Terrorist attack in Quebec city
- Thread starter Sol Tee Nutz
- Start date
Yeah..... Just woke up before that, misread your post... My error.
I " assumed " you were meaning before Justine all was irrational and now all is good. My error.
Rhe immigration policy I have no quarrels with, I am an immigrant. My issues are the illegals being welcomed, the refugee numbers increased, the medias treatment towards political correctness and being afraid for being labled Islamophobia. Justine basically kissing there ass while our own are not taken care of first.
Again. My error, only rxcuse is I just woke up...
So, your posts about immigration policies, why did you bring it up?
Did I ever mention that I was against immigration or their policies? Do you have a difficult time comprehending what someone writes?
Enjoy the day..
I " assumed " you were meaning before Justine all was irrational and now all is good. My error.
Rhe immigration policy I have no quarrels with, I am an immigrant. My issues are the illegals being welcomed, the refugee numbers increased, the medias treatment towards political correctness and being afraid for being labled Islamophobia. Justine basically kissing there ass while our own are not taken care of first.
Again. My error, only rxcuse is I just woke up...
So, your posts about immigration policies, why did you bring it up?
Did I ever mention that I was against immigration or their policies? Do you have a difficult time comprehending what someone writes?
Enjoy the day..
Can you show me where? Bahaha... is that supposed to make it look more realistic? bahahaha... This should be guaranteed the actual truth..
That is the difference between myself and many Liberals here, when I make an error I respond with something, when someone here who is against something a haha is supposed to make it all right.
Bahaha and add a haha Fucking funny...
Just to add Moohamud, go and complain to your buddies on the blue, they may care.
Bahaha and add a haha Fucking funny...
Just to add Moohamud, go and complain to your buddies on the blue, they may care.
Triggered no, irritated yes. Still waiting for your reply about me being against immigration and its policies, do not change the topic. Typical when someone like you gets proven wrong to avoid answering at all costs.
Lol is also a typical non response when someone has nothing useful to write, but it is usually with pre-teens.
So champ, where is my statement? You can not admit that you have a hard time comprehending what people write? Just put down statements that are a moot point to redirect something?
And about your comment with nothing happening in Canada http://nationalpost.com/news/low-te...like-edmontons-almost-unstoppable-experts-say
In the US https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...cks-are-becoming-more-common-and-more-deadly/
We do not need someone to be killed to finally wake up.
Again, proactive instead of reactive. Immigration is fine, do the proper background checks and do not open borders and welcome all illegals.
You are very confused and maybe should consider staying on the sidelines. You are also acting very childish because, obviously, your hurt ego is doing all the talk right now.
I'm not going to feed the flame war that you need so much to start (you appear to have a history of doing that). Basically, I would have ignored you if you didn't attack my character therefore what I'm posting now is for the sole purpose of defending myself.
Hence, suffice to remind you that I didn't say a thing about immigration. What I talked about was refugees status. Those are two different animals which you just put in the same basket either from ignorance or to save face.
This is what actually happened here:
YOU: you blame Trudeau for letting in too many muslim refugees and suggest an increased risk for islamist terrorism on Canadian soil.
ME: for the sake of discussion, I do the math and conclude that the probabilities for someone to get killed through a islamist terrorist attack is practically null and definitely inferior to the current crime rate in Canada.
YOU: (possibly including me) you tag randomly other posters as "Liberals" and accuse them of being blind to what's happening elsewhere (I figure you meant France and Great Britain)
ME: (not bothering to explain that the situation in Europe is by no mean comparable to Canada's) I suggest that the fear of refugees is rooted in irrational thinking and emotivity (something like that)
YOU: You jump on my comment to make it a Trudeau thing again and there you go playing that same old broken record blaming him for being too inclusive and blablabla...
At that point, it's clear to anyone that you are not comfortable at all with letting in muslim refugees (for fear that terrorists might make it through the screening process) and that you blame Trudeau (whom you call "Justine" - perhaps for his feminine nature of being, what, too agreeable? Too weak? Only you know)
ME: I explain to you, first, that Trudeau wasn't my point at all and, second, that Trudeau is not a factor and threw in the hard facts to back it up. My reply was very precise.
