Killings at Québec City mosque

180 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm dropping the subject..It will never go anywhere and there are policies that I truly respect. I respect them. I guess I agree with a right wing position. Problem is,their official platform is vile andI strongly disagree with it. I just think that for folks like the right wing dimwit from Ste-Foy are like an aggressive or rabid dog. They can't be rehabilitated. They deserve their fate for whatever it becomes. Good or bad. I just wish them the worst. What a nazi I am.pfff

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Nobody thinks you're a nazi or a right winger.

6079_Smith_W

The vigil last night in Saskatoon was both for the murders, and the immigration/refugee bans in the United States. Speakers addressed both issues. Don't know if this was the case at other gatherings.

There was one the night before at the mosque, which I believe was a service for those who were murdered, not the situation in the states. I was just getting back into town.

And I can't remember the fellow's name, but one of the guests on CBC's mid-day radio coverage was a former right wing racist leader from Quebec who is now working to turn people away from hatred.

 

Hurtin Albertan

Found a few French-language news articles with supposed leaks from supposed insiders who claim to know details of the investigation.  For what it's worth, they all seem to indicate he had a valid RPAL and purchased his guns legally.  Nothing official from police yet on the subject.  Don't see any reason based on what we have learned so far to believe any different.  Sadly, it's more the exception than the rule that these ugly incidents involve anything other than legally owned firearms.

 

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

I'm dropping the subject..It will never go anywhere and there are policies that I truly respect. I respect them. I guess I agree with a right wing position. Problem is,their official platform is vile andI strongly disagree with it. I just think that for folks like the right wing dimwit from Ste-Foy are like an aggressive or rabid dog. They can't be rehabilitated. They deserve their fate for whatever it becomes. Good or bad. I just wish them the worst. What a nazi I am.pfff

 

I think in the US we are seeing a lot of people on the left condoning, supporting or carrying out violent behavior and justifying that it's okay for political (read: anti-Trump) reasons.

The only thing is that this piece if shit Quebec shooter is doing basically the same thing. Condoning violence because of political views.

 

 

Also thanks Timebandit.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm dropping the subject..It will never go anywhere and there are policies that I truly respect. I respect them. I guess I agree with a right wing position. Problem is,their official platform is vile andI strongly disagree with it. I just think that for folks like the right wing dimwit from Ste-Foy are like an aggressive or rabid dog. They can't be rehabilitated. They deserve their fate for whatever it becomes. Good or bad. I just wish them the worst. What a nazi I am.pfff

 

I think in the US we are seeing a lot of people on the left condoning, supporting or carrying out violent behavior and justifying that it's okay for political (read: anti-Trump) reasons.

The only thing is that this piece if shit Quebec shooter is doing basically the same thing. Condoning violence because of political views.

 

 

 

Seriously? Piss off,mate. And you're a little late to the party  (as usual)

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

They want this debate.

The guy selling drugs near a schoolyard? How far from a schoolyard is close enough? What about for other crimes the religious right is concerned with. Don't go there on a progressive board unless you are prepared for an argument. Quite an argument.

Wow that's some serious defamation. Why would I support a policy like that? because it's complete insanity. Eric Newman,Paul Bernardo,Clifford Olsen,this latest maniac. My heart bleeds for people like these. When the Charleston racist mass cold-blooded murderer,I think it was a suitable punishment for an unrepentent,giggling psychopath. But I suppose in general poputation in federal prison,any time he's unsupervised it's very plausible to believe someone will rough him up. I have to oppose both scenarios and have to  shower these people with empathy and compassion? Why should I feel sorry for the Québec City Terrorist? Am I  supposed to write him love songs and letters?

I'm talking about the very rare occassions where a crime is so heinous and the suspect has no remorse,never to be rehabilitated. I don't give a fuck what happens to him. I shouldn't have to play video games whilst listening to katy perry with him.

It is not defamation. It is a statement that if you support capital punishment at all you have to be prepared for other people's definitions of when it is reasonable. I gave that example because I have hear those who support capital punishment include it on the list of things they think it should be used for. Once you go there -- you don't get to decide the "only" things it gets used for. You don't decide the capacity acceptable to stand for trial. You don't decide the standard of evidence for the cases.You make the decision that a society has the right to kill a member of that society. I think a majority of people draw the line and say it does not. Ever.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I want to ask a different question becuase I have not heard an answer in any news. What do we know, if anything, about the attacker's mental condition?

