Canadian Shooter: Nutjob White Guy or Islamic Extremist?

What is ridiculous is the laws that allowed the nutter to walk about free. He was jailed for one night once and has a trail behind him. He was on the watch list.

Dead is where he belongs and this guy is a hero:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-thrust-into-role-of-modern-day-hero/article21251215/

Ftrmv wrote:

I'm going with the nut job survivalist type.

Winner!!

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

What is ridiculous is the laws that allowed the nutter to walk about free. He was jailed for one night once and has a trail behind him. He was on the watch list.

Dead is where he belongs and this guy is a hero:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sergeant-at-arms-kevin-vickers-thrust-into-role-of-modern-day-hero/article21251215/

He shouldn't have to run to the office for the gun. Put down the damn mace and sword. It's time to get with the times.

Good job Mr. Vickers.

wejo wrote:

Scarecrow wrote:

Looks like I'm pretty close to being right. The killer's name is Michael Zehaf-Bideau. He was a 32 year old Canadian citizen. There is a criminal record for him in Montreal back in 2009, 5 years ago, on a minor MJ possession charge. Much more recently, it appears he converted to Islam (according to US FBI). Islamic State accounts have now posted a picture of him although they have not openly stated his attack was on their orders. Thus we see a tale of a toking narcissist turning to the rules of Islam to go straight and eventually becoming radicalized into a terrorist. BOOM.

http://thespeaker.co/ottawa-shooter-identified/

I'm impressed you nailed it. What's up with these recent converts in the West being so willing to kill for the "cause"?" Some of the ISIS fighters from the US killed were recent converts.

There are always marginalized nutjobs out there. They join cults of various stripes, and profess weird beliefs. But how many cults out there actively promote violence? Only one - Islam. It is a mainstream belief among muslims >50% in many countries that death is the appropriate remedy for

- homosexulaity

- adultery

- apostasy

Given that you have a "religion" with violence and revenge baked into the current, modern narrative, it is easy to take another step and think, "sharia is the answer". And if you take the koran literally, these recent acts in Canada make perfect sense.

IS is killing fellow msulims - Shia. This is acceptable, as Shia is a revision, and therefore apostasy. They kill Ahmadis in Pakistan - also revisionists, and therefore apostates.

Violence is part of Islam. We do not see violent attacks from hardcore Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists (which are as flaky as sharia Islam) because they believe in non-violence. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus say, "Kill those who do not believe in me", as it does in the Koran.

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" Koran 2:191

"Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood" Koran 9:123

"When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them" Koran 9:5

"any religion other than Islam is not acceptable" Koran 3:85

"the Jews and Christians are perverts; fight them" Koran 9:30

"Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33

"Muslims must not take the infidels as friends" Koran 3:28

" strike the neck those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an" Koran 8:12

"Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, boiling water." Koran 22:19

Muslims must muster weapons to terrorize the infidels" Koran 8:60

....wake the fuck up.....

From those of us on the agnostic side of the fence all religions are just a different shade of grey when it comes to irrational beliefs and justifiable violence. Consider the American South and the adjoining Bible Belt, a religion premised on love? C'mon. The state of Israel is horribly ethically and morally compromised, the recent history of the Vatican and the Catholic Church isn't much different. None of this is to defend Islam which is obviously crammed with violent nutters it's just to make the point that some like to think there is this wide difference and insurmountable moral superiority that divides the religions. The line is much thinner than most would like to imagine.

Christianity does not have, as a percept, a requirement for violence. Some might believe that practising violence is in fact christian, but that is not found in the actual texts that claim to be about this christ guy.

However, the koran is quite explicit in its requirements for violence. That is the difference.

All religions are built on childish nonsense. But islam is unique in its belief that all inquiry and critical thought ends w/ the koran. Anything discovered, conjectured, conjured after the koran is revision, and therefore apostasy, which must be met with violence. This last statement is not some sort of hyperbole - it is in fact how islam works. The koran is a book of laws. It is not subject to interpretation or revision. This is apostasy.

