre". Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces? Why are there not better controls at the main entrance? I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 01:18:21 PM
... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.
I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre". Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces? Why are there not better controls at the main entrance? I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.
Sensible, specific and measured security improvements are not IMO "security theatre".
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 01:21:19 PM
I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre". Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces? Why are there not better controls at the main entrance? I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.
Yeah for sure. I have no specific insight into any proposed changes to the security procedures at Parliament to label them "theatre" or "appropriate".
EDIT: to add - as Malthus says, specific, measured responses are completely appropriate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 12:19:49 PM
That he lashed on to poorly understood Islam, as opposed to shittily articulated Satanism, badly mangled misogyny and MRA BS, some kind of white nationalism, homophobia, anarchism, or any other kind of ideology is neither here nor there.
Of all the groups you mention there is only one that is calling on believers to attack Canada. That cannot be ignored. But also am not sure more needs to be done other than have a greater awareness of the possible threat.
Sure, fair enough. I just personally think that if someone decides more or less by themselves to go shoot a bunch of people in Canada, that while some foreign types rage on about the evils of modernity and the West and that the proper action is to attack Canada may provide their personal justification, they may latch on to something else as well. Maybe they decide to shoot some women instead, like Marc Lepine.
That said, I agree that we should definitely be aware that radical Islam is a more likely cause for alienated individuals to justify their violence than, say the Anarchism or Marxism that was popular in the 1920s. I think the appropriate response there is to focus the appropriate human resources on the environments where radicalization make take place, for example, and to work with the non-radical parts of those communities to minimize the possible catalyst points for radicalization; and yeah "Islam" is definitely the sexy thing right now for disaffected alienated youth to latch on to if they're attracted to violence, so lets govern ourselves accordingly.
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 11:40:42 AM
So question.
Are we maybe over reacting by calling this a "terrorist act"?
given that what we know now, that he was a lone shooter. While he was Muslim and had plans to travel to the Mid East to "study Koran", he wasn't directly, or indirectly, tied to any terrorist organization. He was mentally unstable. In other circumstances, we may just say he "went postal."
this is not, of course, to down play the death of the soldier or the serious risk to the prime minsiter and other government people and staffers that took place (surprised the head of RCMP hasn't stepped down yet) and that a serious look at the security of government buildings needs to taken immediately.
But is it an act of terror? the Harper government plans on tabling new bills that will give CSIS more power. Does this act justify it?
La Presse, on its scientific blog, had a good piece on this. (http://blogues.lapresse.ca/sciences/2014/10/23/terroriste-ou-malade-mental%C2%A0/) It links to this newspiece in english (http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/23/terrorists-and-mass-shooters-more-similar-than-we-thought/)
Terrorist and mass shooters aren't really different in terms of psychology.
However, there has been a call from terrorist organizations to strike at targets in Canada & elsewhere, and these should not be ignored. They will create a catalyst for such deranged individual to strike, they will give them focus for their hatred.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 11:51:02 AM
From news reports it seems the police wanted to detain the fellow who killed the soldier in Quebec but lacked the power to do so. I am not sure what power they didnt have that they thought they needed.
they needed more evidence that he was really going to strike at someone in Canada to detain him.
They had sufficient evidences to take his passport, not to keep him locked.
It's something we will have to reflect on, not just for terrorists, but for any kind of mentally hill people.
Though there are huge potential for abuse, we will have to thread carefully.
EDIT:
in the case of the Quebec shooter, family/friends warned the authorities he was dangerous, yet they couldn't convict him to keep him under watch. He was depressive and turned to Islam, and he quickly radicalized as he was already prone to believe in conspiracy theories.
Maybe if they had power to lock them for a short period of time and force them to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine his level of threat would be a good idea.
Seems there is a lot of agreement among Canadians here (and generally, from what I'm hearing) that, while these attacks are of course a hugely upsetting tragedy, they should be responded to in a measured and sensible manner - not by demonizing Muslims, and not by taking measures that will erode our civil liberties.
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
What a shocker that no one has come out in favor of demonizing Muslims. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Seems there is a lot of agreement among Canadians here (and generally, from what I'm hearing) that, while these attacks are of course a hugely upsetting tragedy, they should be responded to in a measured and sensible manner - not by demonizing Muslims, and not by taking measures that will erode our civil liberties.
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
Of course no one is in favour of 'eroding our civil liberties'.
Depending on what is suggested however, I may well support increased police surveillance or detention powers, if they can be shown to have specific effect on our ability to prevent attacks such as these.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 27, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.
We really haven't been subjected to any sort of terrorist attacks for over 40 years however.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
At the very least, the Conservatives will beat the drums of war.
Then, I don't know. There's a bill under study, details are vague so far though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:00:34 PM
What a shocker that no one has come out in favor of demonizing Muslims. :P
Not so cut and dried - there is the Grallon contingent out there.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 27, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.
