Multiple injuries reported after pedestrians struck by van in Toronto

josh wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Well,this terrorist is finally going to lose his virginity.....in prison. A fitting fate for this misogynist terrorist loser.

Please, no joking about prison rape.

Why would you assume 'rape' ...After a few years he'll be looking at his fellow cellmates in a sexual manner. This seems a common theme in prisons all over the world. And why would I give two fucks about what's awaiting him in prison,anyway?

He can be boiled in oil for all I care.

No jokes.

 

You go on thinking that you troublemaking shithead. Keep pushing my buttons if you want me to really get mad. On second thought you're not worth a fuck.

BTW,keep empathizing with this terrorist basatrd. You're the one who is in need of professional help,idiot.

alan smithee wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not sure where your wishing torture, rape and death on him figures in that anger management plan. At least as it concerns your feelings.

 

Keep crying your eyes out for him. Can you say terrorist enabler? Repeat it 10 times and then go fuck yourself.

Terrorist sympathizer. How do you sleep at night?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I suppose another reason why they didn't use the term is because there is likely no worry of secondary attacks. Again, their definition is grounded in state security, not the actual use of terror.

Am I being told that Trudeau did the right thing on babble? Let me mark the calendar.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know alan, I sleep better when I know people aren't suffering arbitrary torture in our prisons (because I know there are plenty who do).

Most immediately though, I am mystified at your wrath, not just because I am not sure what it is about, but also because you don't seem to see how much your dehumanizing of the alleged killer here is similar to the dehumanizing done by those who commit murderous acts like this.

Sorry, but this eye for an eye shit never has worked, and never will. It doesn't stop murder; and it is just part of the same barbaric cycle as those who kill in the first place.

 

 

Oh please .Smith.

I consider myself almost pathologically tolerant. But I draw the line at terrorism and mass murder. Call me crazy.

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

bekayne wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Well,this terrorist is finally going to lose his virginity.....in prison. A fitting fate for this misogynist terrorist loser.

Please, no joking about prison rape.

Why would you assume 'rape' ...After a few years he'll be looking at his fellow cellmates in a sexual manner. This seems a common theme in prisons all over the world. And why would I give two fucks about what's awaiting him in prison,anyway?

He can be boiled in oil for all I care.

No jokes.

 

You go on thinking that you troublemaking shithead. Keep pushing my buttons if you want me to really get mad. On second thought you're not worth a fuck.

BTW,keep empathizing with this terrorist basatrd. You're the one who is in need of professional help,idiot.

https://boardofwisdom.com/togo/Quotes/ShowQuote?msgid=347521#.Wt-WxFopChA

Mr. Magoo wrote:

As I understand it, "incels" don't just hate women who have sex with men who aren't them (the "Stacys"), they also hate the men who aren't them who have sex with women (the "Chads") and sometimes both get rolled up into one (the "normies").  It might seem, at first glance, like textbook misogyny -- because it's women that these incels want to have sex with -- but really, it just looks like they resent anyone with a sex life.

Exactly. this shitbag was a loser who couldn't get laid and took it out on society. The crime is so heinous that the coroner said it will take days to identify the victims. And people here are implying we have empathy for the perpetrator? What planet do they live on?  And what colour is the sky there?

Quote:

I agree. I expect the government isn't using that term because it isn't directed at the state and doesn't involve what one ordinarily thinks of as terrorist organizations. But what else do you call random violence based on ideology?

For starters, if it's "based on ideology" I wouldn't call it random.

But certainly, post 9/11, lots and lots of things are called "terrorism", and some of them might actually be!

Remember James Huberty, who murdered about a score of people in San Ysidro, CA?  Long before 9/11.  He had some beefs with the world, but nobody called him a terrorist.  Terrorism back then meant someone pulling a gun and diverting the 747 to Cuba.  There's no doubt that Huberty was mad!  Mad enough to bite his own belly!  But at what, specifically, and how did shooting people improve the situation?  Or, warn others not to repeat the misakes of the victims?  Way back when, I remember reading that Huberty resented immigrants.  But shooting some Mexican-Americans seems like a futile warning to other Mexican-Americans to not be Mexican-American.

Personally, I think any bona fide instance of terrorism should allow us to easily complete this phrase:

"The terrorist did ________________ as a warning to us all that we must ______________ to prevent this from happening again."

Maybe the answers in this case are "a lethal van attack in Toronto" and "require all the 'Stacys' to sleep with creepy incel guys".

But the other thing about real terrorists is that they don't shut up.  Their whole plan, outside of killing people, is to not shut up.  No real terrorist is ever embarrassed to say why they did it.  So, buddy can certainly tell us why he did this.

Huberty was also a terrorist. He was angry with the world,he had beefs with society and in turn he massacred 14 people. But I'm sure idiotic babblers will find ways to coddle that asshole too.

He left his house in camouflage and a few guns including an AK-47 and a radio.His wife (who apparently was no genius) asked him where he was going. He replied 'To hunt humans'...'OK,Dear...'  After the police killed him,rumor has it there was a cassette of Heart Beat City by the Cars. I was never able to hear You Might Think without getting creeped out to this day.

Quote:

Huberty was also a terrorist. He was angry with the world,he had beefs with society and in turn he massacred 14 people.

21.

[/quote]But I'm sure idiotic babblers will find ways to coddle that asshole too.[/quote]

Of course.  He was misunderstood.

If babble were a road, you'd be road raging.

But terrorism is a means to an end.  It's not just an inchoate primal scream.  Being mad at the world doesn't make anyone a terrorist.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Geez. Not terrorism as in terror cells, so in that sense the government was technically right. On the other hand this wasn't just someone snapping and going on a rampage. It was directed at an identifiable group, and it was tied in with a lot of right wing and misogynist propaganda. So I think pookie made a good point. And Alan we aren't just having a disagreement. You are actually getting pretty aggressive with a number of people here. Not wanting to see criminals tortured and raped does not make any of us apologists, nor does it make us as bad as them.

