From the CBC:

Quote

 

Quebec provincial police say six people are dead and eight were wounded after shots were fired inside a mosque on Sunday night during evening prayers.

Sûreté du Québec Sgt. Christine Coulombe says the victims range in age from 35 to 70. Some of the wounded are considered to be in critical condition.

Thirty-nine people escaped the Islamic cultural centre of Quebec in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood without injuries, according to Coulombe.

 

Rest of the article is at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686

My heart goes out to the victims, their families and friends. I hope the two SOBs responsible rot in hell. 

On 2/1/2017 at 3:10 PM, The Unknown Poster said:

but let's get back on topic. I'm not sure referring to this killer as "radicalized" is the right term. Doesn't that undermine what people think of radicalization?  Can't he just be a regular old racist violent loser?  

(this is a discussion I meant to get back to, but got distracted)

The reason I say "radicalized" is because there appears to be a movement that is producing terrorists like him. The FBI just broke up two Dylan Roof style conspiracies in the states. Dozens of Jewish and Islamic community centers have received bomb threats in the past month. So, it's a valuable question to ask: where did this guy get his ideas? Where did he get his firearms? Who else might be similarly inspired? And what do we do about it?

38 minutes ago, johnzo said:

(this is a discussion I meant to get back to, but got distracted)

The reason I say "radicalized" is because there appears to be a movement that is producing terrorists like him. The FBI just broke up two Dylan Roof style conspiracies in the states. Dozens of Jewish and Islamic community centers have received bomb threats in the past month. So, it's a valuable question to ask: where did this guy get his ideas? Where did he get his firearms? Who else might be similarly inspired? And what do we do about it?

It's not that difficult to get firearms in Canada, even restricted ones.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/12/17/assaultstyle_weapons_easily_available_in_canada.html

As for where he got his ideas, it's not hard to find views similar to his on popular sites like Twitter and Reddit.  There are lots of "conservative" sites like Breitbart who would obviously not condone what he did, but do espouse similar views to the ones he held.

Is that radicalization?  Does it matter?  I'm not sure.  The push to call him and other white mass-murderers "radicalized" is basically a Liberal debate tactic to use against anyone who calls out radical Islam.  It's semantics more than anything.  You want to call him a radicalized terrorist, sure go ahead.  What he did is basically the same as what happened at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.  It's irrelevant what it's called.

Who else might be similarly inspired?  Anyone.  Literally anyone, and there is no single way that it happens.  It can happen when a man loses his job.  It can happen when someone has a crime or other perceived slight committed against them by a minority.

But it's not always so obvious like that, is it? Imagine a scenario... an innocent man comments on social media that he is worried about radical Islam because of what he's heard in the news.  He gets called Islamophobic.  Fired from his job.  Arrested, even, if the Liberals pass their Islamophobia law.  Innocent man who was worried about his family, now has lost his livelihood so decides he hates Muslims and all those who defend them.  Radicalized, because he dared to say he was worried about radical Islam.  Telling people their fears are "wrong" and bullying them into silence can radicalize them as much as anything else.

5 hours ago, Atomic said:

You want to call him a radicalized terrorist, sure go ahead.  What he did is basically the same as what happened at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.  It's irrelevant what it's called.

Thanks for the response, Atomic.  I agree with you that the Quebec City attack and the Pulse Nightclub attack (and attacks like the Ecole Polytechnic attack and the Nathan Cirillo attack as well, and lots of others) are all of the same coin. They're all hate crimes, or terrorism if you like -- crimes intended to terrify a tightly knit minority, to hit them where they feel safe, and to radicalize both the attacked community and people sympathetic to the attackers.

I also agree that calling him "radicalized" is a bit of a tactic -- but believe me, my intention is not to shut you down.  When I say "how did this guy get radicalized" what I'm really saying is "I'm scared that there are more of this guy out there, and that guys like him represent a threat that's comparable to the threat from Islamist / Sikh / whatever terrorists, and that investigating the places the produce a guy like this is a worthwhile use of law enforcement resources."  Do you think that's a reasonable/correct stance?

When I said "radicalized," TUP immediately popped up to say "Can't he just be a regular old racist violent loser?" and I want to kick against that idea a little bit, against the immediate narrative that this guy was just some loser whose alpha-bits spelled out the wrong message one morning. Because there are signs that something dark and terrible is organizing; white-on-nonwhite violence in the USA is spiking right now and the President is pussyfooting with white supremacists. 

Maybe this is more of an immediate terror in the USA, where the white supremacists are well armed and have symbols and traditions and are very difficult to prosecute.  Sometimes they even have official power -- there was an awful recent case about a Louisiana sheriff whose department did some heinous, heinous things to some black folks and totally skated on a jury trial.  And as a proud (if long-absent) Canadian I kinda despair that that kinda **** is being exported northward.