We really haven't been subjected to any sort of terrorist attacks for over 40 years however.
Not sure what criteria you are using. There have been a number of attacks over the last 40 years. To name but one - the Air India bomb in 1985. More recently there was the explosions which damaged the pipelines in about 09. Not to mention the high profile cases in which the police stopped the acts before they occured.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:00:34 PM
What a shocker that no one has come out in favor of demonizing Muslims. :P
You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 27, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?
Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.
We really haven't been subjected to any sort of terrorist attacks for over 40 years however.
Not sure what criteria you are using. There have been a number of attacks over the last 40 years. To name but one - the Air India bomb in 1985. More recently there was the explosions which damaged the pipelines in about 09. Not to mention the high profile cases in which the police stopped the acts before they occured.
Air India? Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens). It didn't involve "us"
Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".
Quote from: viper37 on October 27, 2014, 01:49:39 PM
Quote from: Josephus on October 27, 2014, 11:40:42 AM
So question.
Are we maybe over reacting by calling this a "terrorist act"?
given that what we know now, that he was a lone shooter. While he was Muslim and had plans to travel to the Mid East to "study Koran", he wasn't directly, or indirectly, tied to any terrorist organization. He was mentally unstable. In other circumstances, we may just say he "went postal."
this is not, of course, to down play the death of the soldier or the serious risk to the prime minsiter and other government people and staffers that took place (surprised the head of RCMP hasn't stepped down yet) and that a serious look at the security of government buildings needs to taken immediately.
But is it an act of terror? the Harper government plans on tabling new bills that will give CSIS more power. Does this act justify it?
La Presse, on its scientific blog, had a good piece on this. (http://blogues.lapresse.ca/sciences/2014/10/23/terroriste-ou-malade-mental%C2%A0/) It links to this newspiece in english (http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/23/terrorists-and-mass-shooters-more-similar-than-we-thought/)
Terrorist and mass shooters aren't really different in terms of psychology.
However, there has been a call from terrorist organizations to strike at targets in Canada & elsewhere, and these should not be ignored. They will create a catalyst for such deranged individual to strike, they will give them focus for their hatred.
Yeah, that's kind of my view of this stuff as well.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?
I meant no one. No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
Air India? Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens). It didn't involve "us"
Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".
Given the specific targeting of women and the tirades against feminism, would you consider the massacre at the École Polytechnique in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre) terrorism as well? Because if we do, then it's 16 years since the last terrorist attack from a homegrown.
As an aside, doing a bit of research I learned about the 1984 attack on the Quebec National Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie). Though three people were sadly killed, that situation was at was ultimately handled by the Sergeant-at-Arms as well. Seems to be a theme that those guys are solid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?
I meant no one. No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.
You are right, no one (or at least very few) ever
says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
What that point has to do with my post is a trifle puzzling, though.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
Air India? Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens). It didn't involve "us"
:huh:
I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community. The terrorists were Vancouver based. At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant. It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten. And then to state the obvious. Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian. It certainly did involve "us".
QuotePipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".
That is a different issue. Your claim was that there have been no acts of terrorism for over 40 years.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?
I meant no one. No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.
You are right, no one (or at least very few) ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
What that point has to do with my post is a trifle puzzling, though.
Yeah, exactly. No one ever says we should demonize Muslims but one need only go upstream a bit in this thread to find people who think it is right and proper to do so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
I meant no one. No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
That's a pretty pointless observation then.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
:huh:
I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community. The terrorists were Vancouver based. At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant. It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten. And then to state the obvious. Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian. It certainly did involve "us".
Yeah. Air India is definitely "us" if you're in BC.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
Air India? Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens). It didn't involve "us"
Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".
Given the specific targeting of women and the tirades against feminism, would you consider the massacre at the École Polytechnique in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre) terrorism as well? Because if we do, then it's 16 years since the last terrorist attack from a homegrown.
He counts as a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. The only difference is, he wasn't responding to a call to arms from an organized group.
QuoteAs an aside, doing a bit of research I learned about the 1984 attack on the Quebec National Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie). Though three people were sadly killed, that situation was at was ultimately handled by the Sergeant-at-Arms as well. Seems to be a theme that those guys are solid.
Agreed - I never read the details of that attack, and the Quebec Sergeant at arms' response was awesome.
QuoteThe National Assembly's Sergeant-at-Arms, René Jalbert, was informed that there was a man with a gun in the Assembly Chamber. Upon stepping out of the elevator, Lortie fired at him. Seeing that Lortie was in a military uniform, Jalbert told him that he too had been a soldier with the Van Doos (slang for the Royal 22e Régiment), and that if Lortie would allow it, he would show him his discharge card. Lortie agreed, after which Jalbert persuaded him to show his own identification.