This is an important question to me becuase if there is an issue here it would be one more symptom of a much, much bigger problem.

We have seen a number of stories of mentally ill people causing death and injury. We also know that the vast majority of people with mental illness are no threat to anyone. Those who are, are a greater threat to themselves than anyone else. We have a society that has little awareness, fewer resources about mental health. Millions of Canadians who are no threat to anyone need services and cannot get them. The newsworthy tragedies don't even get the needed attention on mental health (although Mulcair did do a CBC interview I heard saying we would provide more safety to Canadians by providing mental health services than by the draconian powers in C-51 while at the same time providing supports to millions who need the help.

So no, I don't think capital punishment when I hear of a tragedy. I wonder about prevention and access to services. I wonder if those people died becuase we still do not take mental health seriously. And I think of the much, much, much bigger group of people who need mental health services, who are no threat, but whose lives could be so much bertter and they just cannot get the services.

And of course I think about the whole lone wolf thing. This is not a "lone wolf" becuase this is the culmination of a hate campaign. This man was not alone-- he was encourage by Trump, he was encouraged by deep Islamaphobia that has existed in his community for some time. he is not a lone wolf even if others did not directly plan it with him.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

They want this debate.

The guy selling drugs near a schoolyard? How far from a schoolyard is close enough? What about for other crimes the religious right is concerned with. Don't go there on a progressive board unless you are prepared for an argument. Quite an argument.

Wow that's some serious defamation. Why would I support a policy like that? because it's complete insanity. Eric Newman,Paul Bernardo,Clifford Olsen,this latest maniac. My heart bleeds for people like these. When the Charleston racist mass cold-blooded murderer,I think it was a suitable punishment for an unrepentent,giggling psychopath. But I suppose in general poputation in federal prison,any time he's unsupervised it's very plausible to believe someone will rough him up. I have to oppose both scenarios and have to  shower these people with empathy and compassion? Why should I feel sorry for the Québec City Terrorist? Am I  supposed to write him love songs and letters?

I'm talking about the very rare occassions where a crime is so heinous and the suspect has no remorse,never to be rehabilitated. I don't give a fuck what happens to him. I shouldn't have to play video games whilst listening to katy perry with him.

It is not defamation. It is a statement that if you support capital punishment at all you have to be prepared for other people's definitions of when it is reasonable. I gave that example because I have hear those who support capital punishment include it on the list of things they think it should be used for. Once you go there -- you don't get to decide the "only" things it gets used for. You don't decide the capacity acceptable to stand for trial. You don't decide the standard of evidence for the cases.You make the decision that a society has the right to kill a member of that society. I think a majority of people draw the line and say it does not. Ever.

 

I hear you loud and clear about the pro-death clan. Their ideas are vile and completely unacceptable. I suppose I just don't have that much empathy for those who do these acts.  He very well be mentally ill or he considers himself a martyr,who knows? Bad things are going to happen and they're already happening. Some guy from Kirkland was arrested for death threats and inciting hate,(so basically he rolled in cheeto dust and adapted a NewY awk accent and grew 35 chins) , to a mosque,This extreme trolling and getting carried away is increasing,in fact death threats to the muslim community have increased in Montréal since the shootings. So where does it end? Especially with that blithering orange idiot doing his best to inflame some enemies. He's going to Make America poorer and more expensive to live. There's going to be a shit storm and the irony is it's going to be the enabling far right internet trolls. Where do you draw the line? The world is fucked up.

6079_Smith_W

The mosque opened its doors today to show people the results of the attack:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-insid...

Quote:

Ahmed Elrefai, one of the mosque's administrators, acknowledged that for some, it will take time until they are ready to pray again at the mosque.

But he said he and his fellow administrators are planning to do renovations and change the look of the space. They are moving forward.

"We are all Canadians," Elrefai said. "We live in Quebec so we are Québé​cois, and we're going to stay here, and this is our message to people."

Negi Gadab was among a handful of people who attended prayers Wednesday morning.

