A mass shooting at a Quebec City mosque last night left six people dead and eight wounded. The targeted mosque, the Cultural Islamic Center of Quebec, was the same one at which a severed pig’s head was left during Ramadan last June. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the episode a “terrorist attack on Muslims.”
Almost immediately, various news outlets and political figures depicted the shooter as Muslim. Right-wing nationalist tabloids in the U.K. instantly linked it to Islamic violence. Fox News claimed that “witnesses said at least one gunman shouted ‘Allahu akbar!’” and then added this about the shooter’s national origin:
Suspect in Quebec mosque terror attack was of Moroccan origin, reports show https://t.co/oRzxGHEXDm pic.twitter.com/aEsEtccMvi
— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 30, 2017
White House press secretary Sean Spicer exploited the attack to justify President Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. “It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,” Spicer said at this afternoon’s briefing when speaking of the Quebec City attack.
But these assertions are utterly false. The suspect is neither Moroccan nor Muslim. The Moroccan individual, Mohamed Belkhadir, was actually one of the worshippers at the mosque and called 911 to summon the police, playing no role whatsoever in the shooting.
The actual shooting suspect is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian who is, by all appearances, a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist. A leader of a local immigration rights group, François Deschamps, told a local paper he recognized his photo as an anti-immigrant far-right “troll” who has been hostile to the group online.
The Globe and Mail added that he “was known in the city’s activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump.” And Bissonnette’s Facebook page — now taken down but still archived — lists among its “likes” the far-right French nationalist Marine Le Pen, Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the Israeli Defense Forces, and Donald J. Trump (he also “likes” the liberal Canadian Party NDP along with more neutral “likes” such as Tom Hanks, the Sopranos, and Katy Perry).
It is usually the case that there is significant confusion in the wake of attacks of this sort. And local police did apparently arrest two suspects at first: Bissonnette along with Belkhadir. And until the investigation is complete, one cannot know for certain what the motives here were. One should be careful about trying to infer too much from a hodgepodge of Facebook “likes” and, this early, even anecdotal claims about Bissonnette’s political views. As for reports that someone yelled “Allahu akbar,” it is perfectly natural that someone in a mosque would say that upon seeing a homicidal killer randomly shooting people, or it’s possible that the shooter said it mockingly.
But this is exactly why no responsible news organization, let alone the White House, should rush to depict the shooter as Muslim and of Moroccan descent when so little is known about what happened. Yet not only did Fox and the Trump White House do exactly that, but worse, neither has retracted or corrected their claims long after it became clear that they were false:
Hour & a half after tweeting out false info on #QuebecMosqueAttack Fox News has still not corrected or retracted. @ggreenwald https://t.co/IppNZrXxHH
— Derrick O'Keefe (@derrickokeefe) January 30, 2017
The inflammatory effect of this sort of reckless, biased “reporting” is as predictable as it is toxic. All day long, people around the world cited these reports to justify Trump’s ban as well as their own ugly views of Muslims:
Quebec gunman 'is Muslim Moroccan' https://t.co/UxI42LAY1X via @MailOnline
— TRUMP MOVEMENT (@TRUMPMOVEMENTUS) January 30, 2017
I fully condemn the shooting in Quebec City. But remember the shooters weren't yelling "Trump" they were yelling "Allahu akbar"
#MsuslimBan— Seven (@StocksAlotTEMP) January 30, 2017
The only part of any of this that’s true is that it was an act of terrorism: terrorism aimed, yet again, at Muslims by someone who has apparently been indoctrinated with a great deal of hate toward them. Media outlets and the White House led people all over the world today to believe exactly the opposite.
Top photo: Police survey the scene after a deadly shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, Jan. 29, 2017.
Still waiting for Greenwald to somehow blame Democrats for this.
If muslims can terrorize nonmuslims with impunity then this is just the other side of the same coin. The point here is that all religion is bad. It’s a mental disorder that makes people behave irrationally with great intolerance and violence. Fortunately people area abandoning religion in droves, including islam. By 2050 half the planet will be Athiest. This is a good start.
I KNEW Katy Perry was involved!
536 comments on this article. The vast majority coming from a handful of people, one person alone is probably responsible for about 20% of the comments. Almost every single article’s comment section is like that, the same people, over and over.
Ever think about starting your own blog?
Feel free to make as many as you like. I believe that’s what a comments section is for.
You’re wrong. The mainstream media initially jumped to the conclusion it was a ‘neo-nazi’ and named Aurini, a YouTube personality (with no neo-nazi links, in fact the chap is Jewish) because they were SO desperately hoping it was a white guy, when in fact the person arrested during the shooting was shouting ‘allah huakbar’.
As was the chap who committed mass murder in a car in Melbourne, Australia that the media protected the identity of, photoshopped images of, and hid the details of for weeks. Both times the media pretended that Islam wasn’t involved and it was witnesses at the scene filming it that yielded the truth. Thank god for technology or we’d have nothing to go by but the lies of ‘journalists’.
No one trusts the media anymore, because like you, they lie through their teeth to push a narrative over the facts.
Bissonnette confessed, but still no real evidence that he is the shooter, perhaps malinga cliam for fame, or infamy, so wait and see if REAL evidence ties him to this awful crime.
Trudeau signed off on the 15 billion dollar arms deal to Saudi Arabia. How many muslim deaths have occured due to the weapons, LAVs etc. that these parasitic politicians profit from? Canada is a perverse colonial criminal country built on genocide and corporate pillage. I condemn Trudeau and his cohorts. Also he just reneged on his campaign promise to reform the election process from first past the post to proportional representation. I guess since he got a majority the system works just fine. The face of Liberalism is that of Dorian Grey.
“We are all Muslims now”, I’ve seen that all over the American protest signs. Fabulous. And not just in the US. Trump and those that think like him are uniting the world. Just not in the way they expected. And at such cost.
Muslims’ fear is that this small wave can turn into a huge tidal wave against the Muslims if there is a terrorist attack carried out by those who claim to be Muslims.
The violent Muslim groups do not like, and want, any goodwill towards the Muslims who live in the West.
Look what happened after Muhammad Ali’s nationally televised funeral created some positive feelings towards Muslims and some positive coverage of Islam in the media?
It quickly disappeared as there was a terrorist attack by a Muslim soon thereafter.
What is needed is for the leaders to come up with a sensible, rational and well-thoughtout plan to deal with the underlying causes of violence that is being carried out by members of various currents — Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Zionism is the same ideological species as white nationalism
@Swisscheese
You are deeply confused. What I stated — which is true — is as follows: “Zionists have far more in common with white nationalists [than with Western liberal democracies], which is why a murderer like Alexandre Bissonnette is a fan of the Israeli army and other ardent Zionist groups such as ‘United with Israel’.”
As we saw below, many or most believe white nationalism is defintionally incompatible with supporting Zionism and Israel. I have shown that not only are Zionism and white nationalism compatible, they are the same in illiberal, ethno-supremacist form.
Historically, Zionists and Nazis/antisemites have understood one another well and worked together toward what both groups understood as common goals for their respective ethno-supremacist regimes. The scholarship on this is quite substantial. This reality, however, is not yet well understood — hence misguided objections and claims that Bissonnette cannot be, as the article states, a white nationalist, given that he strongly supports the (ethno-religious supremacist) State of Israel.
[The scholarly basis for my claims is supported in many works, but I primarily rely on State of Terror by Thomas Suarez.]
Thomas Suarez, the author of State of Terror is not some crackpot. His thesis will at first strike many as counter-intuitive given how Westerners have been propagandized to perceive Zionism and Israel. His work, however, is heavily referenced, often to primary sources.
Moreover, he recently was invited to address The House of Lords in London to speak about his book:
The extent to which Zionist depravity is as deeply repugnant as that of any Nazi cannot be overstated. Do read Suarez’ entire speech. White nationalist support for Zionism and Israel could not make more sense.
Moreover, you have very poor debating skills. You are not debating, you are venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not believe this is the appropriate venue for such therapy. The following statement is just weird:
“In any event, you and other Zionists are simply going to have to deal with my… There is nothing you can do to stop that truth from spreading” Mona
On what basis am I a Zionist? Who exactly is preventing you from expressing your opinion? Me? If you know the writers, then you are aware I am not part of TI, right?
Truth labeling is completely different from name calling in the context of a private site attempting to maintain a certain standard. This is not Twitter, this is the Intercept. The co-founder can be a name caller fanatic, but in THIS SITE he clearly states in his policy to attack the argument and not the person making it. When “Karl” calls you a b.. then he is disrespecting the co-founder, and when you call others pigs, or even Zionists without any basis you are just doing the same. There is absolutely nothing in my arguments that remotely suggests that I have the slightest admiration for Zionism.
If the co-founder allows you to call others names without any punishment, then this is simply not a fair venue where dissenters are allowed.
All viewpoints are allowed here. No view-point based banning or deleting occurs. Dissent absolutely is allowed. *I* dissent with some frequency from certain articles published here, in whole or in part.
If you are not a Zionist, and if the substance of my documentation of the ugly truth of Zionism does not bother you, good. I am quite certain you are a Zionist, but do not really care.
Initially you claimed I had argued the Israeli army “inspired” Bissonnette, which I did not say. Now it’s some other weird claim about what I wrote, so let me be clear: My purpose is to dispel the pervasive assumption, as was seen here below, that white nationalists could not be supportive of Israel. That is the opposite of reality and always has been.
As for this:
Dr. Swisscheese, your concern for my mental health is duly noted. The only sense in which that is true, however, is that I do feel an obligation to defend Palestinians and expose the truth about Zionism, given that I spent several decades advocating Zionism. The pervasive myths about it in American culture totally captivated me, and I do deeply regret any role I played in promoting support for it.
And again, attacks on persons are not prohibited here. They simply are not “encouraged.” What you feel is necessary for showing respect for the founders could not be less relevant to me.
You are strategically dishonest. I never claimed you argued the Israeli army inspired Bissonnette. You are using that false narrative because as I expected, nobody including you know why he really shows admiration for Israel. So, I am going to make it even easier to expose your lack of reasoning skills: what if I falsely claimed that you argued that the IDF inspired him (which I did not). What if I apologize for that false claim. You have still not answered the challenge, which has NEVER been whether he was inspired by the IDF or Zionism. The challenge has always been how do you know his admiration for Israel is due to the compatibility of white nationalism and Zionism?
White nationalists show admiration for people they hate sometimes, don’t they? So how do you know in this specific case? You cannot answer because you do not know. Your whole point was to find a way to include Israel in a debate that should be related to media malpractice.
Since, you cannot admit your failure to provide that information, then your strategy is be dishonest and to start calling me names.
Your support for Palestinians is your choice. Your fight against Zionism is also your choice. I still do not understand how am I trying to silence you, how am I preventing the truth from spreading or how your despise of Zionism suddenly makes me a Zionist. That is quite weird to me.
Finally, it is obvious that you have certain privilege here because of your friendship with the writers. The policy is clear: attack the argument not the person or you will be removed. It has nothing to do with what I feel. This is their site and their policy, not mine. I doubt you will respect their policy because they implicitly allow you to ignore it. I will respect their policy because I always respect somebody’s private place, and every time people like you go low though name callings, I go high by exposing their poor reasoning skills, their ignorance, and their pathetic lack of decency.
So you support the shooting?
You, and many others believe Zionism and white nationalism are compatible.
THAT IS NOT THE BASIS OF MY CHALLENGE.
You stated that Bissonnette is a fan of the Israeli army BECAUSE Zionism and white nationalism are compatible.
My challenge: how do you know his rationale to be a fan of the Israeli army? He has not provided you, the court or anybody else his reasons for supporting the Israeli army. If he has, then share that information with us. We have his social media accounts and witnesses telling us that he is pro-Israel, pro Trump, anti immigrant and a supporter of a Canadian left political party. A white nationalist can be a fan of Arabs, or even a black African tribes temporarily.
He might just admire an army that have killed Palestinians without being a truthful admirer of Jews or Israel. He might not even understand what Zionism mean, but he is just willing to support whomever is against Muslim for the moment.
If you are unable to provide that information, then you are just pivoting the case from Canada to Israel. That shows your despise of Israel not logical reasoning skills.
This is not a mere “belief” They are compatible. They are the same in ideological form.
Not just the Israeli army. White nationalist and murderer Bissonnette also supports “United with Israel,” which describes itself as:
After news of Bissonnette’s murder of Muslims at a mosque many Israelis online celebrated his actions.Their commentary (in Hebrew) was collected and tweeted by a Hebrew-speaking Jewish man whom I follow.
Israel’s fascistic nature is now overt, as lamented by, e.g., a former Shin Bet directer (Israel’s FBI), Yuval Diskin. Of course white nationalists often approve of kindred spirits. Why wouldn’t they?
You are evading the challenge and going back again and again to Israel. Let me make it clearer for this specific case:
Is it true they are white nationalists who despise Israel and the Jews?
Is it true that sometimes white nationalists strangely show admiration at least temporarily for groups they actually hate?
The answer for those two questions is yes. So how do you know Bissonnette’s rationale for showing admiration for IDF or UI? How do know he is not just supporting them because he just hates Muslims more than he hates Jews? Again, white nationalist South Africans publicly showed admiration for Angolan Bantus against communists. You do not believe they actually admired those black Africans, do you?
You have no idea what’s on Bissonnette’s head. Your arguments showed your despise of Israel, not reasoning skills.
Well, no. Your initial “challenge” was to falsely assert that I’d claimed the IDF “inspired” him. I addressed that. Now you’ve moved on to something else. My purpose is to show the compatibility of Zionism with white nationalism, contrary to the commenter’s (widely shared) claim below. End of.
I am not really sure whether you truly misunderstood my challenge or you are just being dishonest. I have NEVER asserted that you claimed the IDF inspired him. That was my original question:
“Can you please provide data that prove that Bissonnette’s actions were inspired by the Israeli defence forces or by Zionism?”
You clearly answered that his admiration for IDF does not mean the IDF inspired him. However, you believe his admiration for the IDF is due to the compatibility of Zionism and white nationalism. For that specific point of yours my challenge has been: how do you know Bissonnette’s admiration for Israel is due to that compatibility? I never ask you whether Zionism and white nationalism are compatible. I can find many writers, historians who believe they are, and I can find many others who believe they are not. I could consult their manuals to answer that question, not you.
The reality is that you have absolutely no idea why Bissonnette admires Israel or the Canadian Left. You are not even sure whether he really understands what Zionism means because he has not clarified his views to the public. Maybe he is a crazy, pro Israel, Zionist white nationalist, or maybe he just hates Muslims more than he hates Jews, so he is willing to support anybody who is at war with a Muslim state. You do not know. Your whole strategy is to move the debate from Canada to Israel because you despise Israel. Israel war crimes, violations of international laws is another debate. The article is about media malpractice about a terrorist act in Canada.
I repeat again that you do not have debating skills. You quickly resort to name callings and you are strategically being dishonest when you are incapable of admitting that as of now nobody, including you is really sure why Bissonnette shows admiration for Israel.
Your opinion and pronouncements on my debating skills, my honesty or anything else are as irrelevant to me as your opinions about how to respect the founders of this site.
Further, I am not reading – merely briefly glancing thru — most of your lengthy comments in this sub-thread as they are redundant. I skipped to the end and shall continue to do so.
Conclusion:
You have absolutely no idea why white nationalist, terrorist Alexandre Bissonnette admires Israel. You are incapable of proving your own statement that his admiration for Israel is due to the compatibility of Zionism and white nationalism.
Checkmate!
It has long been a standard online convention, and is true, that an interlocutor who needs to shriek such things as “Victory!” “I decimated you!” or “Checkmate!” is intellectually insecure. Secure people, confident in themselves and their arguments, let the arguments and their performance speak for themselves.
In any event, this thread is stale and I have brought the pressing mental heath matters you identify to your attention in a new one.
Your reasoning skills are being challenged by the hour.
The NDP aren’t “liberal”, that would be, coincidentally enough, the reigning Liberal Party; the NDP are Canada’s social democratic political party.
This is pretty basic fact-checking, and would take all of 5 seconds to find out doing a simple web-search. It may be a small thing, but such a glaring error that shows shoddy/lazy reporting takes away from the credibility of the entire article unfortunately.
Next time, take a minute to figure out that what you’re writing is correct to avoid this in the future… just a helpful tip.
The NDP is sufficiently liberal that, as a casual perusal of google results shows, they court progressive votes and work together with the Liberal Party against conservatives. A merger appears to have been contemplated for some time.
Murtaza Hussain — the co-author of this piece — is a Canadian and political activist who would reliably know whether it is reasonable to characterize the NDP as “liberal.”
Actually, the Liberals aren’t very liberal, they’re more right of centre. Even their proponents admit they’re at the very least centrist.
The NDP and the Greens are the true liberals in the Canadian system.
“..no responsible news organization, let alone the White House..”
Responsible actions out of Trump’s White House?? Whaaaattt?
Don’t expect rational behavior out of the fools who slime the halls of what must now be named “The Shit House”.
Seems like the PMO tried to handle the #foxfakenews thing with discretion. But oh no,
(paywalled, iPolitics, free trial available)
Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 1h1 hour ago
It took demand of Canada’s Government for @FoxNews to finally delete false tweet blaming Muslims for mosque attack
We are always told that we need to be mindful and not provoke Muslims to violence by being critical of their prophet with cartoons and novels and just plain talking.
Maybe this guy was similarly provoked by Muslims not being mindful of non-Muslims and cutting off their heads, raping them, and throwing them off of buildings if they are gay.
Liberals make excuses for Muslims like the ones who attacked Charlie Hebdo. Remember it was Obama himself who said that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” And then there was Richard Gere among others who after 9-11 wanted to know what we must be doing wrong that is making these people so angry.