After this exchange, Jalbert persuaded Lortie to come into his office to discuss the matter, and release the other civilians in the Assembly Chamber. Jalbert talked to Lortie for over four hours, ultimately persuading him to surrender to military police (since he was unwilling to surrender to civilian police) at 14:22. For his heroic act which likely prevented further death, the Canadian government awarded Jalbert the Cross of Valour several months later.
An award well deserved.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
That's a pretty pointless observation then.
It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.
You think grallon's comments upthread should be considered within the pale?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
That's a pretty pointless observation then.
It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.
You mean like this?
QuoteHomegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:14:13 PM
You think grallon's comments upthread should be considered within the pale?
No. Do you think Martinus' and Viking's (and my) comments should? You've already suggested they fall into the category of "demonizing Muslims," which every right thinking person knows is wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
Air India? Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens). It didn't involve "us"
Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".
Given the specific targeting of women and the tirades against feminism, would you consider the massacre at the École Polytechnique in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre) terrorism as well? Because if we do, then it's 16 years since the last terrorist attack from a homegrown.
As an aside, doing a bit of research I learned about the 1984 attack on the Quebec National Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie). Though three people were sadly killed, that situation was at was ultimately handled by the Sergeant-at-Arms as well. Seems to be a theme that those guys are solid.
both of them were schizophrenic though... In the Lepine case, it was about revenge: women were the source of his problems. It wasn't aimed at changing policies. With Lortie, he saw seperatists as demons, he was guided by God.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:18:22 PM
No. Do you think Martinus' and Viking's (and my) comments should? You've already suggested they fall into the category of "demonizing Muslims," which every right thinking person knows is wrong.
I should not have included Martinus and Viking's names, as we were talking about Canadians calling for demonizing Muslims.
Quote from: viper37 on October 27, 2014, 03:19:13 PM
both of them were schizophrenic though... In the Lepine case, it was about revenge: women were the source of his problems. It wasn't aimed at changing policies. With Lortie, he saw seperatists as demons, he was guided by God.
Yeah, and aren't there reports coming in that this most recent guy had some serious mental issues also?
I think that's a pretty common theme with these kind of individuals.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
:huh:
I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community. The terrorists were Vancouver based. At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant. It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten. And then to state the obvious. Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian. It certainly did involve "us".
Yeah. Air India is definitely "us" if you're in BC.
Perhaps it's a regional thing then.
I mean CC was quite right to point out that Air India was a terrorist attack involving Canada. But I always had the feeling that most Canadians didn't think of it as greatly involving "us", and that you had to go back to the FLQ for an attack that had such a high profile and that shook our sense of security.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?
I meant no one. No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.
You are right, no one (or at least very few) ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."
What that point has to do with my post is a trifle puzzling, though.
Presumably some who is consciously demonizing a group is does not actually believe the group is bad, but simply wishes others to think so.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:20:09 PM
I should not have included Martinus and Viking's names, as we were talking about Canadians calling for demonizing Muslims.
So, yes?
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 03:23:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
:huh:
I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community. The terrorists were Vancouver based. At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant. It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten. And then to state the obvious. Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian. It certainly did involve "us".
Yeah. Air India is definitely "us" if you're in BC.
Perhaps it's a regional thing then.
I mean CC was quite right to point out that Air India was a terrorist attack involving Canada. But I always had the feeling that most Canadians didn't think of it as greatly involving "us", and that you had to go back to the FLQ for an attack that had such a high profile and that shook our sense of security.
Not sure how the FLQ attack shook our sense of security other than the fact that the government over reacted and invoked the War Measures Act - which brings us nicely back to Josephus' original point.
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:30:39 PM
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:30:39 PM
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.
What kind of solutions did you have in mind?
I have a list of 95 Theses I am going to hammer on the door of Kabah.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:34:36 PM
What kind of solutions did you have in mind?
Convincing someone to nail a list of 95 these on the door of the Kabah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:34:36 PM
What kind of solutions did you have in mind?
Convincing someone to nail a list of 95 these on the door of the Kabah.
Well Valmy just said he would do it, so on the the next problem, eh?
Man how nerdy are we?
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:34:36 PM
What kind of solutions did you have in mind?
Convincing someone to nail a list of 95 these on the door of the Kabah.
Well Valmy just said he would do it, so on the the next problem, eh?
Well, I'm glad we sorted this out. Now we don't have to go through with Grallon's genocide plan.
Islam is just the latest flavor to grasp for those who feel compelled to commit violence in their sense of being wronged, slighted or otherwise disenfranchised at the outskirts of society. 40 years ago, it was left-wing movements that were in vogue.
Being batshit insane Having substantial mental health issues has a lot to do with it, though.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:45:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:34:36 PM
What kind of solutions did you have in mind?
Convincing someone to nail a list of 95 these on the door of the Kabah.
Well Valmy just said he would do it, so on the the next problem, eh?