It wasn't easy for him to return, he said. He lost people he considered to be close friends in the shooting but said life must go on.

"The mosque must reopen," he said. "We must say to terrorists that we're here and we won't go away. We don't want them to attain their goal: that we stop praying."

Amel Henchiri said she returned to the mosque, a place that she said was often full of kids, life and unbridled joy, to face the pain.

"Before the shooting, this was our place of worship," she said, tears in her eyes. "It was our place of peace. But today, it will remind us that humans make mistakes. It will remind us that there are people in the world who don't accept difference.

"In spite of the pain, it's our right to be here."

 

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

I hear you loud and clear about the pro-death clan. Their ideas are vile and completely unacceptable. I suppose I just don't have that much empathy for those who do these acts.  He very well be mentally ill or he considers himself a martyr,who knows? Bad things are going to happen and they're already happening. Some guy from Kirkland was arrested for death threats and inciting hate,(so basically he rolled in cheeto dust and adapted a NewY awk accent and grew 35 chins) , to a mosque,This extreme trolling and getting carried away is increasing,in fact death threats to the muslim community have increased in Montréal since the shootings. So where does it end? Especially with that blithering orange idiot doing his best to inflame some enemies. He's going to Make America poorer and more expensive to live. There's going to be a shit storm and the irony is it's going to be the enabling far right internet trolls. Where do you draw the line? The world is fucked up.

Part of the problem here is if the perp were mentally ill (we do not know this) would it make sense to put him to death while barely (or not) holding accountable the people who stoked the fires of this?

I don't just mean the more obvious but also those in Quebec promoting hatred (and there is a history of this in the city) and even the CPC.

We know people who calculate political advantage by promoting hate.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hear you loud and clear about the pro-death clan. Their ideas are vile and completely unacceptable. I suppose I just don't have that much empathy for those who do these acts.  He very well be mentally ill or he considers himself a martyr,who knows? Bad things are going to happen and they're already happening. Some guy from Kirkland was arrested for death threats and inciting hate,(so basically he rolled in cheeto dust and adapted a NewY awk accent and grew 35 chins) , to a mosque,This extreme trolling and getting carried away is increasing,in fact death threats to the muslim community have increased in Montréal since the shootings. So where does it end? Especially with that blithering orange idiot doing his best to inflame some enemies. He's going to Make America poorer and more expensive to live. There's going to be a shit storm and the irony is it's going to be the enabling far right internet trolls. Where do you draw the line? The world is fucked up.

Part of the problem here is if the perp were mentally ill (we do not know this) would it make sense to put him to death while barely (or not) holding accountable the people who stoked the fires of this?

I don't just mean the more obvious but also those in Quebec promoting hatred (and there is a history of this in the city) and even the CPC.

We know people who calculate political advantage by promoting hate.

Obviously,if he's mentally ill,you can't execute him. But someone has got to bear the responsibility. The CAQ in Québec,the only party in the National Assembly who defended their Islamophobic values after the shooting.

It is the American style Islamophobia of the CPC who should get a grip on their part of this and kick Leitch out of the party.

At least in the National Assembly the parties have vowed to tone it down , except the CAQ and in Parliament, except for the CPC who will not purge the racists in their party.

It's open mouth radio. Biased news with 'alternative facts' on TV and the internet.

And of course,Donald Trump who is making America fascist,spewing nothing but hate and bile,it's the kind of frenzy that motivate these far right nutjobs.

It's also the internet,once again, where hate groups thrive.

And these people should bear the responsibility and the message must be clear. Cut it out or be stopped. That's if anyone actually gives a damn.

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

 Cut it out or be stopped.

 

Stopped how?

I'm reading Canada (Trudea? whoever) hired 55 people to surf social media websites with a view to catching and charging people with hate speach. That's great but it can be a double edged sword.

Unionist

The frenzied conversation continues. I don't hear calls for Chrétien and Martin to be hanged for sending Canadians to murder the people of Afghanistan. Let alone all the warm and cuddly phrases about the Clintons and Obamas. Grow a sense of shame; have some respect for the victims and their families; try to get to the root causes of why Muslims and other minorities should start fearing for their lives in our country; and direct your hate into energies that may actually heal our world and our human race.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Part of the problem here is if the perp were mentally ill (we do not know this) would it make sense to put him to death while barely (or not) holding accountable the people who stoked the fires of this?