Why wouldn’t liberals make the same excuses for this guy being provoked to violence?
Just to be clear, my position is that any violence at all is unacceptable and there is no excuse for it. It’s black and white. Wrong and right. But liberals always love to see things in shades of gray.
Just in.
The “PMO”, the Prime Minister of Canada’s office has chastised Fox over their incorrect Tweet on the terrorist attack in Quebec City.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kate-purchase-bill-shine-1.3960772
now if NPR would stop mentioning trump’s new immigration policy in stories about the murders in canada
nuanced bias, for nuanced minds …
Because they are completely unconnected and they don’t get news about les Américains dans Quebec? Right, right.
i dunno, are they connected?
give us the nutter perspective
wait i figured it out
under 8 years of democrats, right-wing mass murderers ARE NOT inspired by the US government
under 2 weeks of a republican, right-wing mass murders ARE inspired by the US government
it makes perfect sense
God bless you mary… you’re a little slow but we love you anyway.
Wait, I remember you. You’re a not-very-bright lunatic troll who is now going on ignore forever!
you missed your big chance to “kick my punk ass” some time ago
lucky i don’t hang out with canadian salt-of-the earth types
You have a lot of nerve. “But this is exactly why no responsible news organization, let alone the White House, should rush to depict the shooter as Muslim and of Moroccan descent when so little is known about what happened.” But back in 2014 everyone of you jumped to conclusions with MB in Ferguson and kept going for well over a year adding to the burning in my city. Sick of all of you.
I suppose you all know that this incident is already being identified as a miss fired false flag and part of a Soros lead, globalist attempt to rock the NYSE
While it was terrible of other reports to draw conclusions without evidence there likewise little supporting evidence that Bissonnette was “a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist”
His FB likes are all over the map politically and amount to an ink blot, some see “White supremacist” others see “Leftist” while others are “wow a butterfly.”
In the approximately 6 months of archived FB posts, only one was remotely political, a post in support of the far left Human Rights Commission in Quebec to fine a comedian for $35,000 for his “offensive” speech.
As for the “eye witness” testimony of his online posts, where is a single one of these online posts. Isn’t that the whole point of the internet, the posts are there for the world to see without having to go through the filter of the media. Well did you find a single post?
My dear fellow righteous Jewish homosexual Glenn, as a gay American I am appalled at the unforgivable Fox News error! I think, praise Allah, your vigilance is highly commendable. Fox News, now uniquely qualifies for a special satirical cover by Charlie Hebdo, and I hope you will get to give a lecture tour in the seven countries maligned by our current administration. May I suggest a topic – The Intolerant Face of Conservative American Media to be given at the universities (pardon madrases) of the seven islamic countries). Unlike here I am sure you won’t have visa problems in any of those countries . Dont forget to take along your boyfriend/husband to see the architectural wonders of the Middle East. I am eagerly awaiting for your objective non-indignant commentary on the state of the media in Qatar, Saudi Arabia an Iran!
Yuri likes to change the subject when he wants to.
They were suspected both. This was the local news. But he was fleeing police confusing them with a shooter coming back.
You are wrong on this. It was not made up. The Moroccan man did flee the scene and was arrested. But he thought the police coming in was the shooter coming back. His house has been inspected and then they let him go. So there were two suspects initially.
Fox News apologizes for erroneous Quebec terror tweet
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/media/fox-news-justin-trudeau/index.html?sr=twCNN020117fox-news-justin-trudeau0412AMStoryPhoto&linkId=33995532
Yup, I posted that a bit below. And offered kudos to Glenn and Murtaza for calling out Fox on that tweet when so few other outlets did so.
Ha, I just posted that! Oh well!
I love your podcast! Please keep doing what you are doing. I just googled your website rather than typing your web address in URL box, I noticed that some fake people who are deeply disturbed by your real, smart and to the point comments, made some google blogs or sites calling the intercept fake news to throw people off. Please alert google- these people are the same ones who skewed our election. I have been telling all my friends about your thought provoking, no nonsense podcast. Thank you from bottom of my heart.
Zionist commit enormous amounts of terror, and used children
Continuing with observations about Nazis and white nationalists and the fact that many of them like — and have much in common with — Zionists and Israel. As with the white nationalist terrorist written of above, Zionists terrorized Arabs, the British and other Jews nearly from the outset. They murdered and assassinated many, Jew and non-Jew alike.
And they used children, an accusation Zionists so frequently hurl at the Palestinians whom they have long victimized. In 1938, Zionists sent a Jewish twelve year old girl to throw a bomb at a bus “filled with Arab countryfolk” outside of Jaffa; four were killed, 36 wounded. For the British, this incident marked the point they first began to comprehend the fact of Zionist radicalization of children.
Jewish parents and teachers who sought to interfere with the children’s radicalization process were harassed, beaten and even murdered.
It’s simply not odd, at all, that such a vicious ideology as Zionism would have some appeal for many other supremacist groups.
(Citation to State of Terror, by Thomas Suarez. Footnote to 1938 article in the NYT.)
This article has zilch to do with Zionists
Yes, it does. One of the first comments here made the assertion that Bissonnette “can’t be” a white nationalist because, as the above article states, he loves Israel. This is commonly held but totally wrong belief.
Zionists and Nazis/antisemites have been ideological partners for at least a century. Zionism grew out of the same 19th century “blood and soil” ethnic nationalism notions.
We in the West have been extensively propagandized to regard Zionism and the founding of Israel as a romantic, noble fight for a democracy. That is totally wrong. Understanding why it’s wrong makes white nationalists’ admiration for Israel make sense.
You led this thread astray for your own personal reasons Mona. No one fucks up the below the line commentary like you Mona.
READERS: About 95% of the time I do not reply to Craig Summers, who is an authoritarian, pro-torture, militantly Zionist Republican who said he is a Trump-voter. Multiple commenters asked that I not reply to Craig because doing so causes him to post yet more walls of drivel-text, which pollutes the board.
Mona
The terms Zionist and Zionism were used on this thread 103 times. You used the terms 71 of the 103! Of course, you are the former law partner of Greenwald so you can take a threads off topic anytime you want, but Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Greenwald and Hussain never mentioned Zionism. You are consumed by the topic. Regardless, you were asked two questions which you never answered.
And swisscheese also asked you a question you neglected to answer:
You continue to stereotype “Zionist” in bigoted ways which really makes you equivalent to the “white nationalists” you relentlessly criticize (rightly). Again, you are in no position to call nuf an antisemite. I posted a link to a 2010 Gallup pole which showed that Jews are more sympathetic to discrimination against Muslims than any other major religion in the US (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx?). This indicates that you are completely clueless about Zionism and Jews.
Thanks Mona.
The purported rules that Mona is so fond of throwing up in people’s faces do not apply to her. She is a professed friend of Glenn Greenwald and obviously conducts her unscrupulous online activity with his blessing.
Karl
Mona applies a separate set of rules to everyone that disagrees with her politically. The threads are far cleaner and simply better when she is at the “single viewpoint” site.
READERS: About 95% of the time I do not reply to Craig Summers, who is an authoritarian, pro-torture, Republican who said he is a Trump-voter. Multiple commenters asked that I not reply to Craig because doing so causes him to post yet more walls of drivel-text, which pollutes the board.
You can run Mona, but you can’t hide. Answer the questions.
Reply
You didn’t reply Mona
Thanks.
Reply.
“Of course, you are the former law partner of Greenwald so you can take a threads off topic anytime you want, but Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.”
That explains a lot. The article is about media malpractice, but her comments are really about Israel. Even when I attempt to move the debate back to Bissonnette, she quickly goes back to Zionism, Palestine…Israel again. I have also noticed she confidently calls people names such as “pigs”, “goose”, in complete violation of the comments policy. Is it really how it works here? If you know the writers you can disregard their policy and any decency?
Do see this.
And LOL, to call someone a “goose” is to “disregard decency.” LOL
“To call someone a goose is to disregard decency”
No. But to call someone a “pig” is a reflection of indecency. Have you already forgotten your own words or you are just pretending to forget about them? I wonder what would be your reaction if any journalists on this site would start referring to refugees as “pigs”.
Name calling definitely reflects your poor inability to debate and your lack of respect for the clearly established policies of this site. If the writers allow you to disregard their own policies because of your friendship to some of them, then it is wrong.
You do not believe I have a “poor ability to debate.” No Zionist does. They’ve tried to have me banned at several sites for the substance of what I quote and link. There is no possibility of their succeeding at that here, so they do as you do. Rant and whine about my being mean, a purported liar & etc.
Further, this site does not prohibit name-calling. It does not “encourage” it. Indeed, it really could not prohibit that, given that one of the co-founders regularly, on Twitter, calls liars “liars” and imbeciles “imbeciles.” In his articles he calls sociopaths “sociopaths.” (I did not call anyone a “pig” in this thread. I seldom do, but when I do so identify someone they fully merit it.)
Truth in labeling is allowed here.
In any event, you and other Zionists are simply going to have to deal with my frequent citation to Thomas Suarez’ State of Terror and the deeply ugly truths about Zionists and Israel that it exposes. There is nothing you can do to stop that truth from spreading, either here or elsewhere online. Even Israel cannot stop it expect inside of the territories it brutally controls.
“You do not believe I have a poor ability to debate”
The above comment just convinced me that you do have an extremely poor ability to debate. You are actually not debating.
1) Truth in labeling is completely different from name calling in the context of a site establishing proper commenting standards. Trump lied about the inauguration crowd size, therefore he is a liar. I assume the commenter “Karl” does not know you so on what ground can he call you a “bitch”?
2) This is not Twitter! This is the Intercept. Even if the co-founder was a name caller fanatic, he is A CO-FOUNDER. The site is essentially his private property and the site policy clearly states:
“Commenters should strive to attack the substance of arguments, rather than the person who is making them.”
“In any event…There is nothing you can do…”
You are venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not think this is the appropriate venue for such therapy. Calling me a Zionist proves my point. You have absolutely no basis to classify me as a Zionist. It is clear that you are actually abusing your friendship with the writers to devalue the standards they themselves established. Or maybe this is their hidden strategy to ignore blatant disruptive behaviors from their acquaintance in order to have a majority of supporters in the commenting section.
The Fox tweet Greenwald and Hussain reproduce and write of above really angered the Canadian government: Fox News apologizes for erroneous Quebec terror tweet
Kudos to Glenn and Murtaza for calling out Fox’s tweet when few other media did.
When is Glenn Greenwald going to retract his own mischaracterization of the shooting as an “act of terror”?
Right after you explain how you know, as you claimed, that the Glenn Greenwald participating in comments isn’t really Glenn Greenwald. And why the site allows this impersonator to carry on.
It is not up to me to prove a negative. I am free to choose that which I believe.
You have been caught red-handed using different monikers simultaneously on the same thread Hypatia / Mona. Nothing you say or do is going to dispossess of that knowledge. I am not obligated to offer an explanation for your use of sock puppets and I will leave it up to others to decide why you and others choose to employ deception in support of Glenn’s positions.
Nope, didn’t happen. Glenn has demanded that another stop saying I use multiple accounts and explicitly stated that I do not do so. He has the administrative ability to make that determination.
But then, you insist that some impersonator is pretending to be Glenn Greenwald in comments, that he and the site allow this. No one reasonable is going to believe a word you say after that hilarious performance.
If you truly believed that no one would believe that you are using sock puppets then you would not have felt compelled to bring it up for debate again. You are a casebook example of a narcissistic sociopath who believes that, by dint of your denials alone, you have the power obviate proven fact. You are pathetic.
You silly goose, I bring it up because it impeaches your credibility on everything else that you say, in this instance twaddle about Glenn having some obligation to retract whatever. You are a nutter who has claimed the site allows someone to impersonate Glenn in comments. (And you further imagine that every other account here is really me, even after he said that I do not have multiple accounts.)
Get used to seeing it, because every time you make a false and/or dumb claim I’ll be reminding one and all of your excellent, sober and reasoned judgment, as demonstrated by the matter of the Great Glenn Greenwald Impersonator.
I look forward to repeatedly revisiting the fact that you employ sock puppets. In fact, I might accommodate your efforts by learning to provide a link on each occasion to the thread wherein I showed you up as a bold-faced liar. It is in this way that you will be exposing yourself for that which you are. Excellent strategy. Let the fun begin and the chips fall where they may.
Again, you are a casebook example of a narcissistic sociopath who believes that, by dint of your denials alone, you have the power obviate proven fact. You are pathetic.
The very best thing you could do to keep discrediting yourself is to keep spewing a claim that Glenn Greenwald — who is positioned to make the determination — has stated here in comments is false. At which time I remind everyone you insist this is a Glenn impersonator which the site allows to go on.
Of course, since Glenn has twice made it clear he want such bogus accusations to cease, you could find yourself banned if you violate his explicit admonitions in the manner you propose.
Then I have nothing to worry about as my claim is not bogus. I will simply redirect everyone to the thread wherein you were exposed for lying about your use of sock puppets. While we are on the subject of policy violations, you might want to reconsider your chronic use of ad hominem and crap flooding as well. OH, that’s right, your status as a friend and former business partner of Glenn Green affords you the luxury of employing a chronic pattern of deeply offensive behavior against anyone who harbors an opinion that does not neatly comport with your own (i.e. Glenn Grennwald’s) in direct violation of the Intercepts express policy. HYPOCRITE!
If I were in violation of this site’s policies I would not be here. By contrast, several people I’ve reported — and several others independently caught — have been banned. I understand the rules and how they are interpreted far better than you do. But then, you believe an impostor is posing as Glenn Greenwald and that this impostor is lying when he states that I do not use multiple accounts.
Absolutely no one with an ounce of common sense could believe this claim based on your demonstrable history. You are chronically guilty of the very behaviors that you routinely cite in your desperate effort to be perceived as an influence implied enforcer of intercept policy. In truth, you are nothing more than a narcissistic sociopath whose servile parasite attachment to Glenn Greenwald guarantees an utter lack of personal integrity and ingenuity.
Reuters WorldVerified account
?@ReutersWorld
JUST IN: Canadian PM’s office accuses Fox News of ‘spreading misinformation’ over gunman’s identity in Quebec mosque shooting
This type of terrorism is quite common. There’s Anders Breivik, Dylann Roof, Robert Bales, Wade Michael Page, Craig Stephen Hicks, Tim McVeigh.
What’s their grievance? Normally terrorism exists because there’s a significant grievance. White victimology doesn’t strike me as a valid or significant grievance.
What is a white nationalist? I believe they are using the word nationalist here in the states in place of the term illegal. So does this mean this guy was an illegal white guy in Canada?
It is getting to much to decipher the liberal word plays these days.
“White nationalist” is a euphemism. A white nationalist is a white supremacist who exploits nationalism (e.g. “America First”) in his quest for ethnic cleansing and subjugation of the other races.
Um, mandy, white nationalism is not an esoteric term, and also is neither “word play” nor used only by “liberals.”
Check out Anonymous #BDSTHEUS message.
The silver lining in Trump&company’s extremism is the recognition by more and more people that extremist come in all colors and faiths and that we all need to unify against all forms of extremism.
its typical how marxists cover for islamists
Your understanding is child-like, but you’re correct that Marxists would tend to recognize the effects of imperialism, including blowback, and wouldn’t see Muslims as an actual threat absent current geopolitical circumstances brought about by global capitalism and the pursuit of wealth and dominance through war.
Thank you so much for your consequent struggle against antiislamism!
Zionists hated the United States and preferred dictatorships because they hate democracy
David Ben-Gurion and other pre-Israel Zionists specifically did not want the United States to be in charge of Mandate Palestine, preferring the British. Zionist feared American devotion to democracy and universalist values, and correctly saw that as a huge barrier to their colonial project of ethnic cleansing and plan to establish Jewish supremacy in Palestine.
Ben-Gurion favored dictatorships and lamented that:
The Jewish Agency made a report identifying “the democracies and their Atlantic charter” as “enemies of Jewry.”
Israel is, then, and as was intended, an ethno-religious supremacist state, and not a democracy, no matter what they say — they have always been very clear that actual “Western liberal democracies” hold values at direct odds with Zionism.
Zionists have far more in common with white nationalists, which is why a murderer like Alexandre Bissonnette is a fan of the Israeli army and other ardent Zionist groups such as ‘United with Israel’.
(Citations taken from the new book State of Terror, footnoted data provided upon request.)
Zionists have far more in common with white nationalists, which is why a murderer like Alexandre Bissonnette is a fan of the Israeli army and other ardent Zionist groups such as ‘United with Israel”
Can you please provide data that prove that Bissonnette’s actions were inspired by the Israeli defence forces or by Zionism?
Why would I even try to do such a thing? That Bissonette admires the IDF and Zionism does not mean they “inspired” his actions.
However, inspiration one supremacist group inspiring another such group certainly does occur. Indeed, in 1943 a Jewish official running Palestine’s Jewish schools contacted the British imploring them to stop Zionists from recruiting Jewish youth into “S.S. Squads.” Others also observed Zionists to be explicitly patterning Jewish terror and policies on Nazi programs and policies. See the same book, State of Terror.
You stated he admired the IDF and other Zionist groups BECAUSE Zionism has a lot in common with white nationalists. You have absolutely no data to clarify WHY he likes those groups.
Somebody can be a white nationalist who hates Jews and belive IDF and Israel should be destroyed. Another person can be a white nationalist who hate Jews and Israel, but is willing to support Israel temporarily because he hates Arabs more than Jews. Nazis made deals with Arabs against Jews, but do you actually believe Nazis thought white Germans were equal to Arabs?