Well, I'm glad we sorted this out. Now we don't have to go through with Grallon's genocide plan.
:cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:20:09 PM
I should not have included Martinus and Viking's names, as we were talking about Canadians calling for demonizing Muslims.
So, yes?
No, not "yes", not "no", but "I don't really care what Marty and Vike says about Muslims at this time."
If you asked people 40 years ago if there was a class of civilizations they would probably say yes. Between the freedom-loving individualist West and the collectivist Asiatic hordes in the East. In 40 years it you will likely get a completely different answer. Perhaps the enemy will be Hindu hyper-nationalist or Chinese Anarcho-Capitalists.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:45:51 PM
Well, I'm glad we sorted this out. Now we don't have to go through with Grallon's genocide plan.
I don't know. There was some genocidal activity going on last time somebody nailed 95 theses on doors.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:51:42 PM
If you asked people 40 years ago if there was a class of civilizations they would probably say yes. Between the freedom-loving individualist West and the collectivist Asiatic hordes in the East. In 40 years it you will likely get a completely different answer. Perhaps the enemy will be Hindu hyper-nationalist or Chinese Anarcho-Capitalists.
It is between internet trolls and the rest of us.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 01:18:21 PM
... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.
I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre". Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces? Why are there not better controls at the main entrance? I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.
No argument there. But I think the PM has a few more things than just improving security at Parliament in mind.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:00:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:45:51 PM
Well, I'm glad we sorted this out. Now we don't have to go through with Grallon's genocide plan.
I don't know. There was some genocidal activity going on last time somebody nailed 95 theses on doors.
The problem was a slight error in translation: not "theses", but "feces".
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 04:03:44 PM
The problem was a slight error in translation: not "theses", but "feces".
Save it, Jew. Nobody's talking shit about your blood matzohs. :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:51:42 PM
If you asked people 40 years ago if there was a class of civilizations they would probably say yes. Between the freedom-loving individualist West and the collectivist Asiatic hordes in the East. In 40 years it you will likely get a completely different answer. Perhaps the enemy will be Hindu hyper-nationalist or Chinese Anarcho-Capitalists.
It is between internet trolls and the rest of us.
We prefer the less loaded term "bridge-kin", thank you very much.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:50:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 03:20:09 PM
I should not have included Martinus and Viking's names, as we were talking about Canadians calling for demonizing Muslims.
So, yes?
No, not "yes", not "no", but "I don't really care what Marty and Vike says about Muslims at this time."
So first you attack us and then, when you get called on it, you refuse to engage? Classy.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:09:20 PMSo first you attack us and then, when you get called on it, you refuse to engage? Classy.
Like I said. It was a mistake.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:51:42 PM
If you asked people 40 years ago if there was a class of civilizations they would probably say yes. Between the freedom-loving individualist West and the collectivist Asiatic hordes in the East. In 40 years it you will likely get a completely different answer. Perhaps the enemy will be Hindu hyper-nationalist or Chinese Anarcho-Capitalists.
It is between internet trolls and the rest of us.
We prefer the less loaded term "bridge-kin", thank you very much.
Haven't heard that one before. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:30:39 PM
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.
But that's obvious too surely :mellow:
Interesting debate from the Canadians too, I'm glad you seem to be taking a measured response. I recently watched an interview with a Minister from the 70s who said back then they would never recall Parliament or anything like that in response to an IRA attack because it would politically dignify them. I think that's maybe a bit extreme, but I do feel we've gone too far the other way.
It is weird though. He clearly wanted to be a terrorist and it's clearly political but, like another recent attack (can't remember which) it feels almost more like a school shooter/spree killer kind of situation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
It is weird though. He clearly wanted to be a terrorist and it's clearly political but, like another recent attack (can't remember which) it feels almost more like a school shooter/spree killer kind of situation.
Yeah exactly. It feels very much like someone unhinged looking for something to latch on to.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
It is weird though. He clearly wanted to be a terrorist and it's clearly political but, like another recent attack (can't remember which) it feels almost more like a school shooter/spree killer kind of situation.
Yeah exactly. It feels very much like someone unhinged looking for something to latch on to.
Gee, I wish I had said that. But Jacob did, so that makes it cooler.
BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?
I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
Gee, I wish I had said that. But Jacob did, so that makes it cooler.
You did say that, and it sounded pretty cool IMO.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:30:39 PM
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.
But that's obvious too surely :mellow:
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topics in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?
It seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 04:16:34 PM
BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?
I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?
Best I can find:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314
QuoteBill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:
Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."
Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.
The proposed bill would also:
Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."
So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.
Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2014, 03:30:39 PM
Yi, what argument are advancing exactly? "The problem lies in the nature of Islam therefor... What?"
...it's OK to talk about the problems of Islam and possible solutions.
But that's obvious too surely :mellow:
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topics in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?
It seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.
It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.
Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 04:16:34 PM
BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?
I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?
Best I can find:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314
QuoteBill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:
Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."
Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.
The proposed bill would also:
Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."
So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.
Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".
These measures are pretty scary, to be honest. Not letting even the judge (not to mention the defence attorney) to asses the credibility of a witness by withholding his or her identity seems like the very antithesis of a fair trial.
And frankly, I can't for the life of me see how any of these measures would prevent or in fact in any way relate to the incident at hand?
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 04:29:06 PM
It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.
Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.
Ok, maybe this called for a different thread (that ship has sailed now, I guess), but I was never making my arguments here in response to this specific incident. I believe I jumped in after I saw some of the people here making some incorrect claims in response to Viking's and Yi's posts (I think mainly crazycanuck saying that since all religions have crazies, there is no difference between violence motivated by Christianity and violence motivated by Islam).
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2014, 04:26:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 04:16:34 PM
BTW does anyone have a good summary of what Harper's proposed changes are re: security as a result of this?
I'm seeing some random FB stuff in reaction to it, but it's all spin as far as I can see. What's actually being proposed?
Best I can find:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-powers-beefed-up-under-new-bill-tabled-by-steven-blaney-1.2814314
QuoteBill C-44, as CBC News reported earlier, amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to:
Give CSIS more powers of surveillance "to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada."
Give Canada's spy agency explicit authority to operate "within or outside Canada." This would allow the agency to share information on suspected Canadian terrorists abroad with members of the so-called "Five Eyes" group of countries — namely the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Give "greater protection" to confidential sources without having to identify them in court proceedings, even to the judge.
The proposed bill would also:
Make it an offence to divulge any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identity of a CSIS employee "who was, is or is likely to become engaged in covert operational activities."
So this bill was not introduced in response to the shooting.
Hard to judge the effectiveness of the bill when couched in vague language like "more powers" or "greater protection".
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27/bill-c-44-csis-spy-watchdog-conservatives_n_6055512.html
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world, with countries like France and Switzerland taking a dramatically different approach than, say, the UK and Germany?
I've said the 'problems of Islam and possible solutions' should obviously be talked about. I think there'll be lots of different perspectives on what problem there may be and what solution there could be. I didn't mean to suggest there's an obvious answer. As I say I'm not even sure there's an obvious question.
QuoteIt seems to me that you guys are trying to kill the debate by painting one side of it as simply too extreme to even consider (and no, I am not talking about grallon's ramblings). It is little wonder then that, when you do it, the extremists end up becoming more influential.
I don't know who you guys are here. I think Melanie Phillips is roughly just inside the pale. I can't speak for the rest of the guys but I'm equally very, very happy to cast George Galloway outside the pale.
Ok, sorry, Sheilbh, I misunderstood your post. As for "who you guys are", I can't speak for Yi or Viking, but I consider myself pretty close to Bill Maher on this issue (and a slew of others, I guess).
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.
Again I wouldn't say Farage is anywhere near as extreme or unacceptable as Le Pen or Wilders. One's still a fascist and the other does demonise people. For me that's unacceptable - and I've a friend who lives in the Netherlands who does the opposite and blames the rise of Wilders on their lack of political correctness :lol:
QuoteAnd frankly, I can't for the life of me see how any of these measures would prevent or in fact in any way relate to the incident at hand?
Could anything? I don't mind the sound of those changes, but my understanding is Canadian intelligence knew about this guy, thought he was a risk to go to Syria. But short of mind-reading I don't see how they could have predicted this.
It's another of those differences with 'terrorism' there's no network here, there's no plans. That sort of thing is, I imagine, really tough to stop.
Well, for what it is worth, Farage, with his desire to take the UK out of the EU, is probably going to do more harm to his own country than Le Pen or Wilders. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 04:33:40 PM
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/27/bill-c-44-csis-spy-watchdog-conservatives_n_6055512.html
Thanks :cheers:
On the Canadian reaction, this from Halifax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p9rFprD_Qf4
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2014, 06:26:54 PM
On the Canadian reaction, this from Halifax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p9rFprD_Qf4
thanks for that. Interesting.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote).
I see nothing wrong with glassing anybody.
QuoteI resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale.
Like the cop with far too many internal investigations of abuse under his belt to provide testimony, your reputation when it comes to reasoned debate precedes you.
Sorry, sweetie, but you've been too much of an over-the-top homo shrillbot all these years. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 04:29:06 PM
It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.
Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.
As I said to CC though, I wonder if Canadian heads would be so collected if one of these two attacks had ended with several hundred dead. I think the number of deaths, in such a spectacular fashion, says a lot in say the psychic scarring in America.
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.
I don't recall berkut calling for all Islamic lands to be glassed over.