Question for you. Do you think someone who commits murder for religious reasons or beliefs is mentally ill? 

6079_Smith_W
Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Part of the problem here is if the perp were mentally ill (we do not know this) would it make sense to put him to death while barely (or not) holding accountable the people who stoked the fires of this?

Question for you. Do you think someone who commits murder for religious reasons or beliefs is mentally ill? 

It seems like you are asking more questions than one and I don't want you to misinterpret them.

When we are talking about a crime and mental illness the question is usually about responsibility. I do not consider a person not responsible just because they either say or believe (which is two different things) they are doing something for religious reasons.They might be but that is another question.

I do not support the notion that all mental illness means a lack of responsibility and I want to be clear that you understand that.

As well the idea of what is illness is a construct loaded with social/cultural values -- and that is why the question is unclear. Illness is in plain terms something that does not work -- not just a difference. It is a problem with their function.

After answering that first question, I would say the person who committs a crime with religious justification is likely to be mentaly ill.

In terms of support for those who are mentally ill the prime motivation of a society should be the mental health of people and to help them live better, more functional lives. This ought to be an imperative to providing greater access to mental health support. That said we are not doing this. We also have a tiny minority who become dangerous without access to proper diagnosis and treatment. The failure to treat them is also a security as well as humanitarian threat. It also leads to stigma for the much larger number of people coping with mental illnesses.

So the shorter answer is very likely a person who claims religious justification for crime is ill but that does not mean they are telling the truth, it does not mean that they are not responsible or should not face prosecution (that is a different question), but it does mean that there is a public good in having greater support for mental health both from a humanitarian and even a security point of view.

Does that answer the question?

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Does that answer the question?

 

Kind of sort of.  Thank you for the thoughful and indepth response.

Quote:
After answering that first question, I would say the person who committs a crime with religious justification is likely to be mentaly ill.

I've seen the same opinion elsewhere and it makes me think about the distinction between murder and other religious beliefs. 

For the most part any holy book you pick up will have passages about murdering people. When it's okay to kill the heretic, heathern or infidel. Lots of violence and abuse (especially against women). 

We say that someone killing another human for religious fevour must be mentally ill but why? It's writen down in their rules.  Do we also suggest someone is mentally ill if they follow other rules laid down in their holy books?  When it comes to religion what is the deciding factor when someone is devout and someone mentally ill?

But off topic but the topic was brought up about mental ilness and it's often been cited when talking about lone wolf terrorist attacks.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Does that answer the question?

 

Kind of sort of.  Thank you for the thoughful and indepth response.

Quote:
After answering that first question, I would say the person who committs a crime with religious justification is likely to be mentaly ill.

I've seen the same opinion elsewhere and it makes me think about the distinction between murder and other religious beliefs. 

For the most part any holy book you pick up will have passages about murdering people. When it's okay to kill the heretic, heathern or infidel. Lots of violence and abuse (especially against women). 

We say that someone killing another human for religious fevour must be mentally ill but why? It's writen down in their rules.  Do we also suggest someone is mentally ill if they follow other rules laid down in their holy books?  When it comes to religion what is the deciding factor when someone is devout and someone mentally ill?

But off topic but the topic was brought up about mental ilness and it's often been cited when talking about lone wolf terrorist attacks.

I think that those who are encouraged by others are not lone wolf. This was not a lone wolf.

I think to tkae a scripture  literally and kill someone is a sign of illness even if the scripture can be read to condone it.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Question for you. Do you think someone who commits murder for religious reasons or beliefs is mentally ill? 

Religious people were the victims here, Paladin. There is no evidence that religion played any role in motivation for the killings.

And people are mentally ill because they have a mental illness. Not because they are religious.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Although I often wonder how you can believe in religion without having lost your senses.  I mean a woman gives birth to a part human-part god and was a virgin when he was born. It seems pretty delusional to me.

 

SeekingAPolitic...