You write a lot here, but I have noticed your reasoning is usually incoherent, illogical and naive. Witnesses have stated that Bissonette is a pro Israel, anti immigrant, white nationalist, but until he himself clarifies his views you have absolutely no idea WHY he is a fan of the IDF and apparently a fan of a Canadian left political party as well. Your comments are more about your hate of Israel than about anything the article refers to. If that can make you feel better, there has been a travel ban on Israeli citizens in many predominantly Muslim countries for years. The ban also applies to citizens of other countries who visited Israel.
You do not really believe about my posts.
Well below a commenter stated Bissonnette “can’t be” a white nationalist because he’s pro-Israel. This is commonly believed but not true.
Zionism and white nationalism are ideologically the same in form. Many white nationalists deeply admire the Zionist model, just as many Zionists explicitly modeled their tactics on German Nazis. The scholarship on this is quite substantial.
“You do not really believe about my posts”
That is a meaningless statement. Your posts reflect your beliefs and I answer to the reasoning behind your posts ( without calling you names).
“Zionism and white nationalism are ideologically the same form”
That is not the debate. Again, you stated Bissonnette is a fan of the IDF BECAUSE he is a white nationalist. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your statement as Bissonnette himself never stated why he is a fan of Israel. Many white nationalists despise Israel. That is a fact. Many white nationalists have made deals with people they hate ( for instance black Africans) because they were targeting another group. That is also a fact. You cannot possibly believe Nazis thought Germans and Arabs were equal or white colonists believed white Europeans and black Africans were equal. Nazis publicly stated they were fans of Arabs and many white nationalists publicly stated they were fans of several black African tribes.
You are just pivoting the debate from Bissonnette to Israel. Your reasoning is not better than the other commenter’s. Yes, an individual can be a white nationalist and pro Israel like a white South African could be a white nationalist and pro Bantu. Only the South African himself could clarify why he was willing to help and even trust that black African to the point of even fighting side by side with him.
What a biased article. They sit there and berate Fox for saying there was a Moroccan in custody but fail to mention that all other news outlets made the same report as well as there being two suspect. Even the Police in Quebec claimed they had a Moroccan suspect.
“But remember the shooters weren’t yelling “Trump” they were yelling “Allahu akbar”” – oh no?
Maybe they should start this as a thing then: “Trump-hu Akbar”
(Mona)
As I have said before, Mona will always say the dumbest and most ignorant statements because of her singular hatred of “Zionism”. Her hatred of “Zionists” rivals any white nationalist hatred of “Arabs”. Trump’s banning of Muslims is essentially the collective punishment of Muslims for the actions of a few. Mona does the exact same thing because of her intense dislike of Zionists. I asked Mona a simple question in the following exchange.
Mona can run, but she can’t hide. She refused to answer the question because she knows she can’t – and she knows she is wrong. As a guess, about 70% of the Jews in the US are Zionists, About two-thirds of Jews are affiliated with the Democratic Party (or lean democratic) which strongly opposes Trump’s ban on Muslims from the seven listed countries. Most Jews (Zionists or not) in the US oppose the ban on Muslims (Arab or not). In a 2010 Gallop pole, Jews had the highest percentage among US religious groups to believe that Muslims faced discrimination in America (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx?). Mona not only made a false statement, but she made a bigoted one as well. No wonder she avoided answering the question.
READERS: About 95% of the time I do not reply to Craig Summers, who is an authoritarian, pro-torture, Republican who said he is a Trump-voter. Multiple commenters asked that I not reply to Craig because doing so causes him to post yet more walls of drivel-text, which pollutes the board.
My sympathies to the affected families.
My experience with Quebecers (from Quebec city – not the entire province) is one of xenophobia despite there being an extremely small percentage of visible minorities. Most nasty comments I’ve heard came from Quebecers who have never even seen a Muslim or black man. The hatred I’ve been exposed to must be fueled by omnipresent fear-mongering in the press or a historical sense of resistance to the assimilation of the french-speaking majority. In any case, it only takes one whack-job to pull off a senseless attack.
North America has been cultureless since its invasion by European imperialists where they eradicated the first nations along with any culture they may have had. Since then, Canada and the US should be thought of as an amalgamation of people (or melting pot as some people like to describe it). Any concept of North American “culture” is self-delusional as far as I’m concerned. Moreover, in Canada’s “fee simple” model of land tenure, Canadians should realize that the whole of the country is, in fact, ultimately owned by the British crown. Within that context, I think that xenophobia is very much unjustified and inappropriate.
So granted, one of the two early suspects was a Moroccan man by the name of Mohamed El Khadir. He has since been deemed as a witness and not a suspect. However, all media outlets, as well as many witnesses, claim there were two shooters. Second, witnesses also state they heard the shooter yell “Allahu Akbar” which also led to much confusion. It is possible Mr. Bissonnette yelled this ironically. Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Bissonnette was a so-called “white nationalist”. Did he have conservative views? Yes, undoubtedly. Did he follow the pages/ Twitters of Trump, Le Pen, and Quebec’s PQ party? Yes, undoubtedly. However, none of the above is any indication of being a “white nationalist”. All you are doing by suggesting as much is inflaming social division along partisan lines and doing the same thing as the people you are critiquing. As much as right-wing republicans and conservatives were hoping the shooter was a Moroccan Muslim, you and the rest of the left leaning media were praying under your breath that this would be another Dylann Roof. Fact of the matter is that at the time I am writing this no motive has been established. The Sureté du Québec have even refused to give an answer to the question “was this attack motivated by Islamaphobia?”. Therefore, for all we know, this was a random attack that just so happened to target Muslim Canadians. To suggest that because Mr. Bissonnette expressed antifeminist views and was critical of immigration does not establish any causation what so ever. It is the equivalent of blaming Columbine on heavy metal music. All in all, this article is journalistically and academically lazy. It is just as toxic as the mainstream media you are critiquing.
I sadly have to agree with this comment.
You are both wrong. Bissonette is an ardent white nationalist, as I discuss below.
Specifically, Vice reports:
Surely you are aware that Trump has huge support among white nationalists, that Stephen Bannon is his chief strategist on national security? Or do you also argue (absurdly) that Bannon, too, is not a white nationalist?
Shooting Muslim Canadians is not the same as shooting Canadian Muslims! If even a good commenter like yourself can’t help himself writing a bit of PC garbage what help is there for Mona?! Lol.
I thought it was wrong to single out hitchens and dawkins. Neither would have condoned this attack or nationalism at all.
It’s also a bit dishonest to label them as “Islam critics”, they are critics of religions, period. Labeling them as “Islam critics” makes it sound like they are singling out Islam, just like many hypocrite Christians like to do, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Hitchens, after he learned he was jewish, became much friendlier to jewish nationalism–i.e. zionism.
Only a lunatic would defend the cold-blooded murder of innocents. I’m a nationalist and abhor this attack. I also recognize how it will be used to fuel the left’s open-borders agenda and shut down honest discussion about the pro’s and con’s of mass immigration, and specifically mass immigration from muslim countries.
Zionists reveled in the Nazis
It would be hard to overstate the extent to which Zionist heroes favored Nazi persecution of Jews and actively collaborated with Nazis. Menachem Begin, after Kristalnacht, specifically opposed programs to deliver German Jewish children to safety in England, because he preferred that the “half” who would survive Nazis be drawn to Zionism and come to Palestine as Zionists to ethnically cleanse the Arabs.
Begin, like so many, were very pleased at antisemitic polices in European countries, because Zionists obscenely calculated this would cause persecuted Jews to come to Palestine and assist in ethnically cleansing the indigenous Arab population. Or as David Ben-Gurion put it, Hitler “revived in assimilated Jews the feeling of Jewish nationalism.” They did not want Western nations to rescue desperate Jews and actively opposed all efforts that did not result in fleeing Jews being placed in Palestine.
The British War Cabinet found that Zionists were stealing and sabotaging Allied weapons supplies so extensively that it was “as if they were paid by Hitler himself.”
Zionists did not like the United States
More on that in due course.
Hi, Mona,
I know you don’t know me at all, but I was wondering if you have a FB page. You seem intelligent and knowledgeable, and if you didn’t mind, I’d like to “follow” you and read some more of your posts. Don’t worry, I’m not a stalker or troll or whatever. Your comment above is just very interesting to me, and I love learning.
Thanks —
Hi Sonia, yes I encouraged you to stick around when you first showed up here somewhat recently. You are an academic, right?
My FB account exists, but I haven’t used it more than 2-3 times in the last 5 years. I’m active on Twitter quite a bit: @MonaHol
Some of the regulars here stay in touch with a group email thingie, and you’d be a good addition. Follow me on Twitter, I’ll follow you back, and we could exchange email addresses.
The commenting software here sucks. There are all kinds of issues that can cause a delay in a post appearing and it often takes refreshing the page many times for it to show up. Certain things can cause it not to post at all. It can be very frustrating.
Hi, Mona,
I just typed out a longer message to you, but something went wrong and I don’t think it posted.
I know you don’t know me at all, but you seem very intelligent and knowledgeable, at least on the subject of your comment above. I was just wondering if you have a FB page or twitter account; I’d love to read more of your posts. I think I’d learn some new facts! ????
Email me instead of responding here, because I may not find my way back here.
Thanks!!
Well what I see is a pattern, can you spot it? Hint, under the guise of resisting the right-wing, Trumpism, white-nationalism, Naziism….
Ostensibly left-wing parties, support the very policies and politicians they claim to oppose.
Here’s news from today, Austria is going to fight the rise of right wing nationalism….by discriminating against the Muslim minority:
This one is timely. As Canadians are grieving over people shot dead in a mosque, what was their government doing? The province of Quebec was discussing what was the least worst way to discriminate against Muslims:
And In America, what are the Democrats doing to stop Trump? The Democrats are finding ways to vote for his appointees, of course:
So as Americans watch Senator-for-life, Nancy Pelosi struggle to look like she belongs at a protest rally against the military industrial complex she herself is at the heart of, they should know that they are not alone. From (brexit) PM May, to (Far right) Le Pen in France, to America’s Trump, we’re all facing the same phenomenon.
“………..Both Zionists and white nationalists are also united in racist hatred for Arabs. They have very much in common, including an extensive history of murderous violence and terrorism…….”
Do you have any statistics on the percentage of Zionists in the US that hate Arabs, Mona?
To Mona
READERS: About 95% of the time I do not reply to Craig Summers, who is an authoritarian, pro-torture, Republican who said he is a Trump-voter. Multiple commenters asked that I not reply to Craig because doing so causes him to post yet more walls of drivel-text, which pollutes the board.
And yet we are still bored to death with the remaining 5% of your tortured retorts that fill every thread where the two of you clash. Everyone who does not reflect your self deluding bias is preemptively subjected to ad hominem of the nature in evidence here. It is in this regard that Craig will always occupy the higher ground.
You are a a rancid Trump supporter and racist who has an unhinged fixation on me, and has even said that Glenn Greenwald is not really Glenn Greenwald when he participates in comments. That a nutter authoritarian like you feels Craig Summers holds moral superiority to me is laughable.
Thanks Mona, you can always be counted on to reflexively provide proof of that which I contest.
Oh you blinkered right wing nut jobs, can’t you get off your lard arses and do something more constructive? Like learn to reason critically maybe? If you object so strongly to what the poster is saying, why don’t you eff off out of here and read the Sun, the daily Heil or Breitbart along with your other retarded trumpists? Although I have my doubts about your levels of comprehension frankly.
One could also argue the opposite when the mosque burned down the day before, when no motive or even arson was confirmed. Partisan outlets for left and right need to try and behave responsibly before motives or suspects are confirmed. One also hopes that if Fox still has false information that they retract it and apologise, though knowing MSM if it happens it’ll be quiet and shuffled away behind something else.
Zionist outlets continue publishing uncorrected falsehoods
As is clearly demonstrated in history, Zionists and white nationalists get along very well. So it’s no surprise that Alexandre Bissonnette “appears to be a fan of the Israeli army and other ardent Zionist groups such as ‘United with Israel’. ” Both Zionists and white nationalists are also united in racist hatred for Arabs. They have very much in common, including an extensive history of murderous violence and terrorism.
Whole piece here: The Quebec mosque shooting and the Zionist connection
From that article:
When a Muslim performs her 5-daily prayers, the words “Allahu Akbar” (“The Real is Greater than any other reality”, to use contemporary Sufi lingo) is invoked several times.
This term is used to reflect on one’s nothingness compared to The Infinite, and to fill the heart with the sense of humbleness and modesty.
“………..Both Zionists and white nationalists are also united in racist hatred for Arabs. They have very much in common, including an extensive history of murderous violence and terrorism…….”
Do you have any statistics on the percentage of Zionists in the US that hate Arabs, Mona?
Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr., who founded the White Patriot Party and murdered three people outside a Jewish center in Kansas was a fan of Max Blumenthal. and praised him on a neo-nazi message board. Anti-Zionists and white nationalist have a lot in common as well it would seem Mona.
That’s absolutely true. Some Nazis approve of Max even as they call him a “kike faggot.” American Nazis are split on Zionism. That’s been apparent in the comment space here when individuals such as e.g., dahoit hold forth. He is not a mere anti-Zionist, he’s a full-blown antisemite.
More specifically, the site Miller was associated with refers to Max as:
Mr. Greenwald
“…….It is usually the case that there is significant confusion in the wake of attacks of this sort. And local police did apparently arrest two suspects at first: both Bissonnette along with el Khadir…….”
Apparently. Nothing like including those small details. Clearly, the police were racist for even thinking it might have been a Muslim terrorist. I can’t remember the last time that happened.
And Mr. Hussain!
Shooter a white nationalist who loved both Trump and Israel
Whole Vice piece here.
Antisemites have long favored Zionism, and Zionists have for just as long returned the favor (the Jewish Agency opposed Jews fighting with the Allied powers against Nazis). Netanyahu and huge swathes of Israel are very pleased with Donald Trump. Their ideologies are identical in form; they simply elevate different ethnicities.
And yet it was the Muslim world that aligned itself with the axis powers in the run-up to the mass extermination of their fellow Semites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
Incomplete and distorted view of a much larger and complex reality.
I find it very interesting that you found nothing wrong with Mona’s claim that “Antisemites have long favored Zionism”. The Zionist movement is overwhelmingly comprised of Jews (semites). In effect, Mona is claiming that Zionism is comprised of self hating Jews. Do you agree with this statement.
I am not interested in that topic. I commented on a very specific thing. Many Muslims fought alongside the British in WWII. That is also part of the overall reality.
And yet it is an element of history that has largely impacted the image of the Muslim world for more than seventy years. As you are always running to the defense of Muslims in every debate, it would probably be advisable to acquaint yourself with the totality of their history as opposed to that which just reinforces your bias. Although there is much about the enlightened end of the Muslim faith that I like, there is also a very deep historical strain of chronic autocracy within the Muslim world akin to that professed by the Nazis.
Yes, Muslims gravitated to both sides of the conflict in spite of the grand Mufti’s unwavering support for, and collaboration with, the Nazis. Beyond the propaganda efforts of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, Germany also enjoyed the collaboration of other prominent opinion shapers including:
1. Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose
2. Syrian guerilla rebel Fawzi al-Qawuqji
3. former Iraqi prime minister Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani
who also worked from Berlin to win Muslim, Arab, and Indian support for Adolph Hitler’s final solution to the Jewish problem.
Not true in two aspects:
1. I do not, have never, and will never ever, defend those Muslims who turn to violence, especially against the non-combatants (including off-duty soldiers), which they do against the basic tents of the Quranic message, as I and many many Muslims understand.
2. I do not participate in every discussion. I am selective and I also took a break from commenting for more than 3.5 months, and do not intend to comment for quite some time beyond today. I have better things to do in life than to engage in discussions, especially with those with whom the discussions go into an infinite loop, saying the same things over and over again.
I am quite familiar with Muslims’ history. A lot of what is written is not authentic and has been written in very biased ways by both Muslims and the non-Muslims.
I am aware of how many of those calling themselves Muslims have carried out atrocities, often in the name of what they consider to be “Islam,” throughout history.
I am also aware of the atrocities carried out by those who are considered non-Muslims.
I see it as a human problem, having to do with the inner states of people, especially those who are in position of power and control.
Of whom do you speak? I believe that we have always engaged in very respectful and thoughtful dialogue…
Indeed!
My comments were not specifically addressed to you. Sorry, I should’ve clarified. My mistake.
That wiki entry is superficial and obsolete. Some Arab nationalist movements, e.g., Baathism, were inspired by the same ethnic nationalism that drove Nazis and Zionists.
But the Arabs of Palestine fought with the British against the Nazis, while Zionists there collaborated with Nazis and opposed most efforts to fight against the Axis powers (and stole Allied weapons). For a heavily footnoted (from primary sources) examination see this review of the new book, State of Terror.
Among other things, Zionists were delighted that Nazis were causing Jews to flee and opposed all rescue efforts that did not entail the refugees coming to Palestine to take over the land. Most Jews found this disgusting:
let’s cut through the pretentious bullshit Mona! Yes, or no, Mona… do YOU believe that Zionism is comprised of self-hating Jews?
Karl, I say what I mean. And I’ve never said that “Zionism is comprised of self-hating Jews.” Altho they have slaughtered a great many Jews who don’t agree with them, and were quite content to let millions of Jews be murdered by Nazis rather than see them rescued and taken to, e.g. England.
I have already demonstrated that logic proves otherwise. In this very sub thread.
You are a racist Trumper. One who claims that when Glenn Greenwald participates in comments that’s not really Glenn Greenwald. (Necessarily also believing Glenn and the site would allow an imposter to write as one of the site’s co-founders.)You wouldn’t know logic or reasonableness if they bit you in the ass.
as opposed to the white nationalist who are fans of Max Blumenthal like Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr.
What a BS argument you make.
There is a wise, often true saying about such initial reporting, which goes “first reports are almost always wrong.” This seems especially true in supposed “breaking” reports about shootings and similar incidents.