I don't remember that either. I do remember Marty calling for mass murder of people he didn't like on several occasions though.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 07:54:44 PM
As I said to CC though, I wonder if Canadian heads would be so collected if one of these two attacks had ended with several hundred dead. I think the number of deaths, in such a spectacular fashion, says a lot in say the psychic scarring in America.
I think there's definitely something to that. This is not Canada's 9/11 in any shape or form.
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 09:08:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.
I don't recall berkut calling for all Islamic lands to be glassed over.
I wasn't sure about CdM, but I would be willing to bet good money on Berkut. It was still at Paradox.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 07:54:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2014, 04:29:06 PM
It is simply a factual issue. Canadians, by and large, see this attack as more of a problem with people with mental problems being attracted to the most extreme ideology currently being peddled, that one with the religion of Islam generally.
Because, here at least, that's how it appears to be playing out. We don't see anything in the way of actual popular support from the Canadian Islamic community for these attacks. On the contrary. The last major organized attempt to attack - the Via Rail attack - was turned over to the cops by people within the Islamic community itself. As for this young terrorist, he was, it appears, acting on his own.
As I said to CC though, I wonder if Canadian heads would be so collected if one of these two attacks had ended with several hundred dead. I think the number of deaths, in such a spectacular fashion, says a lot in say the psychic scarring in America.
Fair enough. Let's hope we don't get to run that particular social experiment ... ! ;)
Agreed -_-
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:31:26 AM
Quote from: dps on October 27, 2014, 09:08:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM
If that was the case, then why it is one of the most hotly debated topic in the Western world,
Because it wasn't on September 10, 2001.
But it is now. And frankly, I was calling for the cooler heads to prevail back then, against you and Berkut, among others, who wanted all the towelheads to be glassed (not the exact quote). I resent the fact that now, when I voice some concerns, I am immediately painted as one who "demonises Muslims" and beyond the Pale. This is not conductive to good debate, and it is little wonder that people like Le Pen, Farrage or Wilders end up more and more popular - because the other side, as soon as you voice some concern about the cultural clashes with immigrants from Muslim countries, immediately paints you into the extremist corner.
I don't recall berkut calling for all Islamic lands to be glassed over.
I wasn't sure about CdM, but I would be willing to bet good money on Berkut. It was still at Paradox.
You are full of shit.
Back to the issue of the possible over reaction, it turns out that the CSIS Bill has been in the works for some time and the Conservatives did not amend it as a result of recent events. What I think is a possible issue is a new Bill which will give police greater power. I havent seen any detail about what that might entail but I think that the real risk of over reaction is in that second Bill.
Quote from: Jacob on October 28, 2014, 01:26:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 07:54:44 PM
As I said to CC though, I wonder if Canadian heads would be so collected if one of these two attacks had ended with several hundred dead. I think the number of deaths, in such a spectacular fashion, says a lot in say the psychic scarring in America.
I think there's definitely something to that. This is not Canada's 9/11 in any shape or form.
Exactly. And we shouldn't let it become our 9/11
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:31:26 AM
I wasn't sure about CdM, but I would be willing to bet good money on Berkut. It was still at Paradox.
IIRC, there as one thread where this surfaced, nuking Mecca, and it wasn't Berkut, nor anyone from Languish. I just can't remember the name of the dude, but I think he was Scottish. Or British (and it wasn't Top Cat). And maybe one or two others.
I am waiting for a check from Marty - what is "good money" for a Polish lawyer?
...from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
25 cents. Or 5 Reichmarks.
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2014, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:31:26 AM
I wasn't sure about CdM, but I would be willing to bet good money on Berkut. It was still at Paradox.
IIRC, there as one thread where this surfaced, nuking Mecca, and it wasn't Berkut, nor anyone from Languish. I just can't remember the name of the dude, but I think he was Scottish. Or British (and it wasn't Top Cat). And maybe one or two others.
One of the more vehement ones was Sean89 (or Sean[someothernumber]). He had an Irish EU avatar, but was from NYC IIRC.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2014, 10:16:13 AM
I am waiting for a check from Marty - what is "good money" for a Polish lawyer?
Couple brooding chickens
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/28/distinction_between_terrorist_or_murderer_label_is_important_tim_harper.html
Star Columnist asks the same question I posed earlier.
Languish Journalism cabal is as good as Languish lawyer cabal
Quote from: Josephus on October 29, 2014, 12:34:28 PM
Languish Journalism cabal is as good as Languish lawyer cabal
:cheers:
Quote from: Josephus on October 29, 2014, 12:34:28 PM
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/28/distinction_between_terrorist_or_murderer_label_is_important_tim_harper.html
Star Columnist asks the same question I posed earlier.
Languish Journalism cabal is as good as Languish lawyer cabal
Fair, but I disagree with the thesis.
QuoteBut if we were to characterize him and the man who killed Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent as mentally ill murderers, a government would not have licence to sharpen its rhetoric and move intrusively into the realm of civil liberties.