Well,Smith. I'm being goaded into being aggressive. The fact that I've been getting attacked incessantly simply for pointing out that this fuck was politically motivated hence committed an act of terror. I don't get why I'm wrong. It's just an example of Islamophobia. If he had been Muslim,the media,the government and everyone here would agree that it was terorism. Turns out he isn't and you're all being just as bad as the Islamophobes who exclusively label mass murder by Muslims as terrorism. Remember the alleged 'terror' attack in Ottawa a few years ago and how Harper tried to make it out as Canada's 9/11? Why was it fine and dandy to parrot that here? It wasn't terrorism. At least no less terrorism as this attack.

Would you argue that this maniac was fueled by the ideology of incel? If not,why am I being attacked for calling him a terrorist? I'm going to ask you because you seem to be the most reasonable than others here.

Just a question. And I think you made that suggestion as well in the first place. Or am I wrong?

alan smithee]</p> <p>[quote=sanizadeh wrote:

Keep coddling this TERRORIST sanzidouche. Your 'progressive' cred is gaining capital. You stupid idiot. I'm sure the victim's families thank you for your misguided empathy for this loser. I'm sure they appreciate your ever so 'progressive' compassion. Moron.

And your incessant apologist garbage is just going to empower other losers like him to do the same thing. Because they'll finally be 'understood' and accepted by fucking brain dead idiots like you. You're just as bad as this terrorist.

Geez, another alt-right white supremacist calling us terrorist apologists. You know what, you are not happy with us? Pack and leave. Leave Rabble; Leave Canada. This is our country now. Move to Texas and happily execute whoever you want. Join the army and get an orgasm out of killing other people. Don't let the frustration build up in you.

I don't actually care whether you think it is terrorism or not.

I've told you what I have a problem with. As for you being goaded, you had a chip on your shoulder and invited people to attack you in your first post, so that is nonsense. Aside from your ideas about what you think should be done to the accused, and what you think his problem is, it is also a problem that rather than talking about this tragic incident this is all about you blowing a gasket.

And Magoo, I said it already, and I don't know how much this guy just fell into it, or how much of a zealot he is. But if you have a toxic ideology that guys are entitled to have sex when they want it and if they don't get it they are justified in resorting to violence, whom do you think it is directed at?

Personally, I don't think everyone who feels that way is going to go on a mass rampage, but I'd say there are a lot of men who do think that way, and are willing to resort to one-on-one violence.

So I don't just see this as someone snapping. I think this might instead be an extreme symptom of a very common sickness.

Quote:

But if you have a toxic ideology that guys are entitled to have sex when they want it and if they don't get it they are justified in resorting to violence, whom do you think it is directed at?

Chad?

Or who's "Chad"?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't actually care whether you think it is terrorism or not.

I've told you what I have a problem with. As for you being goaded, you had a chip on your shoulder and invited people to attack you in your first post, so that is nonsense. Aside from your ideas about what you think should be done to the accused, and what you think his problem is, it is also a problem that rather than talking about this tragic incident this is all about you blowing a gasket.

 

 

 

 

Judging from your comments,you seem to be the only one here beside myself in acknowledging this was ideology driven. Hence,it was a terrorist attack. Disagree or agree? Stop being vague and cutting short of calling this terrorism  while resigning to the fact the perp had ,in your words, a 'toxic ideology'. Ideology plus random mass murder. Hmm. Sounds like text book terrorism to me.

As for my prison comment,I'm just hoping his life in prison is a living hell. I'm thinking more like what happened to that gentleman in Alberta who killed a family,chopped them up and burned their remains. The moment he was put in prison,literally in the first hour, he was beaten to a pulp. And as far as I'm concerned he deserved it. If the same thing happens to this asshole,why would I care? Why would anyone here care.

I admit my comment about him losing his virginity in prison was inappropriate. I just find how fellow babblers reacted to it was over the top.

If I wasn't bombarded by attacks,I wouldn't have come across as aggressive. It wouldn't have happened.

So admit it,Smith. If he had a toxic ideology and then committed mass murder based on his demented ideology is that  text book terrorism or not? Be honest as I am honest. Don't insult my intelligence or your own.

This piece of shit doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy,empathy,coddling or excuses. THAT is what was driving me crazy the most.

You go on about how I'm talking to babblers,meanwhile I'm called right wing,a 'fuckhead'and a Breitbart reader. All (save maybe fuckhead) are patently untrue. And regular babblers know that damn well. And then I'm supposed to blow these people kisses. I'll call out the worst offenders . 2 DICKS named josh and shazam or whatever that shithead's handle is. Josh especially got the ball rolling by intentionally pushing my buttons. Read back what he was posting to me and ask yourself if that wouldn't get you infuriated.

'Prison rape' doesn't belong here. I agree that was inappropriate and offensive. But that was ONE post. Basically i was attacked not for that but the fact that I cal this terrorist a terrorist instead of downplaying what this monster is.

If I have to spend all my time fighting with fellow babblers for another 8 years of being here,sobeit. But it won't be me instigating any of it.

josh wrote:

Hopefully, a moderator will appear at some point to ban your angry ass.

Josh. Fuck off,alright? You're an agitator. And you're doing it on purpose. Hopefully you'll be right behind me getting banned.

Oh and BTW,asshole. Read my comment I left Smith. It was respectful because he knows how to engage with people unlike you.Oh,and a shout out to Magoo who also knows how to engage with people. I actually don't have a problem with anyone here except for less than a handful of babblers (which includes you).  My 'angry ass' is a product of your trolling. You're a loser.