So while you can point to the violence in other religions, this does not change the fact that Islam is truly violent at its most fundamental level. It requires violence. Therefore the violence of Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc is not at all inconsistent w/ what the koran requires. Hence, the seeming ubiquity of violent islamic groups.

I do not see people killing in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Jain, Buddhism, Bahai etc. Since 9/11 there have been +25k people killed in terror attacks carried out in the name of islam. The scope and scale of the violence of islam outstrips the violence of any other religious movement. It is not even close when trying to compare them.

Canuckistan wrote:

But islam is unique in its belief that all inquiry and critical thought ends w/ the koran. Anything discovered, conjectured, conjured after the koran is revision, and therefore apostasy, which must be met with violence.

The Old Testament is chock-full of violence and calls thereto:

But modern Jews, even the most orthodox, are in a different time and place entirely than Jews of the biblical period such that Judaism became something you practice (i.e. the rituals), not something you believe (you sort of suspend your belief). This hasn't happened in Islam yet (and might never).

One of the reasons of course is that Jews, as a minority wherever they were over the past two millennia, would have gotten wiped out had they insisted to adhering to the Old Testament precepts, while many (most?) Muslims live in a time and place where radicalism gets rewarded with power and riches.

You could trace the rise of Hamas, the Ayatollahs, and other Islamist movements to the late 70s, where pan-Arab nationalism has proven to be ineffective (defeat in the Yom Kippur War as effectively the clincher), and opportunity arose for the radicals to fill the need for leadership and a worldview that contained some measure of promise, defined loosely if not perversely.

mopsy wrote:

From those of us on the agnostic side of the fence all religions are just a different shade of grey when it comes to irrational beliefs and justifiable violence. Consider the American South and the adjoining Bible Belt, a religion premised on love? C'mon. The state of Israel is horribly ethically and morally compromised, the recent history of the Vatican and the Catholic Church isn't much different. None of this is to defend Islam which is obviously crammed with violent nutters it's just to make the point that some like to think there is this wide difference and insurmountable moral superiority that divides the religions. The line is much thinner than most would like to imagine.

Can you name an instance in recent history of a Christian from the Bible Belt killing in the name of religion?

In Islam's defense, I don't believe there's anything in Islam approximating the Roman Catholic Church or a Pope who would be able to condemn violent Islamists. It's decentralized such that their much more violent version of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church can say "This is the Word of God, this is what it means," and seem much more legitimate than does the WBC.

mopsy wrote:

From those of us on the agnostic side of the fence all religions are just a different shade of grey when it comes to irrational beliefs and justifiable violence. Consider the American South and the adjoining Bible Belt, a religion premised on love? C'mon. The state of Israel is horribly ethically and morally compromised, the recent history of the Vatican and the Catholic Church isn't much different. None of this is to defend Islam which is obviously crammed with violent nutters it's just to make the point that some like to think there is this wide difference and insurmountable moral superiority that divides the religions. The line is much thinner than most would like to imagine.

Ok, so extreme Islamists might try to kill you with a plane or a suicide bomb, but those damn Christians will try to offer you lemonade and cake as a trap so you are forced to listen to a converstion-attempt speech. Oh yeah I can see how that is "just as bad" as trying to kill me.

Canuckistan wrote:

Violence is part of Islam. We do not see violent attacks from hardcore Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists (which are as flaky as sharia Islam) because they believe in non-violence. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus say, "Kill those who do not believe in me", as it does in the Koran.

uck up.....

Killing non-Jews/Christians is a common theme in the Bible and throughout history.

As far as the Conservatives somehow trying to blame liberals for this, very laughable. It's these conservatives who fight like crazy for the "right" of these extremists to be able to pack a gun. I don't see liberals fighting to enable terrorists the way the conservatives do. Besides these extremist Muslims are far more in line with conservative ideology than liberal ideology.

aerobic outhouse wrote:

Canuckistan wrote:

But islam is unique in its belief that all inquiry and critical thought ends w/ the koran. Anything discovered, conjectured, conjured after the koran is revision, and therefore apostasy, which must be met with violence.