YOUR HURT EGO: Makes silly excuses for you misunderstanding my previous comment, diverts the attention towards immigration laws and challenges me to show it where you said you're against immigration, paraphrasing my own words (surely because it can't come up with its own material)
ME: I could only laugh at an adult acting so childish...
YOUR HURT EGO: needs to win at any cost to save face so, instead of letting go and admit that you were technically wrong about refugees status policies, it goes on attack mode over a topic we didn't even discuss. In the process it makes innuendos about another forum and even mocks my name like a 5 year old.
Seriously I think you should let go now. You're embarrassing yourself.
I will not discuss this topic further with you.
Later I will post my comment about the Alexandre Bissonnette situation.
We know that Alexandre Bissonnette's trial is set to begin March 28th. He is charged with the murder of six men and with five counts of attempted murder. No terrorism-related charges and no hate crimes are laid against him. The Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) has simply ruled those charges out. The trial will last up to two mounth. It will be mediatized to oblivion here and quite possibly aroud the globe. At the end, Bissonnette will go behind bars for life with no chance for parole, at least not for the next 150 years. The kid is cooked and justice will be served. It could stop right here.
The DPCP along with legal experts explain that there is technically no advantage in laying charges for terrorism or hate crime (which is true), that putting together the proof beyond any reasonable doubt would require special effort and that, with the Jordan ruling in mind, maybe it's better to let it go. All this makes perfect sense. After all what's the point of carrying the legal process further ahead when the court has already all the evidence it needs to put Bissonnette away for good. The permanent record will state first degree murders and so forth but no mention will exist of hate-related crime or of a terrorist act.
I think it's a huge mistake and that those charges should not have been ruled out.
The impacts of this mistake are already felt through various comments coming from people who have a vest interest in keeping the blinders on Bissonnette's motivations for crime.
It also comes off like a double standard which is already causing frictions between communities.
Not less importantly, as Canadians, we lost an opportunity to have on record a crime that was unquestionably motivated by hatred and by the intent to spread terror.
The DPCP along with legal experts explain that there is technically no advantage in laying charges for terrorism or hate crime (which is true), that putting together the proof beyond any reasonable doubt would require special effort and that, with the Jordan ruling in mind, maybe it's better to let it go. All this makes perfect sense. After all what's the point of carrying the legal process further ahead when the court has already all the evidence it needs to put Bissonnette away for good. The permanent record will state first degree murders and so forth but no mention will exist of hate-related crime or of a terrorist act.
I think it's a huge mistake and that those charges should not have been ruled out.
The impacts of this mistake are already felt through various comments coming from people who have a vest interest in keeping the blinders on Bissonnette's motivations for crime.
It also comes off like a double standard which is already causing frictions between communities.
Not less importantly, as Canadians, we lost an opportunity to have on record a crime that was unquestionably motivated by hatred and by the intent to spread terror.
We know what actually happened here, you can not comprehend what people write and you even try to bull shit about it. Again, trying some diversion and misdirection.
How long did you look to see if I said I was against immigration and you found nothing? You claim to talk about refugee status and attach links to immigration policies.
The only person trying to save face here is you... Where is your Lol and haha?
Have a nice day champ.....
Yeah, I comment about my thoughts and it is starting a flame war but when you or others comment back it is a special event? I attacked your character about the fact that you complain on the blue board about this board?
PS: I really like the way you posted your history of the events in your mind, do you not think that the members here are capable to come to their own conclusion or do you not want them to read it?
The same is happening to the Muslim attack in Edmonton, no terrorist charges so no double standard.