Extremely early reports are seldom properly sourced and vetted, but are sent out as mere rumors wrapped in reportorial verbiage.
News sources want to be the first with this kind of news but it is rarely accurate. Multiple “shooters” is often the false story, when most of the time it is only one. Witnesses are confused with actors, etc.
Nowadays these false early reports are then tweeted/re-tweeted and otherwise sent into cyberspace and later, over air and then print news.
So don’t buy into the first reports. Ever. Yes, sometimes they accurate but usually something is incorrect, left out, misreported or totally wrong. Better to wait for the inevitable subsequent “corrected” story.
Par example: http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/attentat-a-quebec/201701/29/01-5064348-six-musulmans-tues-dans-un-attentat-terroriste-a-quebec.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_meme_auteur_5064348_article_POS2
Nice. Hitchins and Dawkins are “Islam critics.” Pretty sure they are critics of all religion Glenn, but you just couldn’t pass up an opportunity to demonize them by association. Nice.
This morning, Glenn on Twitter about the false Fox tweet reproduced above, and whihc has been retweeted to and by Fox supporters thousands of times:
Sometimes there is no single word adequate to describe a situation. Terrorism is commonly used to describe an act of violence involving mass targets. Terrorism by legal definition in many countries defines it as a politically motivated act to terrorize a government by a political opposition group. But this, like many mass murders are committed by a lone gunman whose motives are not so cut and dried that you can categorize it in one word. This is clearly an act of HATRED perpetrated by ANOTHER RADICALIZED, possibly unstable, young man.
Some people already recognized this troubled young man, designating him a “troll”. We continue to FAIL in recognizing and dealing with mental illness. When these angry people finally snap, they reach for a gun. Far easier to then slap on a label of some sort, conveniently file it away. Call it terrorism or a hate crime, doesn’t matter. As long as we turn our backs on the true problem, mental illness, we help perpetuate these crimes.
Wow I’ve never read an article so liberally biased.
Meaning you’ve never read a fact-based article?
Seems you have a problem with BSers like Rubin and Fox being called out.
…. liberally biased? i’m not a liberal but i witnessed this phenomenon happening before they even released the name of the shooter. i saw people spreading false reports about the shooters being Syrian refugees in comments sections; i saw people claiming it was an attack by a mosque against another mosque after the names were released of 2 suspects (incl. the Moroccan who was later considered a witness). the *facts* are that Alexandre Bissonnette was the only shooter and that he does seem to have a history with right-wing agitation.
you need to own up to the fact that your ideology, like anyone else’s, can cause people to go rogue like this and take matters into their own hands, and that careless propaganda exacerbates this.
Fox corrected story in less time than Glenn took to correct the 100 Jewish backers claim.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/826206473994764288
JEW——ISH?
“Second man cleared” is not a correction of “Suspect … of Moroccan origin” headline.
It links to the story where more details are given.
But a Mutt is a Mutt ,, Right Gilly ?
___ARF,,ARF
Pathetic “correction” not clear at all.
You got nothing.
Bill, as Gil well knows the issue was not the Fox STORY it was the false tweet with a link to a story the claim did not support. Gil’s a Zionist liar. See his duplicitous performance in this sub-thread.
For Gil this is about, can only be about, attacking a critic of Israel and Zionism. It’s who he is and what he does. And he does it as dishonestly as so many Zionists do.
Except I wasn’t the one who was dishonest Mona. You were the one that once again was caught lying about what an article said.
What is not clear about :
“A second man, Mohamed el Khadir, was initially identified as an additional suspect by Quebec officials. Reuters and the French language newspaper La Presse reported earlier that one of the suspects was of Moroccan origin, a report that was picked up by Fox News and other news outlets. But police later announced there was only one suspect in the attack, and Khadir was identified as a witness.”
Besides, I’m not defending Fox News in this I was only pointing out Glenn has done things just as egregious.
Nope. Glenn has never posted a false tweet linking to his story that itself makes a lie of his tweet, and certainly never left the tweet uncorrected. Fox just did all of that.
Gil, why do you never respond to the overwhelming documentation of Zionist collaboration with antisemites, including Nazis, and their longstanding lying and terrorism — including using Jewish children to blow up Arab buses? Why do you ignore all that and instead contrive dizzying falsehoods and red herrings about the Zionist critic, Glenn Greeenwald? Are you aware of the extensive and purposeful lying Zionist prosecuted about their intentions regarding the Arabs of Palestine, and denials of terror acts, from the beginning, and to the present?
Nevermind. We all know why you’d rather manufacture falsehoods about an old Greenwald article at the Guardian that touches on Israel.
Gil, do you defend that throughout the 1940s, Zionist lied to the British, telling they were sending out “hiking parties” into Arab villages and cites, when in fact they were undertaking reconnaissance for plans to destroy and cleanse the villages? (Yes, I can document all of that, just ask.) That’s merely one lie documented in a book replete with documentation of Zionist lying and obscene Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Why do Zionist behave like that, Gil?
Ahh good old Mona acting like the true propagandist she is. When she gets caught in a lie she goes right into propaganda mode.
1) What false hood did I manufacture?
2) Why did you lie and claim that I misrepresented what Glenn’s article originally claimed?
3) And why in heavens name would I take the trouble to read any documentation you provide when you have already been proven to misrepresent what is reported in documentation you have linked to in the past?
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/israelis-want-soldier-executed-wounded-palestinian-suspect-camera-go-free/?comments=1#comment-333815
straightforward questions, crickets for answers.
I’d like to see you try to put up a link to your 100 Jewish backers claim claim.
It wasn’t my claim it was Glenn’s .
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/12/tragic-consulate-killings-libya-and-americas-hierarchy-human-life
You are DISHONEST. That link goes to some site posting a copyright violation of the original version of a Greenwald article at the Guardian that Glenn himself repeatedly updated with corrections as the facts became known. As a duplicitous Zionist on the attack against one who exposes the filth of your ideology, you are withholding that Glenn wrote for THE GUARDIAN and implying he had some obligation to find and update at sites reposting a copyrighted story.
You are also pretending his observations above about Fox concern a Fox *STORY*. They do not. As he tweeted again just a few hours ago, his critique is of a false Fox *tweet* that is being widely retweeted, uncorrected.
Zionists lie and mislead, becasue their house is built on a tissue of lies and cannot stand without them.
” implying he had some obligation to find and update at sites reposting a copyrighted story.”
No I posted the link to the original story to expose your lie that claimed:
“He cut and pasted from a Zionist apologist site that did not reflect the actual piece Glenn wrote, and so did not know what the article actually said. Or, if he did, he is even more dishonest yet.”
Face it Mona the only one who has been proven dishonest is you, and not for the first time either.
You did not obtain your quote from some site called Common Dreams. You got it from one of the many Zionist sites who lifted from the original and linked to THE GUARDIAN, which goes to a corrected story. You didn’t link initially, to anything, and found this Common Dreams version well after posting your falsehood. i.e., claiming Glenn let stand an uncorrected story. Which he did not.At the site where he wrote it he repeatedly updated it with the facts as they became known.
You know this. And are tossing up this belated finding of some copyright violation posting of the original, uncorrected version from elsewhere, for reasons of obfuscation.
Zionist lie, misdirect and spew red herrings. All to destroy reputations of those who tell the truth about their vile and rotted ideology. Zionists avidly seek to destroy people’s reputations, to make them unemployable. If you like, I can document that as well. (Another matter about which you are virtually always silent when this evidence is posted.)
This is too precious. The fact is that the original article contained just what I said it did and proved your claim false. I love that the self professed free speech advocate is upset that the original article was linked to. Why are you so threatened by that other than the fact that it proved you lied?
please quit making excuses for your own deceit.
“Zionists avidly seek to destroy people’s reputations, to make them unemployable”
Your unemployment has nothing to do with Zionists Mona. I’m guessing it has to do with your inability to win arguments on message boards much less in the court room, and even your penchant for lying, something usually thought of as a plus in the law profession couldn’t offset your other deficits.
And I never claimed that Glenn didnt correct his story. That is yet another fabrication by you Mona.
You are deploying the same sleazy duplicity and character assassination Zionist always do vis-a-vis those who expose the truth about their vile and vicious ideology and behaviors. I’ve moved on to documenting how Zionist media are standing on uncorrected falsehoods at least as egregiously as Fox does in the tweet Glenn exposed (and which remains uncorrected as of this morning).
Those who do not care to crawl into the weeds of your convoluted and manufactured attacks on Glenn, can simply observe the clear examples of Zionists standing on lies to know it is you who constantly lies and/or misleads. Zionists are obscenely dishonest, and always have been.
Brava!
Did you see what he did in this subthread? First distorting a piece Glenn wrote at the Graun and trying to claim Glenn posted falsehoods he never corrected. Shown that is false, then he moved to claiming the editors corrected it (Glenn always does his own updates). Then, it was Glenn took too long. Then it was: “Oh look, Common Dreams posted the uncorrected original from the Graun, and so it’s ok if I claimed Glenn didn’t make corrections.”
Jesus, Zionists are as bad as creationists — possibly worse — at lying, misdirection and just overall dishonesty.
I never ever ever said Glenn didn’t make corrections. Why are you compounding or old lies by telling new ones?
Despite repeated requests Mona can not point to one thing I lied about. On the other hand I have provided crystal clear evidence backed up by her quotes and documentation that she did.
I linked to the sub-thread where all interested can see for themselves what you did. No one here except for Trumpers, authoritarians and Zionists or antisemites is going to open to the notion that I lie. And I am absolutely fine with that.
“You are deploying the same sleazy duplicity and character assassination Zionist always do vis-a-vis those who expose the truth”
too funny Mona gets caught lying yet again and rather than admit she was caught in a false claims she claim other are being duplicitous. Mona you are the Donald Trump of TI.
This must be one of the few times in history Dawkins and Hitchens share a sentence with Trump. Unfortunate that these skeptics / atheists (as well as renowned academics / intellectuals) are labeled as simple “Islam critics”. They are (were, in Hitchens case) critical of ALL religions (as any right-minded person should be) and the framing of this article does them a major disservice.
I hope all of us by now know what “fake news” is, how it works, to what end and all that. Well, apropos and on-topic per the present article, but poor Mr. Trump, though, here’s one breaking “fake news” (for the critique of which you’d need to go to Canada Free Press and Zerohedge – sorry) from Canada’s own The Globe and Mail and UK’s Daily Mail – ready? …
(1) “The suspect in the deadly attack on a Quebec City mosque was known in the city’s activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump. Alexandre Bissonnette … attacked refugees or expressed support for Ms. Le Pen or Mr. Trump.” (Globe and Mail, January 30, 2017)
(2) “Other students described (Alexandre Bissonnette) to DailyMail(dot)com as a pro-Trump loner but a timid man who didn’t seem capable of committing an act of terror. … A classmate told DailyMail(dot)com that Bissonnette was pro-Donald Trump and that they had engaged in political arguments about the president. ‘Based on the conversations that I had with him during the American presidential campaign, it’s true he is pro-Trump,’ the student, who asked to remain anonymous, said. … The shooting came as protests erupted across the US in response to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban against seven Muslim-majority countries which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned earlier on Sunday.” (Daily Mail, January 30, 2017)
He also liked a feminist group.
No motives are shared by the police because probably there weren’t any.
They were sitting and starving ducks on hamadan and that’s seems for me to be the motive, they were sitting ducks.
The “likes” are probably the result of liking random shit those pages posted.
In the end it just seems like senseless killing for no reason but “lulz”.
“among its “likes” the far right French nationalist Marine Le Pen, Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the Israeli Defense Forces, and Donald J. Trump (he also “likes” the liberal Canadian Party NDP along with more neutral “likes” such as Tom Hanks, the Sopranos and Katy Perry)”
This is kind of a pointless link, sifting through all of his liked organizations. Shall we also comment on the likes of Sprite, WOW, Pizza hut, Lacoste, Monsanto… You seem to be joining in the rabid speculation without evidence you accuse others of.
Unlike you, I shall wait until more information is released.
Hey Glenn,
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”
Alexandre Bissonnette faces six counts of first-degree murder and five of attempted murder. No charges related to terrorism have been brought against the alleged shooter. No motive has yet been attributed to the alleged actions of the shooter beyond purely unfounded speculation. To state definitively that the Mass shooting was “an act of terrorism” without a jot of evidence to back it up speaks to the degree to which ideological bias has affected your judgement.
So you agree that no act should defined as terror until the full investigation is completed?
That would apply to all mass shootings and other events.
Had the perp been a Muslim would you still hold that view? Indeed would you have bothered to write that comment at all?
Hi Kara,
I have repeatedly argued that I do not believe that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the “terror” attacks of 911. In fact, he has never been legally indicted in a US court of law for those attacks. So the answer to your question is “yes” everyone should be afforded the presumption of innocence.
The Canadian PM called it a terrorist act against Muslims.
Read the article.
the PM of Canada called it an act of terrorism right after it happened. That article has since been disappeared.
Yes, isn’t it amazing that even the PM of Canada called it an act of terror without a shred of evidence to back it up:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/canada-pm-says-mosque-attack-killed-6-terrorism
You quoted a yank definition of terror. Canada is a real country, not, like the USA, a bloated banana republic.
Sorry Peter, you clearly failed to read the 2nd paragraph (saw you coming from a mile away)
Canada is a sess-pool of diversity. In other words, a complete shithole.
Other than 6 people gunned down in a mosque.
Duh
C’mon Bill, you are brighter than that. No MOTIVE has been attributed to the shooter’s actions by a government that is chomping at the bit to label it a terrorist act. Proof of motive is essential to securing a successful indictment and prosecution of a “terrorist act”. Personally, I subscribe to the basic principle that an individual is entitled to a presumption of innocence until the FACTS prove otherwise. However, it is clear that, in your infinite wisdom, you and Glenn feel entitled to label this mass shooting as an “act of terror” without the slightest bit of evidence. Hmmm… what does that sound like to you?
Here is a little mental exercise for you:
If a Palestinian inexplicably drives his car into a group of Israelis and kills several of them, should that act be reflexively labeled as antisemitic terror?
Again:
If this particular mass shooting was carried out by a Muslim in a Jewish owned delicatessen, should that act be reflexively labeled as antisemitic terror?
Again:
If the shooter is mentally ill, and therefore incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, is it okay to prejudge his actions as an act of terror?
Are you beginning to get the picture?
I am surprised that I should even say this:
No, but it is often labeled as such.
No, but it is often the case.
If he or she is a Muslim, it is often the case.
When it was announced that one of the shooters in Quebec was a Muslim, the act was immediately declared terrorism by many, many people.
But when it was learned that he was not a Muslim, many started to refrain from calling it terrorism.
We are on the same page Sufi
Indeed!
Take care,
P.S. I guess my second fast from commenting here will commence tomorrow. :-)
The people in the mosque felt terrified.
The Muslims in the West are terrified over what has just happened, and are terrified of what has been happening in the West and are terrified of what’s to come.
But, of course, we all know the real definition of terrorism, don’t we?
A violent act committed by someone who identifies himself/herself as a Muslim.
I already provided the US and Canadian legal definition of a “terror act”. A determination of MOTIVE is essential to labeling a mass shooting an act of terror.
There are problems with “legal” definitions. They are biased against Muslims.
May I respectfully suggest you update your masthead to a more specific description as it will continue tracking and insinuating, or can be misread that the suspects were other that White, racist and completely unemphatic to the mulsim community. It is too easy to redact or insinuate differently. It takes simple dyslectic moment to reverse the meaning.
In this age of rapid fire disinformation it is essential that when a fact is verified that it be unambiguous and straight to the point.
Just say ‘Suspects in Quebec Mosque Attack are White Nationalist’. No ambiguity.
You have space in the article to say that the ‘Suspect in Quebec Mosque Attack Quickly Depicted as a Moroccan Muslim… ‘
Has anyone posted this yet (the Graun story Mona mentioned)?
Forget protest. Trump’s actions warrant a general national strike
It’s sickening how Donald Trumps name gets dragged into everything that is racist related! Trump isn’t promoting racism, the protesters are. Trump didn’t tell these guys or guy to shoot up a mosque in another country, so get off his back and let him do his job! And shame on the media for not getting the facts straight before knowing what the hell they’re talking about. The media should be held responsible for reporting false information. Its reckless, dangerous & could be potentially deadly!!
“General strike” is trending on Twitter and The Guardian has published an article calling for it. It looks as if this is going to happen.
And precisely the kind of action I’ve always argued, literally for years, is the only way the little people (i.e. the working class), actually impacts policy in a capitalist society.
And unless and until you can make it general rolling strikes for a sustained period, the people will still be ignored by the elites and big business not withstanding their tepid corporate PR releases that they don’t agree with what Trump is doing.
A one day sick out or one day “general strike” isn’t going to cut it. It needs to be across key industries of commerce (from teachers, to airlines, to truckers, to grocers, to nurses, to the court staff . . . .) on a rolling basis in such a way as to be willing to demonstrate the people can and will cripple the capitalist economy if their concerns aren’t addressed. It is the only thing a corporatist elite will understand.
And people need to start thinking long and hard about sustained boycotts and protests of every Trump branded item and property for as long as it takes. Bring his little family economic empire to its knees. And Jared Kushner’s as well.
That’s the sort of resistance it is going to take.
Short of that you better hope lawsuits and the courts provide the firewall, because it sure as shit looks like it isn’t going to be “crying Chucky Schumer” and his centrist enablers in the minority party, who wouldn’t know how to fight hard or dirty unless it was on behalf of Wall Street’s interests.
That was as relevant 53 years ago as it is today.
And it would be nice if someone could convince the major league sports athletes, of which there are many minorities and Muslims in America, to start refusing to play until this crap is stopped.
And I mean not just major league athletes but D 1 college athletes as well. Combined they are huge economically and culturally. Those are the sorts of gears that have a huge impact when gummed up or stopped.