Make a positive out this tragic event.  I have access to community tv in my city and I will do a video for a community kitichen and get on local tv.  This is kitchen is a parntership between a roman catholic church and muslim community organization, an interfaith gathering.  I stopped by yesterday to check it out to talk to the people who run the community kitchen and free meal:).  Very inspiring situation I will interviewing the both the RC and Muslim representative of the kitichen who combine there commuinttes to fight poverty and food insecuirty. Go to community and try improve the situation rather than just argue about the issue.   

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Question for you. Do you think someone who commits murder for religious reasons or beliefs is mentally ill? 

Religious people were the victims here, Paladin. There is no evidence that religion played any role in motivation for the killings.

And people are mentally ill because they have a mental illness. Not because they are religious.

You're right in this case the victims were religious.  Generally speaking when shooters are religious or appear to do it for religious inspired reasons one of the defences that often seems to get brought up is that they're mentally ill.  The same thing comes up when it's an asshole racist or supremesist. Maybe they're just mentally ill.   I would say maybe (in both cases)  they're just an asshole who don't value human life due to their beliefs.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Question for you. Do you think someone who commits murder for religious reasons or beliefs is mentally ill?

If it were the case, wouldn't someone who does NOT commit murder for religious reasons but believes the same thing(s) anyway also be mentally ill?

I'm not big on belief in an invisible superhero, but in terms of getting that into the DSM, I don't think we're there yet, so let's keep our powder dry.

sanizadeh

lagatta4 wrote:

Haroon Sadiqqui's anti-Québéecois hatred is every bit as offensive as the hatred shown by the perpetrator of this terror attack. Did you read what you posted? It isn't the first time he takes such a tack.

Shame on you! I recall the last time that the issue of Quebec charter and its racist intentions were being discussed, you were quite in denial about the fact that Quebec was by far  the most anti-immigrant and xenophobic society in Canada, and that this was not just fringe in Quebec, but mainstream. Many of us experienced that racism from the first day we landed in Quebec. But you kept justifying it

Now you dare  saying that a journalist who points out such facts is as offensive as a fucking murederer who killed my people in cold blood? FUCK YOU and your murderous people! Those who kept denying the realites of that racist society are the ones responsible for facilitating this mass murder. The victims' blood is on YOUR hand too!

lagatta4

Same to you. I've been involved in solidarity with refugees (most of them Muslim) for a long time in my neighbourhood, and am definitely not rightwing or xenophobic. I was simply pointing out a certain journalist's habit of Québec-bashing, that goes back a long way. Obviously nasty words are not equivalent to killing people, but they have been all too acceptable within the Canadian state since the Conquest.

I said both HATREDS were equally offensive, not that speech is the same thing as murder.

You do realise that calling the Québécois a "murderous people" is exactly what Trump and their ilk do to the millions of peaceful Muslims in the world when they get associated with jihadi terrorists. I am in no way responsible for that murderous rightwing shit. I'm no fan of radio-poubelle or xenophobic demagogues here or anywhere else. We have been fighting them for years here, whether Jeff Filion or Richard Martineau (you know, the rightwing shit who sued Ricochet Media). Those people make their living on attacks on immigrants and Indigenous people, women, poor people, protesting students and the left in general. We had HUGE crowds here on a very cold night in solidarity with the murdered and wounded and their families and communities, both here in Montréal and in Québec.

L'image tiré du macaron que nous avons produit dans mon quartier. Je le porte à tous les jours depuis sa production.

 

 

 

 

 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:
If it were the case, wouldn't someone who does NOT commit murder for religious reasons but believes the same thing(s) anyway also be mentally ill?

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Quote:
I'm not big on belief in an invisible superhero, but in terms of getting that into the DSM, I don't think we're there yet, so let's keep our powder dry.

Sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. DSM?

lagatta4

Radio-Canada is talking about further vigils or other shows of solidarity with the victims of the Québec Mosque attack today, here in Montréal and in Québec, but alas they didn't say when and where and I can't find the info with any of the prior hashtags. Please communicate any such acts of solidarity, wherever they are!

Edited to add:

The vigil today in Mtl will be held at Place Émilie-Gamelin, the public square at métro Berri-UQAM (near La Grande bibliothèque) from noon to 2 pm. The vigil in Québec will (of course) take place outside the Mosque, starting at 1 pm.

Tomorrow there will be a march in Québec, from Laval University to the National Assembly.