As I said, I read many different news media from left to right and make my mind up. This is an interesting read about the mosque that was involved in the shooting.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/quiggin-the-quebec-mosque-story-has-many-layers
Not so fast! If there are grounds to press charge for terrorism against Sharif, I think they should go for it. There are, indeed, talks about his anti-polytheistic and genocidal views and he apparently owned a ISIS flag. That said, determining both his target and his ideological motivations might not be as clean-cut as in Bissonnette's case. The death toll following the Quebec attack vs the Edmonton attack also weighs.
You got it wrong again. Please re-read previous posts for the actual proper number.
Who said anything about killing anyone? Why do you keep going off topic? Again, read properly. We were talking about the supposedly 280 million that you referred as ''terrorists'' just because they are in favor of isis based off a SURVEY. You can call someone a killer once they have actually killed someone. Until then, they're not killers nor terrorists. But rather regular humans who have political reasons to support certain ideologies that isis has. Call them whatever you'd like, but they're not terrorists. That's it. Do you label any neo-nazi and white supermacist as killers just because some hardcore ones have killed innocent people? I guess your answer is no.
Ok, I really feel bad for you now. I honestly do think that you have issues properly reading posts. I have noticed a few instances now (not just with me, but with other members as well) where you're unable to properly read/understand basic sentences. Where do you see me referring to ALL Nigerians as Christians and ALL Malaysians as Buddhists?
I wrote: 7% of Nigerian Christians and 6% of Malaysian Buddhists. Their support is mostly for political reasons and has nothing to do with religion either. Now, if a Christian or a Buddhist supports ISIS, does that also make them terrorists? Or is it just if Muslims support it? I'm asking you if you consider non-muslim people who support isis ideologies as terrorists? If so, then you are in for a treat because you'd have hundreds of millions of terrorists around the world by your logic. Note that there haven't been a real poll done in the western world about their views on isis. The only polls done are in the arab world and among Muslims mostly. But as you can see even some Christians and Buddhists are in favor of isis (for political reasons). Also, note that the % of non-muslim support for isis amonst these 2 countries and religions are almost identical to the 7% of Muslims who support isis. Therefore I'm sure that if a serious worldwide poll would be conducted, I would assume that 7% of the world population would be somewhat favorable to certain ideologies of isis. Not just Muslims. So will that make 7% of the world population as terrorists/murders/killers if such poll comes out?
I wouldn't let anyone babysit my kids other than close friends and family members. That includes yourself. Also, there is a difference between having political reasons for having a favorable opinion about a certain group VS admiring Ted Bundy. A better comparison would be to ask me if I felt that a person who agrees with the ideologies of a neo-nazi is a ticking time bomb? Absolutely not, There are thousands of violent white supermacists and violent neo-nazis. These groups have killed many people throughout history. Does it mean that every single person that supports their ideologies are dangerous? I guess your answer is no.
There is on average 69 cases of rape per 100 000 population in Sweden. This statistic has been the national average for many years prior to ‘’them’’ arriving and ‘’raping all the Swedish girls’’. Rape is rape. Whether the person is Christian, Muslim, Swede, Immigrant, Refugee, black, green, yellow, red, etc. You seem to only be concerned with the rapes being committed by ''they'' or ''them''. How are ''they'' any different from a White Swede with blue eyes raping a girl? Do you think this doesn't happen? Why are you so quick to ONLY talk about ''them''? Please explain how ''them'' raping Swedish girls is any different from a white Christian Swedish citizen raping girls? Here are some actual statistics for you:
Official crime statistics from Sweden actually show that the crime rate has remained steady since 2005. What’s more, the Swedish police do not collect information on the ethnicity, religion, or race of perpetrators or victims of crime, which means there’s no evidence for claims that Muslim immigrants are committing crimes in record numbers. If we look specifically at sex offences, which the Fox News segment highlighted, there were 18,100 sex offenses reported to the police in 2015, down 11 percent from 2014, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
The number of rapes reported decreased 12 percent between 2014 and 2015, to 5,920, the agency reported. The council noted that in Sweden, when a single case is reported, every incident associated with the case is also reported as an offense during the same year. The amount of reported rape offenses has gone up in the last 10 years (2006-15), which the agency said can be partially attributed to new legislation in 2005 that augmented the types of acts that can be classified as rape.