“And people need to start thinking long and hard about sustained boycotts and protests of every Trump branded item and property for as long as it takes. Bring his little family economic empire to its knees. And Jared Kushner’s as well.”
YES!!!
This ^^^.
Strike!
strikes, consumer boycotts (not just by Americans, but also by non-nationals of US goods and services), protest, lawsuits and equally important, a free press that isn’t afraid to challenge a regime and/or openly side with (and thereby legitimize those methods) strikers, protesters, boycotters, et al.
If trees fall and nobody is around to see or hear it . . . .
I think you get my point. And whether you call Trump and his administration fascists, or authoritarians, or whatever, it is most important that you attach everything he and his administration does to the entirety of the GOP, because this is what the modern GOP is, when stripped of the euphemisms and spokesman who care about practicing good double speak.
Like I’ve always said, I’m happy that the faux veneer of respectability is being stripped off the GOP “brand” with Trump leading the way. It helps everyone to see clearly. And when you can see clearly you have at least a fighting chance to fight effectively.
So the remaining Dems better learn to fight and real fucking quick, or get the fuck out of the way and let the rest of us fight in whatever ways we can. That’s where we’re at. And that’s a fight I think we can win if we fight it the right way using a wide variety of tactics. But the Dems can no longer pretend like it is something rational or legitimate to be a member of the GOP as currently constituted. We had that chance after 8 failed years of Shrub, and Obama and the Democratic party squandered it with their centrist neoliberal squish.
Unlike the liberal elites, the people who elected Trump can’t afford to take time from their three part time jobs to strike. Trump is doing exactly what they elected him for: to overturn a system that mocks and taxes them while wanting their votes and doing nothing to help them.
Look at all the foreigners that the liberals are so concerned about. The majority of them are well-to-do or wealthy global elites often with dual citizenship at the airports. See the elected officials that are so concerned about poor illegal immigrants that they can afford millions to protect them, but do nothing for the legal citizens that elected them because there is no money.
A rage is mounting in this country . The so-called elites, like Hillary, are basically telling the ordinary people to “eat cake” while the band plays on. If the forgotten Americans strike and revolt, it will be terrifying.
Trump’s election was only the tip of the iceberg. These forgotten Americans will use peaceful legal means such as elections to exert their will. However, if the officials are all the same self serving political hacks they will feel their options are limited. In a sense, Trump abated that silent rage by giving them hope. These people do not comment on the different sites because experience has taught them that their concerns will be mocked or dismissed. Like Trump, they are people of actions and not words.
The occasional one-day work strike European style has its limitations. Here today, gone tomorrow. Second, are we asking too much from workers who stand a good chance of being penalized or fired?
I would not rule out such strikes, which do have their impact––if big and widespread on the first try, which only unions can pull off. There’s something else to work on that’s better targeted, less suicidal, and more easily sustained indefinitely. And in the end more effective. That’s the product and services boycotts already mentioned by others, above.
Pick a corporation, get the word out, and starve that corporation to death. Yes, it takes months for the boycott to really get rolling. It took years, good organization and a resort to coalitions by farm workers, but their grape boycotts did lead to better contracts for the pickers. Then the BDS of South Africa. The tactic should be employed more often.
Pink hats for a day on a million people are emotionally gratifying but not quite as effective. Boycotts speak money, the first language of corporations and politicians.
STRIKE!
if nothing else, it will raise the level of punlic awareness and concern and involvement and lend power to unionisation.
Wouldnt one need a job to go on strike barb? I love it that all the layabouts that are the mainstays of this board will be taking action by doing what they do every day. Staying home.
Somewhere near all of you, there is protest going on every Tuesday at noon. Browse it and show up, this is a very important day and everyone should be alarmed of this jackasses orders.
Actually the person is a liberal nationalist. Quebec has been dealing with these secesionist types for decades.As you can see in the candian encyclopeida this guy was definitely part of that movement.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/m/article/separatism/
You forgot to mention that he also like the Pope, John McCain, Mr Bean, Skype etc. For some things you adamantly say he liked them and others you insinuate he likes them to troll them. I have news for you White Nationalists dont like the Pope, the IDF or Hollywood liberals like Tom Hanks anymore than they like Muslims. Stop trying to throw the kitchen sink into everything and deal with what is.
There is always some subtility lost in translation but to call the suspect “a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist ” is greatly over inflated. What you’ll find in local medias is the exact opposite: he did some mild trolling, but you won’t find any extremist quotes on social media or any “manifesto”. Everybody who knows him are describing a shy and discreet man. Still a murderer. Keep up the good work The Intercept. Peace.
This is very much the same as when George Zimmerman was assumed to be white. Then the pictures came out and George was quite obviously of latin decent. The press scrambled to create the label of “white hispanic” to cover their assumption and attempt to feed into their narrative. Never before had I heard the term “white hispanic,” or never since.
Surely you speak in jest. US Census defines “White Hispanic” as: “Hispanic portion of the White population, or as the White portion of the Hispanic population. Subtracting this group from TOTAL HISPANIC gives the total number of Hispanics who are either Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, or Asian or Pacific Islander.”
And Zimmerman identified himself as white(his faster is white).
Correction: And Zimmerman identified himself as white(his father* is white).
“jeremy scahill ?@jeremyscahill 2h2 hours ago
Early tomorrow morning, we will publish a major story at @theintercept that the government does not want out. Stay tuned.”
Reliable Sources
Glenn had hinted something about this to me late last month. I had wondered why he was posting so little, and he was working hard on this. He’d said it would be worth the wait.
It’s truly monumental, and I’m thrilled by this kind of thing.
And I’m glad this (and not “Ah hell, let Mackey go at it”) is the reason for Glenn’s not-so prolific postings of late.
Ever since Snowden I’ve whined about wanting someone to do for the FBI as he did for the NSA. I hope it’s not too late.
Donald Trump & Co. cannot do even half of what they desire unless they are intending to disobey court orders. In which case we have a regime, a dictatorship. Even if a court enjoined whatever rancid policies the FBI has adopted, it might be utterly futile and impotent. How many troops have the courts?
Well hopefully it will spark more outrage than Snowden’s disclosures and actually lead to some sort of meaningful change other than Congress just retroactively legalizing everything the FBI has been doing.
That’s my fear. What Snowden did was important and great, but it didn’t lead to much in the way of real world meaningful change by reining in the practices of the NSA. And of course far too many Democratic party members were complicit in doing the same next to nothing in reining in the NSA’s practices.
Because last I heard NSA is still basically collecting it all, foreign and domestic.
oh yeah, i just climaxed.
:^)
yes!
So now the Media will start to attack the intelligence services. This will push them in the Trump camp and imagine what a formidable combined superpower structure that will be. What a legacy the Nobel winning president has left !
So many politicians, pundits and “news” organisations fighting to be First. Very few left fighting to be Best :(
Glenn just a bit ago on Twitter, about the false Fox tweet he reproduces above:
A link to the text of the original Guardian article that has the quote I gave verbatim and exposes your falsehoods. (just didn’t want you to miss it below)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/12/tragic-consulate-killings-libya-and-americas-hierarchy-human-life
It also contains Glenn’s claim that Sam Bacile was interviewed by Haaretz, even though the byline for the in Haaretz was the AP.
You are crapflooding. Your non sequiturs do not belong here; any wishing to see your duplicity in that sub-thread can do so. I told you I am done except for future threads in which I will link to the sub-thread below as evidence of your dishonesty. Stop. Or keep any continued ranting in THAT sub-thread.
Wait so you can bring discussions to the top of the thread but when others do it it’s crapflooding. I see now. I also think everyone else can see how yet again a claim you made was proven false.
I did not “bring up discussion” of Sam Bacile, Haaretz or any of that bullshit. I updated the above article with Glenn’s most recent tweet about one of the matters written of in the above article (a retracted Fox tweet).
Anyone reasonable who peruses the appropriate sub-thread will see that you are duplicitous and why. Readers should know that you are a depraved Zionist whose real problem with Glenn, as with me, is located in comments of mine such as this. To which you have no reply.
Zionism kills Palestinian bodies and Jewish souls.
What killed your soul Mona? When did you decide lying was proper if it served your cause? Face it yet again you have been caught being dishonest. You thought the original version of the article didnt exist and you wouldnt be exposed but it did and you were, yet again.
Whether the “original version” exists is wholly irrelevant and I never made any claims as to whether it “existed.” (Why what appears to be a copyright violation posted at some web site is relevant only “makes sense” to a Zionist engaged in misdirection.) The Greenwald piece you are lying about is a Guardian article, and he repeatedly updated and corrected it to be accurate, and did not say what you quoted — blaming Glenn for allegedly leaving falsehoods uncorrected, which he did not do.
You are a rancid Zionist and all of this lying, misdirection and raising a Greenwald piece touching on Israel has only to do with your hatred of those who expose the ugly truth about your racist, murderous Israel.Zionism is built on an edifice of lies and you are adding the current ones, and ones of your own.
Any interested in how you lied by cutting and pasting an obsolete version of the Guardian article, and then continued to lie after being shown the truth (which suggests you did not simply err, but are actually lying), can be seen in this sub-thread.
Your hasbara mind tricks will not work here.
what mind tricks did I use Bill? Typical “ooooh the sneaky Zionists are using mind tricks” is that really all the anti-Zionist argument has? Come on lets see you actually quote something I said that wasn’t true.
I heard this guy was one of the 3 million that voted illegally – FOR TRUMP. :-)
Trump and Fox – two bigoted peas in a pod.
Glenn, you are allocating blame improperly. Yes, certain news organizations have an agenda that will seek more viewership from their loyal audience through using certain false verbiage and ignorance, aka, Yellow Journalism, but in my opinion, they are not the one to be completely blamed for false reporting.
By 8-9am, it became circulated wide there was two shooters, and one being someone with a Canadian sounding name, the other being called a Moroccan. The other thing that became widely reported was the mentioning of a certain Arabic phrase during the attack, which Fox et al quickly assigned it to be said by the Moroccan. In fact, Fox News headline only mentioned the Moroccan.Yes, no journalistic integrity, but there is someone else to be blamed, someone who could have stopped all these conservative fake news from the very beginning.
It was only after almost every last news organization of the planet started falsely pinning the assault on the duo, specifically the Moroccan, couple of hours after the lone suspect was bought before the court, did Canadian authorities step in to correct the issue. They sat idle, on their hands, as media, and biased reporting, gave blame to someone else.
Canadian laws does not allow the naming of suspects, but they could have corrected that the Moroccan was not involved, and I am sure they knew of this from the 911 call Alexandre made right after the shooting. They chose not to do to until most steam was gone. In this internet age, when breaking news and false news or disinformation spreads quite as fast, or even faster, there should be some discretion to current statues and laws to allow for accurate reporting/information. Canadian government could have ruled out the Moroccan was not a suspect, but they waited, until their hand was forced. There is no one else to be blamed.
Our Canadian media did not make the biased mistake of saying the shooter was of ‘Moroccan Muslim descent’. Our media first said there were two shooters… then later, corrected that to one, and that he is white and believed to be a far-right troll. So it appears to be media from other countries who were feeding into their own biased assumptions.
Canada on the whole is known for being quite cosmopolitan,, and prides itself on being unprejudiced. Many Asians live there fully integrated in the big cities. First Nations peoples are sadly often the object of scorn, and are treated poorly quite frequently in provinces like Alberta. I’d never seen bias against Muslims in my journeys up North, but I’ve never been to the French part so perhaps it’s concentrated there.
So much for people escaping to Canada to be free of the USA’s creeping totalitarianism.
An eye for the 5 eyes leaves every involved country blind.
By which I mean authoritarianism and profiling in the culture breeds violence.
There should be a lot of embarrassed, apologetic Islamophobes questioning their attitudes today after they jumped on the witness name being Arabic and claimed this was a terrorist attack by Muslims.
Except, of course, as a browsing of this or any other comment section on this attack, they feel no shame, and no need to apologize for indulging in their dirty habit of screaming hatred, bigotry, and ignorance. And they’ll continue to ignore the facts, sneer at any attempt to reason with them, as long as they’re treated by society as something more acceptable than a child molester.
Unfortunately, because they haven’t been, they feel validated because so many of their own are now roaming the halls of the White House.
Moron. Muslim Islamic terrorists have killed 1000s of people including innocent children and women. One horrible moron on the right kills 6 and you want apologies. Go to hell Dicky Pearce.
Nobody is embarassed. Usually the perpetrator of the terrorism actually is a Muslim. This would actually be an outlier.
Wrong. That is not true for First World countries. Again with the fake stuff.
Sucks when the media is wrong and its against you, doesn’t it? Now you know what the Conservative party has been dealing with daily, fake news and bullshit narratives just making up things to make Republicans out to be the villains.
It’s so funny to see people talking about ‘lefty narrative’ as they use fake news to support their own LOL irony
Don’t forget the possibility he has a handler and that there’s an inside element here. Cant forget that possibility! Great work but keep digging!
So upsetting.
More and more of us Muslims are pouring into Europe and there is nothing you Islamophobes can do about it!! Soon we will gain in number and you whites will learn your place and start respecting us Muslims!!!!
What an arrogant bigoted comment!
Shame on you!
All I can do is laugh! “…this is exactly why no responsible news organization, let alone the White House, should rush to depict the shooter as Muslim and of Moroccan descent when so little is known about what happened. Yet not only did Fox and the Trump White House do exactly that, but worse, neither has retracted or corrected their claims long after it became clear that it was false:” An expression of liberal outrage about irresonsible journalism. If it weren’t so funny, I’d cry.
As with the Orlando shooting where a mentally unbalanced person had access to guns, people will try to use these incidents to forward a political agenda. After Orlando Trump jumped on the fact that the shooter was Muslim to try an make the case for the immigration policy he just put into place. Even though the shooter was born in the US.
As with the Orlando shooting this will turn out to be yet another mentally ill person with guns doing something heinous. Those with political agendas will try and ignore this for their own purposes.
I’m fairly sure this shooter will be found to be of sane mental health. Hatred is only a disease in the proverbial sense, at least in most cases.
Really? So you’re saying the Orlando shooter acted out a political and religious reasons because he declared loyalty to Isis or did he only do that in the proverbial sense?
Not what I said GilG. Try harder next time. The Orlando shooter was a hater alright but not mentally ill. ISIS inspired, yes. You make no sense, American Idiot.
The Orlando shooter wasn’t mentally ill? He witnesses said he was himself homosexual who went to a gay night club to murder people, his ex wife termed him as:
“”mentally unstable and mentally ill” and “obviously disturbed, deeply, and traumatized”.
Keep name calling Gert it certainly proves how intelligent you are.
You sir have apparently never practiced mental health; hatred is by no ways exclusive to mental illness, but taking it this far is almost the sole province of those with mild forms of schizophrenia–we have fancy names for them such as paranoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder and others but, unlike the severely impaired, they are organized enough to plan and commit such acts. The average whackadoodles living in some Montana militia camp are usually happy to shoot at things, grunt and fart loudly and drink beer.
And you sir never learned to read. Where did i make any way say hatred is exclusive to mental illness?
Are you saying white nationalists are all mentally ill? Is Dylann Roof? Cuz it sure looks like a white nationalist doing what white nationalists do.
Not what I said at all is it. But you use exactly the logic used by Trump after Orlando.
I asked a question, I was not making an argument, logical or otherwise.
So, then, why do you say: “As with the Orlando shooting this will turn out to be yet another mentally ill person?” What is the basis for that prediction?
The basis is that many mass shootings are perpetrated by assailants who had mental health issues. In my memory going back to Charles Whitman, more recently the shootings in Newtown Ct. and Orlando.
You said: “As with the Orlando shooting this will turn out to be yet another mentally ill person…” Are other white nationalists who’ve murdered also mentally ill? Dylann Roof? Ben Smith? Anders Breivik? (The latter was diagnosed with “narcissistic personality disorder, ” not a mental illness.)
Do me a favor Mona for starters do some research on narcissistic personality disorder. I suggest starting with the DSM V.
Non thank you. As I’ve noted before in another context, I have a relative (by marriage) with that diagnosis and do not need to research it.
I repeat: Are/were Dylann Roof, Ben Smith and Anders Breivik mentally ill?
I repeat. You do need to research it because your claim the PD’s are not metal illnesses is flat out wrong. Not looking it up won’t make you less wrong.
Mental Illness vs Personality Disorder
What is the difference between Mental Illness and Personality Disorder?
an anonymous author on a click bait site. really Mona? how many article showing you were wrong written by actual doctors did you have to pass up before you found that one?
I repeat: Are/were Dylann Roof, Ben Smith and Anders Breivik mentally ill?
Oh and in case you couldn’t find it here is the link to Fox News from the tweet above which counter to your and Glenn’s claim has been updated well before 24 hours .
http://fxn.ws/2k9is8W
You persist in claiming he’s arguing about the FOX STORY when it’s about Fox’s TWEET which makes an outrageously false claim not supported by the story.
They reported what the CBC had claimed about the shooter being “of Moroccan origin” In the tweet they link to the story on their web site which has indeed been updated in far less time than Glenn updated his story about 100 Jewish backers. If believing that because the tweet itself was not changed it somehow makes Glenn not a hypocrite in this matter all I can say is whatever gets you through the night Mona. Now how about telling me what in my quote of Glenn’s Guardian article was inaccurate.
What you are doing is called crapflooding. This argument with your duplicity has it’s own sub-thread. Stop it.
meanwhile in Palestine, the israelis there dont call out the murderers of Palestinians as terrorists. And when it is discovered the murders of Palestinians are israelis, that info is kept out of the press and especially out of pimped out US wallstreet whore media.
This is why creatures want to ban freedom of speech and expression about BDS and the resale of US arms to Syrian terrorists. Actions like these are very typical of nazi styled regimes.