Who forms the larger group in our society:
(a) Terrorism sympathizers; or
(b) The mentally ill?
To my mind, there is just as much scope for potentially intruding on civil liberties if this is characterized as a "mentally ill problem". Maybe more. Imagine the RCMP combing through your medical records, or having to submit to a government "mental health clearance" for obtaining routine licences and passports.
On the other hand, if the emphasis is put on mental illness perhaps more resources will be provided to help people with mental illness.
The contortions made in Canada in order to avoid naming the elephant in the room are almost comical. :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 29, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
The contortions made in Canada in order to avoid naming the elephant in the room are almost comical. :rolleyes:
G.
If you read the thread carefully you will see we have indeed dealt with you. :)
Quote from: Grallon on October 29, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
The contortions made in Canada in order to avoid naming the elephant in the room are almost comical. :rolleyes:
G.
Elephant, I name thee "Grallon" and thy traits are hysteria and xenophobia.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 01:08:48 PM
On the other hand, if the emphasis is put on mental illness perhaps more resources will be provided to help people with mental illness.
True - but that could very easily go hand-in-hand with the stated concern (adverse impact on civil liberties).
Quite aside from this scenario, I've long been of the opinion that how mental illness is handled in this country is a problem - our policies have, historically, swung between extremes: involuntary committal being easy on the one hand, to near impossible on the other, with funding low for treatment and that difficult to get. Or at least, so it was last time I looked into it.
Anecdotally, if you have to deal with a mentally ill person, you will apparently get precious little support from the authorities - I remember some examples of roommate concerns in which the response of the authorities was almost comical in its ineffectuality (the problem was "solved" in both cases with the people I knew moving out and leaving it behind them, presumably for the landlord to deal with). I can only imagine what it was like to *be* that mentally ill person, or their families.
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
Of course, that could just mean they were "out of sight, out of mind" in '89.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
Of course, that could just mean they were "out of sight, out of mind" in '89.
That's just the problem. Solve our "homeless on the street" problem by - locking them up forever in cages.
Canada went the other way: a social consensus built, based on among other things some notable horror stories, that "lock 'em up" was inhumane and unethical. So the pendulum swung hard in the other direction.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 02:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
Of course, that could just mean they were "out of sight, out of mind" in '89.
That's just the problem. Solve our "homeless on the street" problem by - locking them up forever in cages.
Canada went the other way: a social consensus built, based on among other things some notable horror stories, that "lock 'em up" was inhumane and unethical. So the pendulum swung hard in the other direction.
Agreed. I suspect the real incentive for governments of the day to move toward "community care" was that it was supposed to reduce cost and it didnt hurt that everyone seemed to think it was a good idea. The reality is that community care is non existent and that lack of care ends up costing tax payers a lot more on many levels.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 02:11:27 PM
Agreed. I suspect the real incentive for governments of the day to move toward "community care" was that it was supposed to reduce cost and it didnt hurt that everyone seemed to think it was a good idea. The reality is that community care is non existent and that lack of care ends up costing tax payers a lot more on many levels.
Heh, the roommate problems I observed were, I guess, experiments in "community care", and show why it doesn't work well.
As it turns out - dealing day to day with genuinely mentally ill people can be really, really difficult.
In both cases I know about, the ill people in question could, at times, present as normal - when taking their meds. Which, evidently, was an unpleasant ordeal for them, as they did not like doing it. In both cases, their familes had grown tired (or afraid) of them, and offered to pay their rent as long as they lived elsewhere. So they were able to get apartments in communal houses when "presenting" as normal, only to stop taking their meds, and stop presenting as normal.
In the one case I saw myself, the results were truly disturbing - the guy stalked around the place behaving bizzarely, openly carrying a large knife, and acting in a threatening manner (but not actually huring anyone). Also, he collected and hoarded junk in his basement apartment he lived in - so it was full of his stuff, like a maze. And it stank.
Cops were called, police took him away - but in a day or two he was back, having his meds forced on him, only now he was
pissed off. Rinse and repeat a couple of times.
The end result was that the others living in the place nailed the connecting door to the basement this guy lived in shut. He used the window to get in and out of his apartment, which did not have a seperate entrance. The landlord was called, but what could he do? He was an elderly man who didn't speak much English. Last think he wanted was to confront a mentally ill person in his 20s who was behaving increasingly erratically.
Eventually, everyone else just moved out, leaving the elderly landlord to deal with the situation as best he might.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2014, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:31:26 AM
I wasn't sure about CdM, but I would be willing to bet good money on Berkut. It was still at Paradox.
IIRC, there as one thread where this surfaced, nuking Mecca, and it wasn't Berkut, nor anyone from Languish. I just can't remember the name of the dude, but I think he was Scottish. Or British (and it wasn't Top Cat). And maybe one or two others.