There seems to be two main views of isis. The first one being that Isis is a political movement, regardless of its religious association; It is a terrorist organization that exploits Islam and its scripture to fulfill political agendas and justify mass killings of innocent people. It is not representative of the teachings of Islam.
The second being that Isis is a religious organization that is a prime example of the violent, immoral, and sexist teachings that Islam promotes. The main cause of ISIS' violent behavior is its religious association with Islam. It is the true face of Islam and is another reasons to abolish or reform the religion. This view of Islam seems to be shared by the terrorists themselves and people that agree with terrorists view Islam...ironically that's you and other ignorants who feel that they don't need to read about a religion to understand it even if they don't believe in it.
There are thousands of scholars/Imams all over the world condemning terrorists acts. Basically 1.4 billion mainstream muslims telling you that the acts of these groups have nothing to do with their religion, yet you chose to believe the views of a tiny microscopic minority compared to the vast majority that is telling you the opposite. What surprises me the most is the fact that you have never actually studied the religion of Islam. You have not read the Qu'ran. Had you done so, you would realize that you have been wrong all along.
Nice contradiction. Regardless if you believe that Islam and Christianity are false beliefs, you have still have to read The Qu'ran and the Bible to understand their teachings. Once you've read them, you can form whatever opinion you want about the religions. What, you're going to say that you don't need to read it because you have articles that sum up Islam for you by spitting out cherry picked verses out of context in order to decimate a religion altogether? That is precisely the reason why you should read it, so that you can understand when 93% or 1.4 BILLION other Muslims trying to tell you that whatever you're citing is bullshit.Sol Tee Nutz said:
I didn't know that Islam was a religion AND a race! Bravo man, spoken like a true champion.Sol Tee Nutz said:
Just because some crazy people commit acts in the name of a religion, doesn't mean that the religion is to blame. It just makes them crazy. If you think the religion is to blame, your first step would be to educate yourself properly by reading proper documentation about said religion or watching a seminar from a Professor of religions that will teach you the basics and the misconceptions about said religion.
Stop going to these hateful websites to get your info, stop relying everything on news articles, stop listening to Bill Maher and other similar idiots and do some reading on your own from. You seem to have such a strong opinion about Islam but you have never read the actual book that defines this religion. Think about it for a moment...
But I guess I'll never change your mind and I'm totally okay with that. Your level of cognitive dissonance has reached a point of no return. However I'm hopeful that at least a few people reading this might get some clarity and become perhaps a little more open minded.
I will no longer discuss this topic with you as I have spend more time than I should on it but decided to reply one last time. Your arguments are often rebutted by attacking the character, motive, religion, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself by using intellect and reason. This shows the weakness of your arguments (not the mention the countless inaccuracies in your posts and your inability to properly read posts).
And for those reasons, I'm out.
Pardon, I said my error... how did I get it wrong again when I said it was my error? There are about 1.8 billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Pardon? I do not call every Mulsim a terrorist ( which have the intent to harm people ) there is a percentage, same as neo-nazi's there is a percentage that want to harm people. Same with people who have the ideologies of any hate group, you can not say that if a person agrees with an idea he will never preform an act of violence. So a full core ISIS terrorist who has not killed anyone yet and goes to another counter and is planning an attack can not be called a terrorist until the crime is committed, interesting.
Why do you only pick Sweden and where do you get this info from? Do you think that Muslims only migrate to Sweden.
Do you get your info from this site http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/ The government that does not want to scare away tourists. or from a site like this http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/01/yes-violent-crime-spiked-sweden-since-open-immigration/... Far left and far right... Perhaps this site is in the middle http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...c/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d
At least I show sites I get my info from.
You still do not understand, I am not against all Muslims, what I am concerned about is the small percentage that are associated with them... With our open door policies in Canada and the speedy immigration many will slip through. Do you not read what is happening when countries open their borders? Millions of nice Mulsims enter, with that the not so nice ones sneak in.... That is what I am concerned about, got it.