Who wanted to benefit from the MURDER OF SETH RICH?
“Who wanted to benefit from the MURDER OF SETH RICH?”
Alex Jones
I heard the motive for the shooting was that a Muslim stole this guys girlfriend… j/k
Do you think Glenn is a little disappointed that this kid didn’t “like” Sam Harris?
Oh, pa-leaeaease…
Doves will cry, indeed, with inane comments like that. :>(
I think GG would have tweeted it if Harris was among the “likes”. I really enjoy their little feud, its like a throw back to the good old day of Gore Vidal vs WFB, or Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer, or Gore Vidal vs Truman Capote…
He sure as hell ‘liked’ Dawkins.
Am I alone in believing the actions of this lunatic aren’t connected to the ravings of Donald Trump?
Yes.
thanks Glenn for putting this out quick!
I support President Trump’s disdain and rebuke of the media.
i noticed that when this event first appeared a few hours after the attack occurred, i wondered how it is that the press stated the attacker as from morocco as if muslim prior to any statements from the police.
That major article has since been DISAPPEARED. The lying media will take US to war with their lies about WMD and everything else.
barabbas: “I support President Trump’s disdain and rebuke of the media.”
You can’t handle the truth, huh? Tsk, tsk.
“I support President Trump’s disdain and rebuke of the pimped out wallstreet lying whore media.”
BETTER?
The author made it sound as if “liking” Richard Dawkins was bad. That’s a pro-science atheist who’s anti-Islam (not anti-Muslim) because in his opinion it’s merely yet another story about an imaginary invisible friend.
I suppose “Richard Dawkins” belongs into the list of his “neutral” likes albeit it does show that he’s rather no Muslim himself.
Dawkins is one of the ‘New Atheists’ who like Sam Harris claims to condemn all religions, yet manages to reserve special ire for Islam.
Some religions are more problematic then others, of course it will be criticized more.
Dawkins also recently claimed that there was no such thing as Islamophobia, while at a talk in Canada. That it was absurd. He’s not very scientific or rigorous in his thinking when it comes to shit he doesn’t like.
https://youtu.be/MNCzd6_ce0I?t=59m58s
Speaking as a pro-science atheist, I am horrified by the Islamophobic Richard Dawkins. Moreover, I am far from the only regular commenter here for whom all of that is true.
I love Dawkins the scientist but abhorr Dawkins the reactionary. See also his stupidity, re. feminism.
And as an atheist/agnostic Dawkins, proseletysing style quickly lost me, TBH… “The Gospel acc. Athe” is as boring as the other Gospels.
The only thing I really admire about most of the so-called new atheists is their non-belief. I’m turned off by their arrogance (Dawkins refers to atheists as “brights,” while I think Arrogant Fucking Assholes rings much truer) and their politics. I’m a fan of the always classy, Michael Shermer, who just sort of thinks his way through it non-judgmentally.
Michael Shermer is great, in his explanations on why human beings believe in the supernatural, and why we are almost evolutionarily wired to fall prey to such beliefs. I’ve never heard him say anything negative about Islam as a unique evil, and any different from other religions.
But if you want to listen to an atheist who wants to understand religious people without condemning them, it’s Robert Wright. He tries to do an excellent job of creating a link between atheists and religious Christians and tries to make atheists palatable to them. There’s a good debate between Robert Wright and Sam Harris on religion on youtube.
Also, if you want to understand the reasons for reactionary violence in Islam, you might want to read Scott Atran, or even just watch youtube clips of his explanations.
“why human beings believe in the supernatural,”
=====
That’s the language of the past. It served its purpose.
Not necessarily. People still believe in the supernatural, or things that cannot be explained through the physical world, like God. Shermer tries to explain why human beings have a penchant for believing in God like entities, and have done so throughout our existence. I’m not sure I agree that it’s the language of the past. We still believe in all kinds of things that make no sense.
True.
Many have moved on from there, and hopefully, the evolution in human consciousness will result in humans using different language.
I’ll give you a small example of something since you have a Muslim background: The Jinn
As you know, there are all kinds of ideas regarding them in folklore.
But now, many refer to them as “Bands of Energy.”
But the idea that there are “bands of energy” floating around with people, or whch sometimes live in dark corners, with evil or good intent, is a ridiculous idea. There is no evidence for such bands of energy. I’ve heard about people who’re protected by Jinns or who’re haunted by them. I’ve heard. I’ve never witnessed anything.
You’re talking to an atheist. I find the idea of spirits or energies or whatever, totally preposterous, completely made up. The idea of God, to someone like me, holds the same weight as the idea of santa claus. But yes, I understand that people believe in these things.
To some, it is experiential.
To others, it is a matter of trusting those who have experienced.
To many, it’s made-up lies.
I wouldn’t say that I look at the idea of God as a lie. It seem more rational to view the idea as a myth, that people choose to believe in to have a feeling of safety, the idea that somebody is looking out for their best interests and will protect them, and their loved ones, etc. It’s like a tool for mental calm in a world full of danger, etc. The idea of God is not sinister to me. It’s a very understandable idea. It’s just that it is based on the same things as any myth, except that a lot of people believe those ideas to be true. I’m not saying there’s anything sinister about believing in these things.
The word “myth” had a different meaning originally.
It’s a long discussion on what Supreme Consciousness is and how it manifests itself and how it relates to Individual Limited Consciousness.
“Speaking as a pro-science atheist,”
You’ve expressed nothing but disrespect for mathematics. And you are certainly not the only regular commenter here for whom that is true.
Probably for your troofer doodlings, I bet…
Yup. Like Glenn, Chomsky and most other reasonable people, I do not buy the Truther bullshit, of which he’s a proponent. I guess they also don’t respect mathematics.
more false flag BS.
Trust that horrid woman Pamela Geller to… erm… ‘get it wrong’…
And she hasn’t issued a retraction, and has only cast doubt on the now accepted sequence of events…
I dislike Fox News as much as the next guy but they were just reporting what the CBC claimed as the link in their tweet show.
Contrast this with Glenn’s reporting on a movie that supposedly triggered the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi:
“The anti-Islam film was written, directed and produced by an Israeli real estate developer living in California, Sam Bacile. He claimed, in an interview with Haaretz, that the film “cost $5m to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors””
This was all false but the film maker wasn’t Israeli there were no 100 Jewish backers, but Glenn was unrepentant essentially saying, hey that’s what Haaretz reported it’s not my fault, even though he reported that Haaretz interviewed Bacile and byline in Haaretz attributes the story to the AP.
Ah, Gil, you provide a perfect example of Glenn doing what an honest journalist does. As well as a perfect example of how Zionists are so often utterly duplicitous. This is how the paragraph came to read within 48 hours:
Do see the whole thing and don’t miss the updates and editor’s note.
So, you ignorant and dishonest Zionist hack, you were at best wrong, and at worst lying, when you wrote:
Nicely spotted, Mona.
It’s happened quite a few times before with Gil. He makes it pretty easy. Almost certainly what he did was cut and paste from some Zionist apology site that hates Greenwald, as they virtually all do. And he didn’t verify, which is very dumb when relying on anti-Greenwald Zionist sites. Israel apologists are notoriously dishonest.
Which part of my quote from the original article is false Mona? On the other hand which one of us has been caught making false claims about what was said in an article they were citing.
What exactly did she spot Gert?
” This is how the paragraph came to read within 48 hours:”
And yet here is Glenn calling out Fox News who corrected their story in far less time. What’s your point?
Glenn was unrepentant and his editor update and it says just what I claimed it did. Hey it was reported wrong in Haaretz and no mention of the fact that the Haaretz article never claimed they interviewed the guy, but always reported it with an AP byline.
You guys are great with the name calling but you need to work on making your case.
Folks, watch all this. THIS is what Zionists do:
Nope. From above:
Everybody, go back and read Gil’s seminal post. Then see the Glenn’s full paragraph and, if you like, follow my link to the actual piece (which Gil tellingly did not provide). Now, he claims:
No editor did any of the updates. Glenn has never allowed editors to write any part of his articles, including updates, and that was certainly true in his contract with The Guardian. Glenn made corrections to his piece as soon it was known parts were wrong, and hence had nothing to “repent.”
What Gil is doing is the brain — and rotted conscience — of a man on Zionism. He cut and pasted from a Zionist apologist site that did not reflect the actual piece Glenn wrote, and so did not know what the article actually said. Or, if he did, he is even more dishonest yet.
“neither has retracted or corrected their claims long after it became clear that it was false”
Instead of relying on Glenn how about just clicking the link in the twitter post he provided to see what the site says.
Go ahead Mona tell me what was in my quote of what Glenn’s article that was not in the original version of the article. I relish the opportunity to catch you in another lie.
Glenn reproduced the entire Fox tweet, which said:
With a link to a Fox story that did not support that. Glenn wrote of that tweet above, and also tweeted:
Three hours and hundreds of RT’s later, this false statement is still up: Fox tweet in article above]
And about this:
Your verbatim quote was this:
Because you lifted it from a Zionist site and did not click through to see that your quote was wrong, and was worded differently and correctly:
Now Gil, I’m quite content to let readers judge for themselves your performance here, including who is the liar. The salient issue here is your Zionist dishonesty and resort to Zionist hack sites, not the substance of either of Glenn’s articles.
That will be it until such time as I link to this sub-thread for the purpose of demonstrating your duplicity.
This should be in blockquotes, it’s Glenn’s tweet about the fact that Fox still had not retracted its TWEET: “Three hours and hundreds of RT’s later, this false statement is still up”
and here is a link to a site which published Glenn’s original article.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/12/tragic-consulate-killings-libya-and-americas-hierarchy-human-life
again you are exposed as spreading falsehoods.
[scratching head] Glenn doesn’t write for Common Dreams, and that actually looks like a violation of The Guardian’s copyrights.
The fact remains it is the original article which yet again proves you spread false hoods, and tried to smear me as dishonest when it is you who have been proven the liar.
I used to put faith in the stories put out by Glenn Greenwald, but no more. On Twitter, you were sent news stories from the Canadian press that showed the police did arrest a man from Morocco and named him as a suspect, which gave rise to the early reports in the media. Yet you still haven’t bothered to fix your fake news story and add that information. You are no better than the media you condemn.
The Moroccan man was initially a suspect, but he was cleared of wrongdoing and released by the police. There was only a single gunman in the Quebec City shooting incident, and he was a white nationalist French Canadian. All of the major news outlets, except Fox, have reported this. It is established fact.
The Trump administration is about this fucking close to inciting a Kristallnacht for Muslims.
Yup. And one should expect that the Muslims are only first on the list. Remember Martin Niemöller’s warning.
America, we have a problem.
Thanks for reminding me of that chilling warning. Totally applicable to what’s happening in America today. Yea, if they run out of Muslims to persecute, they’ll just move on to another scapegoat to blame for their own failures. What choice do you have if you’re constitutionally incapable of accepting responsibility for yourself?
Finally! The media has their great white hope. You can almost hear them wringing their hands in glee. Now they can ignore the hundreds and thousands of Muslim terror attacks and go to 24/7 coverage of this and wring every bit of propaganda out of it.
Wow. That’s way more than I’ve heard about. Got a list?
Another YouTube addict..He watches the same ones over and over
what do you mean finally you dwid, forgotten about all the other
white shooter racist terrorists who’ve shot people
in the past years
fuck off and die, please.
is it el Khadir or Belkhadir?
reported both ways in your story.
Great points! But please don’t act surprised. remember how fast MSM was to declare the Orlando shooter a white nationalist homophobe? Both sides do it every time, as though WANTING certain facts makes them more likely to appear.
Zerohedge tweeted: “Despite Attackers Yelling “Allahu Akbar”, Politicians Blame “Years Of Demonizing Muslims” For Barbaric, Terror attack”. The article linked to the tweet has more than 150k views.
Like, why would a Muslim go on a rampage inside a mosque? This smelled like fake news from the start.
Disgusting.
So sad that alternative facts are being offered up by this administration. It’s time the press stopped asking the administration anything about what’s going on in America. They haven’t a clue.
Where is his picture. I want proof of your clams…as it would then appear all the eyewitnesses who were initially calling in are liars. I also want to see the White House declaration…no such one went out.
Muslim on Muslim faction killings are not unusual. So glad my country is using common sense.
You presented no evidence of him being a white nationalist, just so you know
Put the last sentence of your headline in quotes. Move it to the first line. Otherwise, it’s possible for the reader to draw a wrong sense of the content. It reads as if you believed the terrorist wasn’t a Trump follower.
Which we all know was highly unlikely.
We’re at war now. The niceties will no longer be observed. Give no opportunity to g off message.
Time to force them to defend themselves against our reasoned arguments.
Suppose they gave a press conference and no one came?
Instead, go down to the liable, shut off the TV and talk to each other.
Theres a reason people used to gather in taverns and drink. The best ideas happen. They come from the oddest places.
Journalist hangouts become places to get tips and rumors.
Take back the nasty profession of Journalism.
You misspelled White Supremacist or Neo-Nazi in the headline…
“Inflamatory and Reckless”
So Glen has all the facts? Why have I not seen any of these “facts” elsewhere?
At first blush, this appears to be another poorly executed false flag, leaving a retard behind as a patsy.
I doubt this is a false flag. We have white supremacists in Canada too, most of them with emotional ages around 12-14. It is also possible to buy guns in Canada.
On point for almost the entirety, per usual, but also, per usual, being anti-Muslim (a group of people) with being “a critic of Islam” (Islam being a way of describing our world with corresponding prescriptions on how life should be led) is conflated.
“…lists among its “likes” … Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens…”
While I have issues with Hitchens and Dawkins on several things they’ve said or written, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being a critic of Islam. In fact, I contend that acting in a moral fashion demands you be one.
You strongly imply the opposite.
Indeed, it proves basically nothing to show that one terror nutjob liked this and that. There is a Christian saying that one should “love the sinner and hate the sin”, and certainly those who are anti-Islamic can love the Muslim and hate Islam as a religion. There are so many normal healthy means of protest, such as writing elaborate criticisms of the expeditions of Muhammad, burning Korans, even leaving the occasional neatly wrapped and beautifully adorned pigs head as a present for the neighbors — and then there is picking up the gun, going down to commit mass murder, even yelling “Allahu Akbar” as if to perfectly underline one’s descent into the very madness of Islamic terrorism one pretends to be fighting. There should be no connection between these extremes – one concerns communicating an opinion about a set of old crazy poems and the pirate who wrote them, the other is plain murder. If I extend to people the right to free speech only when they say what I think is right, I’ve given them no consideration at all!
“…burning Korans, even leaving the occasional neatly wrapped and beautifully adorned pigs head as a present for the neighbors — and then there is picking up the gun, going down to commit mass murder, …”
====
That mosque received the head of a pig as a “present” in the month of Ramadan not that long ago.
And now, someone picked up a gun and killed six people there last night — possibly the worst terrorist attack in Canada.
I would respectfully urge you to stop your non sense just for a few days. This is not the appropriate time. People like you are actually causing a lot of fear amongst the Muslims.
You are a bona fide anti Islam and anti refugees. We get that.
But there is a difference between scholarly criticism of Islam in a respectful manner and burning Qurans and giving Muslims the head of a pig as a “present,” for they lead to violence.
If he called the cops, he WAS involved in it
So why is the writer the only one to point out that the shooter is white. It’s even in his BS title. This was a sick person that was involved in the shooting and should be delt with like any other person that would do this. You bring white into this as if all white people act this way and that is a problem we have today. Everyone wants to say the world is racist and it’s always another races fault but I hate to give you the bad news but you are just as racist as them by calling him white. You bring race into the picture to bring hate and you know exactly what you are doing and that makes you just as racist as them. and guess what white is not a type of person. Until the day we can stop blaming color of skin, we will never grow as a nation and the hate will continue to pour in. Come on people wake up and help, we don’t need drama starters!!!
As a Quebecer I am shocked by the extreme stupidity and lack of professionalism from Fox News and the White house, perpetuating lies that the attacker was Arabic and twisting this to fit their racist agenda and in an attempt to justify their ridiculous policies. They’re either way too irresponsible to hold office, or lying on purpose. The alt right have shown themselves to be manipulative liars and lovers of ”fake news”.
What a hypocritical article!
“One should be careful about trying to infer too much from a hodgepodge of Facebook “likes” and, this early, even anecdotal claims about his political views.” BUT Intercept says he’s a White Nationalist… and he lives the Isreali Defense Force. Not Impressed.
It’s also important to note that there are plenty of left wing news agencies falsely reporting the names of two alt right authors as the culprits, so saying everyone is piling Muslims is just dishonest.
Dawkins is a “critic of Islam”?
Did you just put Dawkins and Hitchens in the same class as extreme right?
huh… doesn’t look like fox news to me…. https://mobile.twitter.com/LP_LaPresse/status/825973446509223937
“Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens”??????
Dawkins is and Hitchens was anti-theist. Neither singled out Islam. They railed against all religion as atavistic and divisive!
Referencing Dawkins and Hitchens as an insight into this crackpots head is a major error.
Don’t use the avowed ideology of the attacker to demonize white nationalism. After all, everytime a Muslim carries out an attack explicitly in the name of their religion, we’re chided to ignore their words and background (re: Orlando) and reminded it has “nothing to do with Islam”. I’m sure we can do the same here and just assume it has “nothing to do with white nationalism”.
White nationalists are Nazi trash…… not even remotely comparable to muslims being blamed for terror. White Nationalists literally are white supremacists….
Look, a visit from one of the semi-clever contingent.
Something against consistency ?
Islam is a religion that has to do with answering mankind’s search for meaning and Ultimate Truth, and it has many manifestations/denominations. By contrast, white nationalism is inherently and necessarily an ideology of violence.