 

bekayne

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/03/21st-century-pogrom-islam-and-the-alt-right/

The main thread in the anti-Muslim conspiracies — that they are secretly plotting to undermine and take over our societies — is similar to the antisemitic conspiracies of the 20th century.

There appears to be the same unreasoning, intense hatred, the same scapegoating, the same refusal to recognize our common humanity. Muslims are the other, a threat to fear, a bogeyman used to rally voters and gull suckers out of their credit-card numbers.

It was chilling how quickly certain outlets stopped covering the Quebec City massacre after it became clear that the victims, and not the perpetrators, were Muslims. And it is shocking that the Rebel is hinting at conspiracies.

There is no reason to be confident that what once happened to Jews can’t now happen to Muslims. Americans are already locking up and expelling legal residents. Trump’s chief adviser used to run an outlet that spread anti-Muslim garbage. His spokesperson is making up non-existent Muslim crimes.

Nothing like this has happened in the West since the Second World War. We should not act as if any of this is normal.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

[...]

Quote:
I'm not big on belief in an invisible superhero, but in terms of getting that into the DSM, I don't think we're there yet, so let's keep our powder dry.

Sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. DSM?

Paladin, he was referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

lagatta4

bekayne, I don't know why you say nothing like this happened in the West since the Second World War after the description of the highly-organized violence in Argentina (as well as the other Southern Cone countries; obviously direct persecution of Jews was less in Chile as the Jewish community there - though there is one - was and remains many times smaller than in Argentina, which was one of the major centres of Jewish and in particular of Yiddish culture in the Americas, nevertheless, Chilean fascists also entertained delusions about a Jewish conspiracy to take over their side of Patagonia, and have run websites to that effect in recent memory.

Of course there have been other genocidal acts in the West since the War - lynchings of African-Americans were still going on in the postwar period, and Einstein was among those - along with Paul Robeson - taking a stance against them. And we remember the genocidal war against Mayan peoples in Guatemala, and the Acteal massacre of an Indigenous community in Mexico.

Those websites are mendacious as well as evil; surely their administrators know that the majority of people murdered by jihadist extremists have been Muslims.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I was referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Basically I'm just suggesting that no matter what you or I might think of people who believe in invisible, all-powerful Gods, I don't think we'd be likely to succeed in promoting a widespread and accepted belief that those people are mentally ill.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I was referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Basically I'm just suggesting that no matter what you or I might think of people who believe in invisible, all-powerful Gods, I don't think we'd be likely to succeed in promoting a widespread and accepted belief that those people are mentally ill.

If you included belief in God in the DSM, there is no logical reason to exclude belief in reincarnation, astrology, or indeed, avoiding the number 13 when buying 6/49 tickets.  

Unionist

lagatta4 wrote:

bekayne, I don't know why you say nothing like this happened in the West since the Second World War after the description of the highly-organized violence in Argentina

bekayne didn't say anything. He merely provided a link and quoted an excerpt. And Latin America is not generally what "the West" references. Nor is Chile.

Quote:
Of course there have been other genocidal acts in the West since the War

The author is trying to make a point about murderous attacks based on an ideology of conspiracy - which is how he relates the anti-Muslim hatred (which I think you and I will agree really started to be promoted after September 11, 2001) and anti-Semitism. Whether his point is right or wrong, he's not talking about racist attacks and killings in general. Otherwise, he'd have to take note of the murders of people of colour by police in "the West".

Quote:
Those websites are mendacious as well as evil; surely their administrators know that the majority of people murdered by jihadist extremists have been Muslims.

The website was ipolitics.ca. Are you seriously making that comment about ipolitics.ca - I hope not!! - or do you mean some other websites (like the ones the author accuses of spreading poison)? It is impossible for me to tell what websites you're talking about.

ETA: I meant to add... there's no way the author meant to include Latin America in his final statement. He could hardly have missed the horrendous bombing attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds.

Paladin1

Thank you very much Bagkitty and Mr Magoo.