One of the more vehement ones was Sean89 (or Sean[someothernumber]). He had an Irish EU avatar, but was from NYC IIRC.
well, it's been a while, but what I remember is there was more than one person claiming that, the exact words were to the effect of "if it comes to that, I'd support nuking Mecca" and it wasn't said by a usual troll, but rather by someone I/we generally respected and he later apologized for the statement.
Quote from: Grallon on October 29, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
The contortions made in Canada in order to avoid naming the elephant in the room are almost comical. :rolleyes:
G.
what is your solution? Forbid the practice of Islam in an independant Quebec?
It's not immigration since both of these guys were born here. One of them was 100% Pure-laine as of 1 year ago.
Short of death penalty for conversion to Islam, I fail to see how we would have prevented one of the attack.
The other one I'm still unsure, haven't read enough on Zehaf-Bibeau. I know he spent some time in Calgary and Montreal, so maybe prehemptive jail for everyone living in big cities and practicing Islam, with no regards whatsover if they are a current threat since they can potentially be one in the future?
That way, we would have stopped for sure 2 recent attacks. Meanwhile, 3000 other crimes could have safely been commited, since we'll have to let go of dangerous criminals due to our prisons being full.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 01:37:39 PM
I can only imagine what it was like to *be* that mentally ill person, or their families.
Not easy. You basically need to have one family member who dedicates all his/her free time to deal with them. You need to get them to see the doctor, you need to raise your concern with the doctor, the doctor needs to understand your concerns and provide medication, then you need to work with social services to find him/her a decent place to live with some level of supervision appropriate, make sure they always take their medication.
Ultimately, there are two groups of people for wich it will work fine:
- those who realize they are sick, understand their problem and cooperate with medical authorities to manage it. Until they reach that point, it falls on someone close that will help them get there, with a lot of work and a lot of patience.
- those who are totally, 100% schyzophrenic and require immediate medical attention, at wich point you can call 911 and have an ambulance and police officers pick him up, bring him to the hospital, sedate him, have him see a psychiatrist, adjust his/her medication until he/she can be back to #1
If the mentally ill does not recognize his/her problem, believes it's everyone else who is problematic, and is not yet at #2, there is nothing to be done. Police won't intervene, hospitals won't take them, pyschiatrist/pyschologist will put them on a neverending waiting list. No matter how much support you try, if they don't recognize their problem, it's wasted. If they aren't sick enough to warrant hospitalization and medication, they'll likely never get to #1.
Yeah you just wait until they do something dangerous enough to go to prison, which have replaced the old asylums as where we store our mentally ill.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
Of course, that could just mean they were "out of sight, out of mind" in '89.
Oh and care for the mentally ill has been in our minds since '89? They may be in sight but we still keep them far from our minds.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2014, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2014, 02:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
Of course, that could just mean they were "out of sight, out of mind" in '89.
That's just the problem. Solve our "homeless on the street" problem by - locking them up forever in cages.
Canada went the other way: a social consensus built, based on among other things some notable horror stories, that "lock 'em up" was inhumane and unethical. So the pendulum swung hard in the other direction.
Agreed. I suspect the real incentive for governments of the day to move toward "community care" was that it was supposed to reduce cost and it didnt hurt that everyone seemed to think it was a good idea. The reality is that community care is non existent and that lack of care ends up costing tax payers a lot more on many levels.
Community care and out-patient programs are fine in theory. The problem is that each successive budget finds money coming out of such much needed programs. The money just isn't there for these programs anymore. As an addition to what you and Malthus have said, it would be great if what comes out of this is the realization that we shouldn't cut money from our social programs (and this is probably a provincial thing, not federal, so this isn't a Harper-slam) , but alas we all know that's unlikely to happen.
Quote from: Jacob on October 29, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
When I moved to Canada in '89 there were basically no visibly homeless people in Ottawa. A few years later, there was a significant change to how the programs on mental illness. Money were saved, and things like housing and in-patient treatment was drastically cut in favour of allegedly more efficient and humane out-patient treatment combined with a reliance on the existing social safety network.
Pretty much simultaneously with that, homeless people started appearing in the streets and they've been a regular feature of Canadian urban life since then in my observation.
That largely mirrors what happened in the US roughly 20 years earlier.
Quote from: Josephus on October 29, 2014, 04:54:08 PM
Community care and out-patient programs are fine in theory. The problem is that each successive budget finds money coming out of such much needed programs. The money just isn't there for these programs anymore. As an addition to what you and Malthus have said, it would be great if what comes out of this is the realization that we shouldn't cut money from our social programs (and this is probably a provincial thing, not federal, so this isn't a Harper-slam) , but alas we all know that's unlikely to happen.
Money is there, 90% of it doesn't go the patients though.
Colbert does a piece in tribute to Vickers.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/colbert-apologizes-to-canada-praises-sgt-at-arms-vickers/article21397960/