I don’t see how being concerned with ultimate meaning and truth precludes a philosophy from being inherently violent. White nationalism, and tribalistic ideologies in general, give meaning to their followers by making them part of something greater, a “race” in this instance. All philosophies answer questions about our world, and those answers have consequences.
You’re right. At least in theory, it doesn’t.
On the other hand, there is no credible evidence that Islam is inherently violent, so your attempt at indictment by implication fails.
1400 years of Jihad? Calling the part of the world not under Islamic rule the “house of war”? Go ask the pagan Arabs how peaceful Islam is. Oh wait, you can’t.
Dar al-Peace and Dar al-Harb (Abode of Conflict) are relics of the past.
How about we learn to live in the Dar al-Ehsan (Abode of Selfless Action)?
I only wish that were true for everyone the way it is true for you.
It is true for the vast Majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims. Islam is no more inherently violent than Judaism or Christianity. All three can be, and have been, used to justify violence.* But it is entirely possible to even live as a pacifist with all three. By contrast, it is virtually impossible for white supremacists to give effect to their ideology without it.
*Currently, and has happened before, many Hindus of India are also doing a bang-up job of committing violence and oppression. Often against Muslims.
And how many of the world’s however many white supremacists actually commit violent acts? Aren’t you ignoring all the peaceful white supremacists? ;)
Also, do you have any evidence of your claim that most Muslims reject the concepts of Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb? How many of the world’s Muslims reject jihad in it’s martial sense? Where is the actual polling data on that? How about Muslim clerics/scholars?
Also, have you ever noticed how whenever religious people behave in ways certain leftists don’t like, they’re only “using religion to justify x”, while when they behave nicely, it’s “proof” of the goodness of the religion? What’s up with that? I guess it’s the liberal version of orthodoxy/heresy.
You’re ignoring the fact that violence is a foundational part of certain religions; they arose under violent circumstances and functioned to sanctify the violence of a certain party. It’s not hard to justify violence using an ideology that was invented to justify violence.
I don’t have any polling data; though the polls do not show nuance and can be misleading — they don’t show a complete picture of the Muslims as it is too complex to be encompassed within polls.
But I have known or head from countless Muslims and have read countless books on Islam, written by Muslims, and the separation of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb is considered a model that existed at one point, which doesn’t exist any longer.
At the best occasionally a Muslim would bring up Dar al-Kufr instead of Dar al-Harb; however, they would classify Dar al-Kufr as Dar al-Peace in that there is now peace with the Dar al-Non-Muslim.
It’s the extremist groups, like Daesh, and others, that are trying to hang on to, and promote, the old model of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and they take advantage of the rhetoric and actions emanating from the West, and try to convince Muslims that they are fools into thinking that the West is not Dar al-Harb.
Let’s not fall into their trap and let’s work together to live in the Dar al-Ehsan (Abode of Selfless Action), which overwhelming majority of Muslims I have spoken with, or heard from, or read, want.
Just look at the words coming from the Canadian Muslims after 6 of them were recently murdered. They are all talking about peace and tolerance and togetherness.
Countless Muslims (Western and Eastern) carry out selfless acts all over the world every single day. But their selfless acts are not considered news worthy because some want us to know through their own caricature of what a Muslim is.
Let’s not ignore these selfless acts by the Muslims.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr has written this about the spiritual significance of Jihad:
https://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-9-no-1/spiritual-significance-jihad-seyyed-hossein-nasr/spiritual-significance-jihad
Others have written similar things. And I know many Muslims (ordinary Muslims and scholars) who adhere to it.
Sure, Sufi.
But what is the image of the future? What will the humanity strive for when that goal is achieved, from your perspective?
It’s hard to predict the future because we don’t know what’s going to happen. :-)
But the human species is still evolving in terms of consciousness. Give it a few more thousands of years for it to recognize oneness and stop seeing otherness.
What’s a few thousand years between friends?
Right now, things are not looking good. The trend is to see otherness more and more. But they’ve given it romantic names, like nationalism, this religion, that religion, this race, that race, this country, that country, etc.: “us vs ‘them'”.
Just look at how the Cro-Magnon treated the Neanderthal. Total genocide.
Only problem is we probably don’t have a “few more thousand years” to put this petty bullshit of “otherness” behind us with global climate change breathing down the necks of everybody on the planet.
Hoping that evolution takes place a little faster or most or all of our descendants are toast.
Relocating to another planet might be the answer. Need another JFK to inspire.
Maybe what is holding us back in terms of consciousness are archaic books full of iron-age mythology being treated as…well as the gospel? Maybe part of our evolution is discarding old ideas as we come to understand them as all too human products of their time and place instead of divine and timeless sources of perfect wisdom?
Sure, whatever works for one.
Give it a few more thousands of years for it to recognize oneness and stop seeing otherness.
Socialists seem to strive to achieve their own kind of oneness too, to this day can’t agree on what does that stand for. Socialism.
Funnily, if we, as laymen, would try to disect the term the way it is transliterated to traditional chinese, we’d find peculiar connotations, which, perhaps, affect both perception and cognition of a native speaker.
‘Socialism’ chinese translation: four hieroglyphs
Of course the term in both languages stand for the same semantics:
English thesaurus:
Chinese thesaurus:
But still…
From my perspective, until we all at least speak the common language, both literally and figuratively, that’s a pretty long way to go to achieve that oneness. I agree with you on that )
Transcending all outer forms and diving into the inner essence might allow one to experience oneness.
Language can be a barrier, which is why we need to look at its inner meanings as we need to do with other outer forms, which may be different but may have the same inner realities.
Don’t believe everything Sam Harris says Harrold. You might want to ask Sam Harris for examples of 1400 years of war between Muslims and everybody who isn’t, Harrold.
Or you’re just a schmuck who likes shitting on people you don’t like.
How do you think the Arabian peninsula was unified politically under Muhammed into the early Muslim state? Peacefully? And immediately after, the earliest caliphs adding Egypt, Iraq and the Levant to the state, was that peaceful? The Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottoman caliphates, all expanded via states peacefully holding referenda to join up with the Umma? I guess all the historians who tell us of the Islamic conquests are all just Sam Harris buffs huh?
Or you’re just a reactionary who cries bigotry in response to ideas you don’t like.
I’m going to tell you a few things Harrold. But I don’t think it will affect your outlook. But I’ll tell you anyway, since I’m bored.
I don’t “think” Harrold, I know. I read the history. He fought two battles with the Meccans where the Meccans tried to kill him, because he was a danger to their business activities. And then in the third battle he attacked Mecca, and surrounded it, and basically took it over without fighting, but I’m sure he would have fought, if it came to it.
I’m under no illusion that Muhammad was a peaceful man Harrold, which you seem to be implying about me. He was probably as violent as any successful military leader in the 7th century.
I’m sure it wasn’t Harrold, but if you ever read anything about neuroscience Harrold, like your prophet Sam Harris, you’d realize that human societies are inherently aggressive towards outside groups. When the Romans conquered the world, it was because it was part of their human nature, when the Huns conquered the world, it was because of their inherent aggressive human nature. When the English conquered the world, when the Greeks, when the Europeans, when the whatever, it was always because of their inherent human nature. But when the Arabs did their conquering, according to your dear leader, greatest prophet, it is not because it was inherent in their nature, but it was because of their text. And you fucking people with your little bird brains think you’re intellectuals. But it’s only because you’re too lazy or too stupid to think long enough, Harrold.
Nice bait and switch. First you ask for examples of the continuous Muslim wars on the outsiders, I supply the examples, then you switch the question to the ultimate cause of that violence. You’re presenting the human nature vs. religious texts as cause as if it is an either-or, but it’s not. As I’ve already said, religions can record and sanctify the worst aspects of human nature by ascribing them to a transcendent, non-human source. This should come as no surprise: since religions are products of man, they end up reflecting man’s nature. So Muhammad’s conquests weren’t about power and wealth, they are presented as a messianic quest to rid the world of evil and corruption. And you reveal your ignorance about Islam’s origins when you act as if the Mecca/Medina battles were his only actions. They weren’t, at his death the whole peninsula was brought to heel. Take the situation at Taif for instance, when the people surrendered to him, on the condition that they be allowed to continue to worship their own goddesses for a few years. Wasn’t good enough for Muhammad, the goddesses had to go immediately. Very tolerant, huh?
Your perspective is not new. It’s been around for over 1400 years.
There are many others way to dive into the sources, examine them for their authenticity, and interpret them to derive conclusions, without trying to “sanctify the worst aspects of human nature by ascribing them to a transcendent, non-human source.”
Do you know what the Romans did when they conquered a city? They took the children of the nobles/leaders and sent them to Rome, to make them Romans. Hail Caesar. Because Caesar was god, and everybody should hail Caesar. That’s how you conquered people back then. So if Muhammad went to Taif and said, hail the Muslim god, ofcourse he was going to do it. Because that’s how you conquer people and assure allegiance.
But according to your little mind Harrold, who’s obviously never had a conversation about the battle of Taif with any Muslim, you think every Muslim is out to “conquer” you. If you ever had a conversation with a Muslim, you’d find out that most Muslims don’t know shit about what their “purpose” in life is supposed to be, other than pray 5 times a day. And they don’t even do that. But according to you, they’re walking around with the history of Muhammad’s battles and trying to conquer you.
You have the brain of a child Harrold. Or you’re just deliberately trying to not see my point, because it’s not too difficult to see. All you have to do is stop believing that Sam Harris is an intellectual. Sam Harris is just a zionist, who wants the whole world to wage his war against Muslims. Human beings have always been aggressive and formed teams and conquered and destroyed the next village, and taken the women and children of others to grow their own tribes. That’s the history of human beings EVERYWHERE. But according to you, Muslims have special brains. They’re only doing it because it’s in their text, which most of them have never read.
I suspect you have an agenda, Harrold, which has nothing to do with understanding Muslim behavior, if there is even such a thing.
“Do you know what the Romans did when they conquered a city? They took the children of the nobles/leaders and sent them to Rome, to make them Romans. Hail Caesar. Because Caesar was god, and everybody should hail Caesar. That’s how you conquered people back then. So if Muhammad went to Taif and said, hail the Muslim god, ofcourse he was going to do it. Because that’s how you conquer people and assure allegiance.”
Well sure, that’s why ideologies like that of Muhammad or the Romans aren’t fit for the 21st century.
“But according to your little mind Harrold, who’s obviously never had a conversation about the battle of Taif with any Muslim, you think every Muslim is out to “conquer” you. ”
I’ve said this where exactly? Again, I’ve already made the point that not all Muslims are really stepped in their religion, to the point that some are only nominally Muslim.
Human beings have always been aggressive and formed teams and conquered and destroyed the next village, and taken the women and children of others to grow their own tribes. That’s the history of human beings EVERYWHERE.
Sure, but not all conflict can be easily reduced to the continuous fight for wealth and power. Take the French wars of religion for example. To go by the contemporary texts, the Catholic establishment and the Huguenots really did have a religious commitment to each other’s mutual destructoin, and I don’t think there is really any reason to believe they were insincere. Only after the emergence of the religious division did the conflict become attached to different factions at court and connected to older political struggles for power.
At this point it seems all you can do call me names an rave on about Sam Harris. Which is interesting, considering I’ve haven’t really read much of his work. You’ve got a real hard on for him, much like Greenwald himself. Don’t take your obsession with Harris out on me.
The ideology of Muhammad (S) is not what you think it is, nor do we adhere to the ideology as you think it is.
So Muslims are following the “ideologies of Muhammad?” Is that really the problem Harrold? So the US is in the Middle East and not in Malaysia, because it’s fighting the Muslim ideology? and not because there’s oil in the Middle East and not in Indonesia, or Malaysia or in Uzbekistan? And when you read the news, you see Muslim countries living by the Muslim ideology of the 7th century, and invading Non-Muslim countries, and sending their militaries into non-Muslim countries and holding them under siege until they convert?
Sure Harrold. Of course, you’re a rational 21st century human, who’s not a racist. All you want to do is live in a Muslim free world Harrold, because you, Harrold, have a primitive, tribal mind. Your desires might even have to do with your own 2000 year old religion, and you’re only projecting your own views of what you want to do to Muslims, onto what you think Muslims want to do to you.
The problem with minds like yours, Harrold, is they’re not really subject to see the light of reason, until similar problems affect your life. So I’m not going to subject myself to more torture of the mind, trying to reason with your and educate you Harrold.
And my hard on for Harris is special. People like you don’t have to read Harris to hate Muslims. But your reasonings are the same. To me you’re no different from a Harris acolyte. You heard something about Muslims that jive with your existing prejudices, and that’s why they must be true. Right Harrold? That’s why eating shellfish is fine, even though God says it’s an abomination. But when it comes to homosexuality, all of a sudden the Bible is king, because it reinforces your existing prejudices, isn’t that right Harrold? And I’m not saying you’re prejudiced, I’m just saying this of people who are, but don’t find shellfish offensive.
Anyway Harrold, I don’t think I’ll change your mind. All you’re doing is helping reinforce in my head how religion, in many ways, is not really of any use, other than entrenching existing bigotries.
As much as some people would like to believe that the Muslims at large are following the “ideology of Muhammad” as they understand it, most Muslims follow this ideology of Muhammad:
From http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/01/mohamad-fakih-quebec-mosque-attack-funerals_n_14529496.html?utm_hp_ref=canada
Those who present Muhammad (S) in a negative way and spew venom at him tend to think that the true inheritors of Muhammad’s (S) message are those so-called Muslims who carry out violence in the name of their understanding of Islam (often ignoring or rejecting all other causes), and those Muslims who are peace-loving and peaceful are the exceptions.
huh?
most all white nationalists don’t shoot-up people
@DavidCedarwood
Oh yes, many of them absolutely can and do love Israel. Or at least, they love the idea of Israel. White nationalist leader, Richard Spencer, recently made that clear, to the embarrassment of Hillel rabbi Matt Rosenberg at Texas A&M University, when Rosenberg tried to challenge Spencer with ‘radical inclusion and love’ :
This is nothing new. Antisemites and Zionists have seen eye to eye for at least a century.
Well that doesn’t exactly show that they see eye to eye necessarily, just that Spencer can spot hypocrisy.
Oh, they do, they absolutely do. The long have seen eye-to-eye on the need for a racially “pure” state and the beauty of “blood and soil” nationalism. Antisemites don’t want Jews in their countries, and Zionists historically have thought that was right and good, and embraced antisemitism as a tool to get Jews to colonize Palestine and ethnically cleanse the indigenous population.
Zionists, including the Jewish Agency, favored the Nazis in WWII and opposed having Jews fight with the Allied powers. There’s a vast amount of evidence in support of all this, the most recent compilation is in the book reviewed here.
Not that I disagree Rabbi Rosenberg, as a Zionist, is a hypocrite. He totally is.
“Antisemites and Zionists have seen eye to eye for at least a century.”
Modern Jews such as Gator see themselves as a unique race. Are you calling Gator a Zionist?
or is the old canard that one cannot help being born Jewish in play …
You can call me an anti-Semite as often as you like, apparently, but I think it is quite plain who is the racist and who is the humanist.
anti-Semites and anti-Zionists often see eye to eye. No place is that more evident then in the comment section of TI
“(…) terrorism aimed, yet again, at Muslims (…)”
I see no reporting about muslim terror aimed at westerners on your page.
@Greenwald: To drive the point home, you might want to add:
“As for reports that someone yelled “Allahu akbar,” it is perfectly natural that someone in a mosque would say that upon seeing a homicidal killer randomly shooting people, just as it would be expected that someone shouts “Oh my God” if a gunman goes on a shooting spree in a Christian church.”
Never fails. A shit article with shit logic, and Murtaza I’d the author. You calling this guy a white nationalist is just as presumptive and shallow as the right calling the shooter Moroccan.
Never an article about rape by Muslims in Europe. YOU ARE BECOMING CNN OF INTERNET. Please
BALANCE IN REPORTING
SAD
It’s that very sort of “balancing” facts with opposing ideologies and falsehoods that degraded CNN’s journalistic integrity in the first place.
Rape is one thing, terror attacks another. The Intercept cannot possibly start converting all rape stories, there’d be too many. But I’m any case, what a waste of time responding to you. If you link CNN to this amazing publication then you clearly do not know your elbow from your face.
Why should this site cover rape in Europe?
And never any stories about non-Muslim rapists in Europe. Any guesses why? Or are you under some misimpression that there is a Muslim rapist epidemic in Europe as opposed to garden variety non-Muslim European rapists doing the majority of the raping?
I mean if you’re actually interested in balance on the topic of rape, maybe you should demonstrate which percentage of European rapes are committed by Muslims vs. Non-Muslims.
Ya think. Now my guess is you’re full of shit and filled with hate and propaganda and wouldn’t know or bother to actual read on the topic.
But here’s a start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Germany
As of 2011 there were 7,539 reported rapes of primarily woman. Any guesses how many of those were committed by Muslims against non-Muslims?
And did you know that, sadly, like America the conviction rate is very low like less than 10% even though 1 out of 3 German women have reported being subject to physical or sexual violence.
Pretty sure “the problem” isn’t a problem of Muslim men raping nice German women, despite your bigoted innuendo that they are.
Now if you actually do want to learn something about the subject you can actually do your own research via European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (usually known in English as the Fundamental Rights Agency; FRA) and look at the studies they’ve produced on the topic.
Or you can continue to be a misinformed innuendo slinging bigot.
You’re an idiot, and, a liar. There’s a huge plague in Germany, and, across Europe of Muslim men raping, and, sexual assaulting women. And, yes, the main problem lies Muslim refugees. Look with your eyes instead of your butt.
I’ve done the research dimbulb. Now let’s see you demonstrate your assertion with one link to a reputable source that establishes this “plague in Germany and across Europe of Muslim men raping and sexually assaulting women” in statistically significant numbers greater than actual Germans or other Europeans of non-Muslim background.