Quote

But it's not always so obvious like that, is it? Imagine a scenario... an innocent man comments on social media that he is worried about radical Islam because of what he's heard in the news.  He gets called Islamophobic.  Fired from his job.  Arrested, even, if the Liberals pass their Islamophobia law.  Innocent man who was worried about his family, now has lost his livelihood so decides he hates Muslims and all those who defend them.  Radicalized, because he dared to say he was worried about radical Islam.  Telling people their fears are "wrong" and bullying them into silence can radicalize them as much as anything else.

Yeah.  Terrorism wins when the bystanders are radicalized.  So I agree, our response to terrorism should not be to radicalize more people, even hypothetical people.

Are there any egregious examples of this kind of persecution in Canada?  I don't doubt there are, it's just that I'm not 100% up on my Canadian news. The case that comes to mind for me is the Brendan Eich case in Silicon Valley.

Edited February 18, 20178 yr by johnzo

On 2/17/2017 at 7:03 PM, johnzo said:

Thanks for the response, Atomic.  I agree with you that the Quebec City attack and the Pulse Nightclub attack (and attacks like the Ecole Polytechnic attack and the Nathan Cirillo attack as well, and lots of others) are all of the same coin. They're all hate crimes, or terrorism if you like -- crimes intended to terrify a tightly knit minority, to hit them where they feel safe, and to radicalize both the attacked community and people sympathetic to the attackers.

I also agree that calling him "radicalized" is a bit of a tactic -- but believe me, my intention is not to shut you down.  When I say "how did this guy get radicalized" what I'm really saying is "I'm scared that there are more of this guy out there, and that guys like him represent a threat that's comparable to the threat from Islamist / Sikh / whatever terrorists, and that investigating the places the produce a guy like this is a worthwhile use of law enforcement resources."  Do you think that's a reasonable/correct stance?

It's a reasonable stance but we already know where they're coming from, don't we?  There are lots of conservative havens on the internet that have really gotten out of hand since Trump ran for president, and even moreso since he won.  What can be done about it?  Most of these places are not encouraging stuff like what Bissonette did.  Just sharing conservative views.  Some people take it too far but what are you going to do?  Censor all conservative sites, nationwide?  It's not a realistic approach.  I don't see what else law enforcement can do.

On 2/17/2017 at 7:03 PM, johnzo said:

When I said "radicalized," TUP immediately popped up to say "Can't he just be a regular old racist violent loser?" and I want to kick against that idea a little bit, against the immediate narrative that this guy was just some loser whose alpha-bits spelled out the wrong message one morning. Because there are signs that something dark and terrible is organizing; white-on-nonwhite violence in the USA is spiking right now and the President is pussyfooting with white supremacists. 

White-on-nonwhite violence is spiking but is still a small fraction of nonwhite-on-white.   What do you mean when you say the president is pussyfooting with white supremacists?  Can you give a general (or specific) example of something that white supremacists might do that the president should deal with?  And how he would do so?

On 2/17/2017 at 7:03 PM, johnzo said:

Maybe this is more of an immediate terror in the USA, where the white supremacists are well armed and have symbols and traditions and are very difficult to prosecute.  Sometimes they even have official power -- there was an awful recent case about a Louisiana sheriff whose department did some heinous, heinous things to some black folks and totally skated on a jury trial.  And as a proud (if long-absent) Canadian I kinda despair that that kinda **** is being exported northward.

It's disgusting.  I don't see that level of hate ever reaching Canada but it's increasing here.  Why?

On 2/17/2017 at 7:03 PM, johnzo said:

Yeah.  Terrorism wins when the bystanders are radicalized.  So I agree, our response to terrorism should not be to radicalize more people, even hypothetical people.

Subtle shot but I caught it.  Going through hypothetical worst-case-scenarios can help prevent them.  Some want to wait for something bad to happen before it's discussed.... never been my style.

On 2/17/2017 at 7:03 PM, johnzo said:

Are there any egregious examples of this kind of persecution in Canada?  I don't doubt there are, it's just that I'm not 100% up on my Canadian news. The case that comes to mind for me is the Brendan Eich case in Silicon Valley.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/toronto-sports-anchor-fired-over-tweets-1.987992

I'm not anti-gay by any stretch of the imagination, I believe in gay marriage being legal and gay people having the same rights as anyone else.  But in this case the man posted about his support for traditional marriage and he lost his job.  Now, there are consequences for taking stands like this.  People tend to respect those taking a stand for something they agree with, and vilify those who take a stand for something they disagree with.  But the overriding truth here is that he was fired for speaking his mind.  After 20 years as a sports reporter, Damian Goddard's career ended due to his comments.  He never killed anyone as far as I know.  But is it such a stretch to imagine someone doing so, when their life as they know it has been ruined?