Try to think this out, I never said Islam was a race and a religion I said no other race or religion was such a pain in the ass as Muslims. This does not mean that Islam is a race, it points out that no religion plus any race to enter a larger amount of people, nothing else. Bravo
You claim to be able to comprehend what people write but you never grasp the fact that I have stated many times that I am not against all Muslims, it is what the Muslims bring with them. Same as if you have a family reunion and there is that distant part of the family that has that fucked up son and most do not like that fucked up son, what happens in the end, that part of the family does not get invited unless they leave the fucked up son behind. My same thoughts on immigration, we should not open our borders to all unless strict screening can be done.... It it that hard to understand.
Let that sink in instead of giving me how the majority of Muslims are nice, I get it and so do others, you do not get that there are some fucked up ones who are attached to the nice ones. Quit reading Sweden's press releases or papers like the Toronto star, CNN
I promised myself that I wouldn't engage further with out and I intend to keep my word. And this is precisely why.
I just have to reply to this one and you'll understand why.
Seriously man, stop embarrassing yourself
Go read my post again and you will see that my source is CLEARLY listed in the form of a hyperlink. I will link it again to save you the trouble Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Simply click on ''Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention'' in green and you'll see some magic! I even put it in bold for in my initial post and here so that you can see it.
''The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention is an agency under the Ministry of Justice - is a centre for research and development within the judicial system. The Council also produces Sweden's official crime statistics, evaluates reforms, conducts research to develop new knowledge and provides support to local crime prevention work. The results of Brå's work are a basis for decision makers within the judicial system, the Parliament and the Government. Brå often works in collaboration with other organisations and public sector agencies.''
But of course that's a garbage source.
I just have to reply to this one and you'll understand why.
Ok so you're either a troll or you suffer from some kind of disease that makes you forget things. If it's the latter, then I apologize for getting angry, however you should mention it if it's the case. Why Did I choose Sweden? Seriously? I didn't choose Sweden buddy, it was a reply to your previous post where you were referring to the gangs rapes happening in Sweden and linked the garbage article ABOUT SWEDEN https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265...awn-perlmutter.
Seriously man, stop embarrassing yourself
Go read my post again and you will see that my source is CLEARLY listed in the form of a hyperlink. I will link it again to save you the trouble Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Simply click on ''Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention'' in green and you'll see some magic! I even put it in bold for in my initial post and here so that you can see it.
''The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention is an agency under the Ministry of Justice - is a centre for research and development within the judicial system. The Council also produces Sweden's official crime statistics, evaluates reforms, conducts research to develop new knowledge and provides support to local crime prevention work. The results of Brå's work are a basis for decision makers within the judicial system, the Parliament and the Government. Brå often works in collaboration with other organisations and public sector agencies.''
But of course that's a garbage source.
You know we can pick apart each others post on a regular basis, I was not only refering to you Swedish comment, you have a long list of comments. Later in the same post I probably posted the link which you got your info from, the Swedish government. It would be the same as asking the parents of the imbalanced son who took other kids into a basement if their kid was bad, of course not.
As you can see neither of us can read each others minds, you assume I mean something which is not right and I think you are talking about something else, not just you but with the general population. My post before this, the last bold part should have cleared things up a lot.
My beliefs that mass immigration will not change, my dislike for illegals will nit change, my disagreement that immigrants should not be able to alter our laws will not change.
Welcome to Canada, get a job and do not take our generosity as a weakness and exploit it.
Get it.
As you can see neither of us can read each others minds, you assume I mean something which is not right and I think you are talking about something else, not just you but with the general population. My post before this, the last bold part should have cleared things up a lot.
My beliefs that mass immigration will not change, my dislike for illegals will nit change, my disagreement that immigrants should not be able to alter our laws will not change.
Welcome to Canada, get a job and do not take our generosity as a weakness and exploit it.
Get it.
Similar threads