 

 

lagatta4

I fail to see how Argentina and Chile are any less "Western" than the Canadian state. Yes, I know that this concept of the "west" refers to the construct of a European heritage supposedly inherited from Greece and Rome (and conveniently overlooking the role played by other Mediterranean countries), and not to the Western Hemisphere per se,  but Argentina and Chile are very much "Western" societies, with (alas) few Indigenous people remaining, probably a lower percentage than within the Canadian state. After all, Mexicans came down from the Aztecs, Peruvians came down from the Incas and Argentinians came down from the boats...

I certainly haven't forgotten the AMIA bombing - I know people who were directly affected by that. And of course I was referring to the toxic, bigoted websites.

MegB

sanizadeh wrote:

lagatta4 wrote:

Haroon Sadiqqui's anti-Québéecois hatred is every bit as offensive as the hatred shown by the perpetrator of this terror attack. Did you read what you posted? It isn't the first time he takes such a tack.

Shame on you! I recall the last time that the issue of Quebec charter and its racist intentions were being discussed, you were quite in denial about the fact that Quebec was by far  the most anti-immigrant and xenophobic society in Canada, and that this was not just fringe in Quebec, but mainstream. Many of us experienced that racism from the first day we landed in Quebec. But you kept justifying it

Now you dare  saying that a journalist who points out such facts is as offensive as a fucking murederer who killed my people in cold blood? FUCK YOU and your murderous people! Those who kept denying the realites of that racist society are the ones responsible for facilitating this mass murder. The victims' blood is on YOUR hand too!

This is an unacceptible attack on the Quebecois in general and Lagatta in particular and is in violation of babble policy. I understand that you feel passionately about the issue, but there are better ways to disagree.

lagatta4

I should have also been clearer that I was referring only to their WORDS denigrating entire peoples, obviously I wasn't comparing a commentator's overgeneralising words to the lethal actions of a terrorist murderer.

Unionist

lagatta4 wrote:

I fail to see how Argentina and Chile are any less "Western" than the Canadian state. 

I totally agree, lagatta. But you know and I know that when commentators refer to "the West", they are never referring to Latin America or Africa or Asia.

So getting back to the point - there was nothing wrong or seriously inaccurate about what the author said. He said that there have been no such attacks in "the West" since WW 2 based on racism which was founded on a conspiracy theory. That's how the Jews were slaughtered, and now we have ultra-right white "Westerners" massacring Muslims with the same kind of conspiracy theory as an underpinning. That's all he said.

He might be right. And if he is, here's why it's dangerous: It takes approximately 5 minutes, and a couple of "trumped" up blood libel incidents, to convince masses of people, via social media and the rest, that a group of "others" in our very midst are engaged in a worldwide plot to wipe us out culturally, economically, and physically. It takes no time at all to dull people's senses so much that they either participate in, or stand quietly by, acts of genocide.

It's a danger worth worrying about. I know from personal family experience. Is he strictly accurate that this is the first massacre in "the West" since WW 2 that fits that exact schema? I'm not sure, but I'm not going to quibble with him on the details.

lagatta4

True. I have a friend in Buenos Aires of Polish Jewish descent; every member of his extended family in Warsaw was murdered by the Nazis, except his own parents. But a generation later, he also lost a lot of friends to the local variety of fascists - he managed to elude them - I can't imagine what his parents must have been thinking when he was incognito.

I think it is important to keep reminding people that the main victims of jihadi terror are other Muslims; and in many cases they have also been victims of the more anonymous but at least as lethal airborne terror from Western powers.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that when many people use the term the West they actually mean the Northern Hemisphere except Asia. Its certainly never been a very good description from a geographic viewpoint. 

lagatta4

Yes, it is a very odd expression. I can see why it wouldn't be used for countries in Central or South America where the Black or Indigenous presence is a major factor in the culture, but sadly there are very few Indigenous communities left in Argentina, and I believe none at all in Uruguay, though there is doubtless a silent presence as everywhere in the Americas.

The Argentine dictatorship forbade the expression "Latin America" as they thought it conveyed an "anti-Western, Third-World mindset". I'm paraphrasing something I read in A Lexicon of Terror, which I read quite a while ago. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/284483.A_Lexicon_of_Terror

They also "playfully" transposed Nazi expressions such as Nacht und Nebel (Night and Fog) into the Spanish Ningun nombre (no name)...

JohnInAlberta JohnInAlberta's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. DSM?