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/toronto-sports-anchor-fired-over-tweets-1.987992

I'm not anti-gay by any stretch of the imagination, I believe in gay marriage being legal and gay people having the same rights as anyone else.  But in this case the man posted about his support for traditional marriage and he lost his job.  Now, there are consequences for taking stands like this.  People tend to respect those taking a stand for something they agree with, and vilify those who take a stand for something they disagree with.  But the overriding truth here is that he was fired for speaking his mind.  After 20 years as a sports reporter, Damian Goddard's career ended due to his comments.  He never killed anyone as far as I know.  But is it such a stretch to imagine someone doing so, when their life as they know it has been ruined?

This type of thing is becoming common for certain jobs and roles.  Anyone who may represent a brand or company to the general public (CEO, athletes, media personalities, etc) will now have clauses written into their contract that they can be fired over this type thing and I don't think it is directly for political correctness reasons, it is for profit.  It is to protect the brand.

With the new age of social media and mass movements, large amounts of people can quickly boycott brands and companies when a personality does or says something that would alienate a large amount of people.   Companies want quick outs when bad press starts to circulate.

Does that make it fair that an employee of 20 years is let go for something he says?   Probably not, but this stuff is strictly profit motivated.

When you are in those roles, you sign a bunch of things saying you won't do "things" that will hurt the brand, and those people have to realize that they can't go and say just anything publicly without a potential impact to their career.  They have to be hyper sensitive to what they say and post.  And if you aren't okay with that, they need to find another career.

10 hours ago, Rich said:

When you are in those roles, you sign a bunch of things saying you won't do "things" that will hurt the brand, and those people have to realize that they can't go and say just anything publicly without a potential impact to their career.  They have to be hyper sensitive to what they say and post.  And if you aren't okay with that, they need to find another career.

Either that, or grab a gun and start shooting up their workplace or gathering of the people that they alienated.  And that's my whole point.  Talk about profit all you want, it makes no difference to my argument... the point is the impact on the person who has been publicly shamed.  Whether it's their own fault or not is irrelevant... it's about the aftereffects and what our new social media public-shaming culture is giving rise to.  If you tell someone he's a bigot enough times, don't be surprised when he embraces it.

On 2/18/2017 at 7:26 PM, Atomic said:

  Just sharing conservative views.  Some people take it too far but what are you going to do?  Censor all conservative sites, nationwide?  It's not a realistic approach.  I don't see what else law enforcement can do.

No, censoring all conservative news sites nationwide would be like Chris Jones level stupid.

Law enforcement is quite capable of narrowly focused breakups of terror plots.  In the last month, the FBI has busted at least two terrorist conspiracies, one an ISIS loon and the other a guy who wanted to restage the Charleston black church massacre, the Dylan Root killings.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/robert-hester-jr-isis-kansas-city-missouri-facebook-army-terrorist-photo-presidents-day-islamic-state-muslim-lorenzo/

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/02/fbi_white_supremacist_convicte.html

Yet National Review and Breitbart and Al-Jazera in America are still publishing their stuff.  So I think that "we can't fight radical right-wing terror because we can't shut down all conservative media" looks like a straw man to me.

On 2/18/2017 at 7:26 PM, Atomic said:

What do you mean when you say the president is pussyfooting with white supremacists?  Can you give a general (or specific) example of something that white supremacists might do that the president should deal with?  And how he would do so?

Steve Bannon, his chief of staff, has written a lot of stuff that I'd consider to be white supremacist.  He's a clash-of-civilization kind of guy who sees the world as whites vs.  everyone else.  Your mileage may vary on whether that's white supremacy or not.

Your second question: there have been dozens and dozens of threatening phone calls and bomb threats to Jewish and Islamic community centers in 2017.  Here in Seattle, an Islamic center was just burned by an arsonist and two mosques have been similarly burned in Texas in the past couple of months.  The President can use the bully pulpit to condemn these attacks and direct his attorney general to investigate them.

But the focus of the administration is not on domestic white terrorists, it's on Muslim terrorists.  The president has directed that a Homeland Security program named Countering Violent Extremism which (from my reading) is a touchy-feely program about de-radicalizing communities, should be explicitly focused on Muslim communities.

(gonna get back to the rest of your post in a bit, esp the Goddard stuff, which is very interesting.  I've gotta train to catch. and thanks again for the response)