The Old Testament is chock-full of violence and calls thereto:

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_verses_in_the_Bible_advocate_killing_non-believers

However the word of Christ (you....Christianity) never advocates violence. Jesus never said, "Smite those who do not believe in me"

Further, the entire bible is a book of fairy tales. None of that stuff actually happened. So saying, "There is all this violence in the bible" is like pointing out all the violence in, "World of Warcraft".

In contrast, the koran is a book of laws. And the killing in the name of islam - those happened. They were and are real.

Christianity has had several reform periods, and about 500 years ago, Christians stopped killing each other for a difference in belief. muslims still do this - sunnis kill shia, as is required by the koran. It has been 1200 years since this split, with no end in sight. The violence inherent in islam will continue.

There is no Episcopalianism in islam. There is no tolerance. islam is not about tolerance, inquiry, and adaptation to new ideas. It is about enforcing islam, as it is spelled out in the koran. Nothing else.

Ygritte wrote:

Killing non-Jews/Christians is a common theme in the Bible and throughout history.

The bible is a book of fairytales.

I am talking about now, here on planet earth. Now the only religion killing people because they think their invisible friend requires it is islam. And they are doing so at an incredible rate.

Nutjob

But itll be great for the CNN and FOX news Barbie doll, lip gloss RANGER warriorettes, for asking why we don't have boots on the ground someplace.....

Damn where Richard Ingle???

Canuckistan wrote:

[quote]aerobic outhouse wrote:

[quote]Canuckistan wrote:

There is no Episcopalianism in islam. There is no tolerance. islam is not about tolerance, inquiry, and adaptation to new ideas. It is about enforcing islam, as it is spelled out in the koran. Nothing else.

Even if we accept your premise that Islam is a code of conduct that calls for violence, my point was that that code of conduct is so incompatible with modernity, that no rational Muslim that has wealth and professional prestige to preserve would actually seek to abide by its (violent) edicts. Consider the Muslims in the United States - there is a reason why they don't go on murderous rampages against the non-believers. They have too much to lose and in fact their Islam barely resembles that of the Taliban. As an uncle of two of the only American Muslims to actually perpetrate such act of violence put it, the marathon bombers are "losers." (Notice by the way that the West Bank was largely quiet during the operation in Gaza. That is largely explained by the booming economy there, their ostensibly violently Muslim beliefs notwithstanding.)

By the way, I am a Jew, albeit the type that celebrates Yom Kippur by doing his hardest workout of the year on that day (and definitely NOT fasting). Eventually Muslims are likely to reach this point of secularism(?) as well. But the poverty, corruption, and violence only entrench fundamentalist Islam.

aerobic outhouse wrote:

Even if we accept your premise that Islam is a code of conduct that calls for violence, my point was that that code of conduct is so incompatible with modernity, that no rational Muslim that has wealth and professional prestige to preserve would actually seek to abide by its (violent) edicts.

Sharia is the law of the land in The Gulf

65% of Malaysians & Qataris believe death for apostasy is appropriate.

Sharia in the UAE regularly results in rape victims being jailed.

The Gulf is wealthy, and they have laws that are medevial. And they think this is better than any form of Western jurisprudence.

The West Bank is run by Fatah, which is a secular organization. Fatah/PLO had Christian members, including Arafat's wife. They are nothing like Hamas. Hamas would like to kill Fatah, because they are apostates.

these medieval laws do not prevent the gulf arab states from doing business worth billions of dollars with the "infidels". or profiting from alcohol to a limited extent, and somehow i suspect that other social mores are disregarded behind closed doors. puritanical societies are only puritanical when it's convenient, as evident by the salem witch trials (which were effectively precipitated by the opportunity for land-grabbing), "relations" with their black servants by anyone from Thomas Jefferson to Strom Thurmond, and "relations" with the untouchable females by males from other "superior" castes in India. just because a large percentage of the Muslim world is willing to spout draconian dogma, doesn't mean that we are not ultimately creatures of our biology and are driven by primal impulses. islam shmislam, eventually the muslim world will experience the same divorce of practice from belief that the orthodox jews have experienced long ago, and its laws will either be changed or (not) enforced accordingly. this is probably happening already.

Actually both. Father Libyan. Mother French Canadian.