DSM = "Diagnostic & Statistical Manual", a.k.a. the Psychiatrist's bible.  And I agree; religiosity should be classified as a mental disorder.  Perhaps a combination of paranoia and NPD would suffice.

Unionist

You will all note that the "theory" about "religion is a mental disorder" attacks both religious people and people with mental illness. And in the particular case we're talking about (just in case anyone remembers the topic of this thread), it's a hateful attack against the victims of this murderous rampage. If that's consistent with babble's policy, then we might have to look elsewhere for progressive conversation.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist. I agree completely. Especially considering who the victims were, and the fact this has no bearing on the alleged perpetrator,

Not that this is  much different than any other situation involving oppressed communities generally, and Muslims in particular. Even if they are the victims, somehow it always comes around to how they might be to blame. Or speculation based on our prejudices about how they MIGHT do something like this.

But since the cat is out of the bag, are all religious lawbreakers mentally ill? Was Megan Rice? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Mary Dyer? Any conscientious objector?

For that matter, there is no evidence Paul Jennings Hill had any mental ilness at all. He just had strong convictions which led him to murder someone.

This says more about the speculators than any of the people they are musing about, IMO. But again, a topic for some other thread. It really doesn't belong here.

 

lagatta4

The last verse of "Almost like the blues" is a wry attack on that kind of supercilious atheist. I say that as an atheist. All the people murdered at the mosque were highly educated; for them there was no contradiction between belief and secular and in some cases scientific knowledge. And as for me, it is none of my goddamned business unless religious people enforce repressive measures against non-believers or groups such as women or LGBTQ people, or tell me how I can live my life.

And I'm a pretty hardline secularist: I'm against any subsidies to ANY religious schools for example. Even after the Quiet Revolution, the greatest number of religion-based schools remains some form of Christian ones, and I don't just mean the type of élite Catholic school where the designation is merely historic and decorative. Brebis noire said that Evangelical schools were more common than one might think in the countryside.

Pondering

I'm a big fan of looking up words. For something to be delusional it must also be idiosyncratic. In other words, if enough people believe something it's not a delusion therefore not a mental illness. Religions, therefore, are not delusional, because they are generally accepted within society as valid belief systems.

From a layperson perspective mental illness seems to be something that is only diagnosed if it interferes with normal functioning.

The man that did this must be mentally ill on some level because what he did is neither logical nor self-serving. It could never have achieved anything other than getting the perpetrator killed or imprisoned for life. It was a misdirected expression of fear, fury and desperation.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I think the discussion of "religion is a mental disease" is kind of disgusting on this thread. The killings were premeditated, and the intent was clear.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

I think the discussion of "religion is a mental disease" is kind of disgusting on this thread. The killings were premeditated, and the intent was clear.

He certainly knew what he was doing that doesn't make it a sane act or a reasoned decision. We are in the infancy of learning about brain disorders and how they impact the mind. Epilepsy used to be considered a mental illness. Anti-depressants were discovered as a side-effect of drugs intended to treat epilepsy. fMRIs have shown physical differences in the brains of people with so called "mental illness". There are genetic components to addiction.

A crime like this is not like theft that benefits the perpetrator. What is it in someone that allows them to become a follower of people like Manson? How did Jim Jones convince so many people to kill themselves and others?

We take a moral view of crime and punishment that is rooted in religion not science. Punishment is intended to act as a deterrent, incarceration to protect the public. Rehabilitation is an afterthought. These approaches do work to a certain extent but not always.

The man who did this can never be trusted to be free again but to protect the public not to punish him. He should be shown whatever mercy we can without endangering people. Premeditated or not it was not a reasoned act. It's because it was not a reasoned act that he is so dangerous.

That people out there are susceptible to this particular form of madness is why hate speech is so dangerous no matter who the target is. Even hate-speech against this man.

It is madness to me. I can't conceive of it any other way.

 

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

I think the discussion of "religion is a mental disease" is kind of disgusting on this thread. The killings were premeditated, and the intent was clear.

I agree. I think there is also a world of difference between a person who practices a religion peacefully and one who uses it to justify violence. Someone how we went from the second to the former. The second is a relevant topic and the former is disrespectful in this context.

Pages