I’ll wait. Should be easy for you if you’re telling the truth you pathetic liar.
There is no migrant rape crisis, it’s just right wing fake news stoking fear against Muslims. This is fact, not debatable.
“Never an article about rape by Muslims in Europe. ”
Here’s one much closer to home for you.
What is Baylor all about? Jesus on a white cracker, apparently.
from wiki
ken staar, of blue dress fame, was the president. protecting young women from predators. uh huh.
Yeah, and, the attackers are black, and, not necessarily all from America. Athletics have nothing to do with Baptists, just as Notre Dame athletics have nothing to do with Catholics. What’s your point?
“Athletics have nothing to do with Baptists, just as Notre Dame athletics have nothing to do with Catholics. What’s your point?”
My point was both Catholics and Baptists have athletic supporters … how could you miss it?
Never an article about rape by Muslims in Europe. YOU ARE BECOMING CNN OF INTERNET. Please
BALANCE IN REPORTING
SAD
Yes, you are sad.
This just in, Donald Trump apparently reads The Intercept & comments here as “Repoman”.
If such an act was to happen in Canada, it is not surprising it happened in Quebec City. For more than two decades, the atmosphere has been poisoned by high audience phone-in “radios poubelles” (trash radio/shock DJs) spilling their bile day in, day out against everything that is left wing, liberal and foreign. More notorious was a certain Jeff Fillion who was especially nasty, racist and bigoted. Following the threat of revoking the his station’s licence by broadcasting regulators, he resigned about a decade ago and is now hosting his show on an internet radio . But his legacy survived and the poison he injected is still acting, several copycat enjoying similar success on the airwaves. A notorious “libertarian” commentator, Éric Duhaime, also enjoy in this city much airtime.
As an illustration of how influencial the “libertarian” “identitarian” ideologies are deeply ingrained is the running joke that each time one encounters a troll in comment sections of French Canadian media outlet, you can assume with a great level of certainty that this person is from Quebec City.
Mohamed el Khadir, in fact, was arrested while trying to administer first aid. In a very Canadian twist, he apologized for the confusion.
Yes but still they say That the muslims guy who is responsable ….. The suspect is alexander bissounette from cap rouge ….. He is folowinh trump racisme
So the Canadian apologized for being arrested and Canadian cops arrested the non-white guy on the spot with no real reason — in fact, in defiance of logic since he’s the one who called them, as I understand it.
I think it’s uniquely Canadian on two counts. I’ve had enough conversations to suss out that Canada has its own racist streak, even if it isn’t as boisterous and blunt as the US’s.
I’m inclined to add, it’s unique insofar as, if this had happened in the US, el Khadir would be dead at this point.
Glenn Greenwald, I watched the Spicer commentary and I reread it on your link. It was in no way, shape or form, negative. You sir, are as bad as you claim others to be. False news.
Neither the White House nor Fox News “created” anything….Fox News got their information from police sources in Quebec as did the White House. Sean Spicer’s comments DO NOT refer to Islam and simply stated that this type of attack shows why we must remain vigilant in properly vetting incoming immigrants. This article is misleading at best and pure propoganda at worst. You are EXACTLY GUILTY of what you accuse the White House and Fox News of.
If anyone rushed to report based on flimsy information – and, potentially, bias – it was The Daily Beast.
The Daily Beast reported the assailants were two white supremacist bloggers – based on nothing more than a bogus Tweet from a subsequently debunked fake Reuters Twitter account. TDB was obliged to apologise and retract.
A sub-Reddit (I believe The Donald) then ran with what it claimed to be intercepted police radio intel that the perps were two Syrian refugees who had arrived in Canada the week prior. This spread like wildfire on Twitter.
The police then confirmed to Canadian media outlets that it had detained two suspects, which they identified as one Quebec and one Moroccan national.
The latter was still a suspect when the duo appeared at court on Monday afternoon – hours later. – and was also named.
The police subsequently clarified that the ‘Moroccan’ was merely a witness and that there was only one assailant – Alexandre Bissonnette. Why the other was detained in the first place remains unclear.
Many media outlets continued to run with the cop-supplied dual suspect info, apparently oblivious of the update. This included CNN , which crossed to a correspondent hours later who was still saying the situation was fluid, long after the online media had updated.
First off witnesses stated their were up to five shooters in early reporting. You should ask yourself Greenwald how it is possible to go from five shooters to one who looks like the brother of Sandy Hoax shooter Adam Lanza?!?!?
This had blatant disinformation being put out by the Canadians and their Pro-Soros government from the start. That is now clear. I seriously doubt anyone was even shot. False flag government staged event that Canada is no stranger to.
John Miranda
You want to show us you’re a real reporter? Go to wikileaks.org and type in “PIZZA” and write about what you find. If you cannot do that you’re truly worthless as you ignore defenseless children being subjected to unspeakable horror. End of story. Fact.
Note that two 911 calls were received. The first (I assume) from Mohamed el Khadir to report the shooting, and the second from Alexandre Bissonnette to report that he had been the shooter. I can easily understand that in the context of a first response to an active mass shooting, the police may have grabbed anyone who had called 911. Leaking the names before getting the story straight was a mistake, though, and Mr. el Khadir deserves an apology.
Incidentally, I’m a native English speaker living in Montréal, and I can assure readers that Anglophones suffer no persecution at all. Those who can’t speak French — and are are still quite a few — are generally treated politely by their Francophone neighbours, who often switch to English to accommodate them. You have to work very hard at finding an angry Francophone who wants to make an issue of it. Yes, there are language laws to ensure that French survives in a North American sea of English, and occasionally an overzealous inspector asks a restaurant owner to list “hambourgeois” instead of “hamburger” on a menu, but these are mostly considered stupid jokes rather than persecution.
Obviously the FBI needs to step up its Muslim terrorist recruiting program to provide Team Trump with more justifications for their racist xenophobic crackdown. Double the going rate for informants who recruit nutcases to commit acts of terror, only give them real bombs and arrest them after, not before, they make their attempts. Trump supporters would love this approach.
To fight back, Team Clinton (still struggling for control of the Democratic Party) needs to do the same – use covert front groups to recruit white supremacist terrorists of the Timothy McVeigh model who are willing to kill for their ideology. They’ve got plenty of experience of doing this in Syria with ISIS, it should be relatively simple to implement the same program domestically.
COINTELPRO on steroids, what comes next?
This event is horrible enough without the added nagging and essentializing the Francophone population with the usual grab-bag of misunderstood shibboleths : language laws, separatism, etc.
Don’t let mass-mediated cliches divide us.
“Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian who is, by all appearances, a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist” None of the far right, alt0right, ‘classical liberal’ political hacks will ever cover acts of terrorism committed by white nationalists against Muslims nor their longstanding religious intolerance. Scary part is discredited right wing propaganda outlets will never retract their Islamic smears because their base eats it up and it goes against their tribal, fascist narrative, pushing anything for views let alone the truth. Thanks Greenwald/Hussain for a sane voice in a vortex of idiocy.
Why is it that the timing on these alleged “terror” attacks are always conveniently concurrent with pending legislation that would meet predictably fierce resistance absent such attacks?
Khalid was one of two Pakistani-Canadian women elected to the House of Commons in the 2015 election, along with fellow Liberal Salma Zahid. The introduction of this bill has already been characterized by conservatives as the death knell for free speech in Canada as speech itself can be interpreted and targeted as a form of Islamophobia.
Now that IS interesting…
So is Bissonette “mind controlled” then?
Dr. Yen Lo: His brain has not only been washed, as they say… It has been dry cleaned.
Interesting thought…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v4hahbvJ6I
So, was definitely stating in the headline “He’s a white nationalist” over an article cautioning on getting the facts first done intentionally for irony or for click-bait?
Just curious
Dawkins and Hitchens are critical of religion as a whole, not just Islam.
I thought they had gun control in Canada.
They do have gun control. Gun control doesn’t mean “no guns”, even if right-wing loons think (or pretend to think) that it does.
I understood from left-wing loons, though, that mass shootings wouldn’t happen with gun control. See, for instance, the tear-stained series of executive orders following the New Hope shootings. My point is that liberals are retarded, not that gun control means “no guns.” Only a liberal, er, I mean a “right-wing loon” would (“pretend to”) think that. Obviously, the solution is counseling. /s
Handguns are hard to get, but you can get one, MOST don’t have one or want one.
Long guns OTOH can be purchased after taking a couple of courses in any Canadian Tire store.
Where I grew up in Nova Scotia, guns everywhere as it was a big hunting culture.
Millions of guns.
“In 2006, there were a total of 7,102,466 firearms registered in Canada. By 2010, this number had grown to 7,646,699, an increase of 544,233, or over 100,000 per year.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp
Thanks for that. I live in upstate NY, and it essentially the same here. In order to carry a handgun you have to go before a judge and state your reasons. I argued I needed a gun while jogging to defend myself against loose dogs, and the judge said no, so that was that. It does make me run faster, though. Meanwhile, most people I know locally have more rifles than pots and pans. And you can shoot in your yard here, no restrictions on time or place for unloading. We have about one malicious gun death for every ten road fatalities, and haven’t had a murder in 6 years (that was a strangulation). There was a hunting accident on Thanksgiving day, outside of Syracuse, where a son shot and killed his father. That happens reasonably often, once or twice a year. Anyway, it is obviously more complicated than more guns=more mass murder.
Why is it called a terrorist attack at all? Sounds like a hate crime to me.
The Le Pen connexion.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/national/quebec-city-mosque-attack-suspect-known-for-right-wing-online-posts/article33833044/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe
I’ve been to Quebec City many times, it’s small, VERY French and insular. “Pur Laine” — pure wool, i.e. a pure, white, Catholic French person — is also a concept that must be reckoned with in Quebec. The Canadian receptivity to immigration is exaggerated I think.
Just yesterday I finished a novel (by an intelligent novelist who gets her facts right about the matters I do know about) that largely takes place in Montreal, and involves some of the French language laws. I had no idea they were so…extreme.
The language laws can be extreme to the point of crazy. Even the street signs. Bizarre in a place that depends on American tourism.
“A-40 Ouest Circulation Fluide, Conduisez Prudemment”
“What’s that say Mabel?”
“I don’t know, I think it means water ahead or something”
It’s true that les Anglais treated the French as second class citizens for a long time. But that’s gone. Their language/culture was threatened, but that has not been the case for decades. In the Civil Service due to bilingualism policies, being French is a distinct advantage.
This has gone to such extremes that they are people right across the river from here, in Gatineau Quebec who speak no English, and that’s a choice their parents made.
In Canada, we call this, the “two solitudes”.
I’m an immigrant to Canada with a Muslim background. I find no hostility towards Muslims. I live in Toronto.
Because of my work, I sometimes meet with Canadians in their 60s, and I’ve heard them say certain things about Muslims, that are not politically correct, but they’re nice people. I’ve heard these same people say absolutely appalling things about Jews, things that are ridiculous and completely made up, but they believe it. Of course, for my part, I stayed quiet and listened, as they tried to tell me how things really are.
From my personal experience, I don’t think Muslims are targeted by people any more than any other group. Minorities have problems everywhere, and North America is a special place on earth in my opinion, if you are a minority of ANY kind. And there is ample support for Muslims amongst the young.
But Quebecois don’t seem to have any special preference for any kind of outsiders. They don’t even like White English speakers, according to a friend of mine who studied at McGill. He for one didn’t like Quebec very much, because of how he felt like a foreigner in his own country. But this is just anecdotal.
You’re a better judge of that than I am, but I’m pretty confident that it is especially true of Québéc and especially-especially true of the Québécois wrt Muslims.
The tensions and animosity are very like those in France, not surprisingly. It’s not uncommon, for instance, to hear proposals, in Québéc, to ban hijabs.
Québéc City is a lovely place, but very French and very insular.
I’ve loved the French language since being taught it as a kid. Indeed, pretty much the only thing I miss about my ex is someone with whom to chatter en francais. (He teaches high school French.) And the philosophes gave much to the word. Unfortunately the French tend to be chauvinistically extreme about many of their best contributions, especially secularism.
You got it! :)
In the rest of Canada, some Anglo’s like to refer to themselves as “Old Stock” intending a sense of superiority and often an exclusion of those who are not and this is also a concept to be reckoned with, but these are not situations unique to Canada. For the most part, we manage and most immigrants, including my own forebears, have been surprisingly tough. This was a horrible event and, as Prime Minister Trudeau has indicated, we collectively mourn the loss of our countrymen.
La ville de Québec is not huge, with a population of around 500,000. Quèbec itself is 1.667 million km² in size, with a population of over 8 million, and also has some very cosmopolitan areas. The language thing is a problem, but it is our problem and does not necessarily stem from an original flaw in the French-speaking population. TROC (The Rest of Canada) has a very tense relationship at times with Quèbec , but cannot lose them because they are frankly the most interesting people in the country. We do, however, understand each other, however uneasily.
I see.
I hope so.
This is EXACTLY what happened in San Bernardino in December 2015. Every witness on major media news identified “tall white men” — who were obviously trained — while CBS news and others ran with the Islamic terror narrative, adding the “Islamic Bonnie & Clyde” bs for extra spice.
WITNESS 1
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/witness-describes-the-san-bernardino-shooting/
WITNESS 2
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/it-sounded-like-a-gun-range-578218563875
WITNESS 3
http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/san-bernardino-shooting-witness-tells-his-story-580957763523
Hitchens and Dawkins are not “critics of Islam.” They are “critics of ALL religions.” Don’t pigeonhole us atheists to fit your narrative.
Whatever else he may be, Hitchens is certainly a mean-spirited Islamophobe. It’s really not even debatable.
Dawkins is the odd one out. He always strikes me as a reasonable person driven by staunch skepticism. Evangelical about it, but not spewing hate against any specific religion and certainly not against its adherents. That would be a grotesque misunderstanding. But then, someone capable of shooting 6 unarmed people for no good motive is obviously not someone who would spot the difference.
If you think Dawkins is nuanced about his views on Islam, then you haven’t read or heard, what he has been spewing for the last few years. He might be the most rabid of the two surviving neo atheist cult leaders…Sam Harris and him..
Hitchens definitely criticized Catholicism more than any other religion over the years.
Dawkins is the odd one out. He always strikes me as a reasonable person driven by staunch skepticism. Evangelical about it, but not spewing hate against any specific religion and certainly not against its adherents. That would be a grotesque misunderstanding. But then, some dumb racist capable of shooting 6 unarmed people for no good motive isn’t someone who’d spot the difference.
(Sorry if this comment turns up multiple times. I only mean to post it once but something is b0rked here. I try once more, then I’ll go back to doing something productive.)
You do not speak for all atheists. I’ve been atheist for some 35 years and am not part of your “us.” Richard Dawkins is a virulent Islamophobe.
Then he’s also a Christophobe, and a Judeophobe, and a Hinduphobe, right? He’s expressed disdain for ALL RELIGIONS. Why is it that one can criticise say Christianity to their heart’s content and that’s no problem at all yet if one dares to criticise Islam they’re suddenly an “Islamophobe”? The hypocrisy of many liberals is amazing.
Yes, why be specific when you can generalize. Some atheists are very smart some not.
” Some atheists are very smart some not.”
I believe b>David was referring to good atheists.
Neils deGrasse Tyson states Scientology is less believable than the Abrahimic religions.
Don’t bother with -mona-‘s opinion as she is a dedicated but unlicensed hasbarist.
they seemed to be much more vociferous critics of muslims than other religions.
Thanks for making this clear.Most people believe atheists are more dangerous than pedophilic priests.
Yeah, totally blame Americans for Canadians giving out wrong info.
you’d think the attack happening at A MOSQUE might be indicative of a non-muslim shooter.
one thing i learned during my time in canada is that not only are there loads of stupid, racist rednecks (sorry people living in the 60s for bursting your stereotype bubble) but that the french in quebec put them to shame. they take the casual yet virulent, “i’m just defendin’ civilization y’all!” bigotry of the parisian crowd and turn it to “onze”. everyone else gets so worked up when the twats talk about secession but my first impulse is usually “what are you waiting for? GO. NOW.”
On Dec 30th, an American Muslim burned down his own Mosque. Spare us the virtue signalling.
Got any guesses about the ethnic or cultural identity of the person(s) who burned the mosque in Victoria, TX on Saturday, hours after Trump signed his Muslim-banning EO?
“Virtue signalling” does not mean what you think it does.
Our greatest PM, Pierre Trudeau abhorred all cultural nationalism for the reasons you highlight, which made him the enemy of Quebec. He correctly sought a nation based on rule of law, rights and freedoms, not the cultural, linguistic or religious whims of opportunistic demagogues, like the Parti Quebecois, or other nationalist party of notoriety.
You leave out the fact that the cultural, linguistic, and religious claims of Quèbec are solidly based in constitutional law, namely the BNA Act aka as our Constitution.
Racism is endemic in all societies – in Canada as a whole as well as any single province. However, focusing on Quebec the way you do, you are committing the exact offence you blame the entire francophone population of Quebec of!
Your diatribe is as racist as the behaviour you apparently decry.
Right, do you know any Quebecers? Ask them how they feel about Indians? Or “Anglophones” for that matter.
French people are not a “race” btw.
This is ignorance, Bill. Tarring the whole of Québec with the actions of one or a few individuals. I expect better from you, havinh read your comments for more than a decade.
Try asking us what we think of the federal government handling of the Indians, or Harper’s years-long pre-trial detention of refugees and “illegals”.
What happened in Quebec city is horrible enough, don’t indulge the common response in Canada to essentialize francophones.
Well I am French Canadian. I have not problems with native Americans, or Anglophones. Yes, like Hugh Culliton said, you are a racist that is taking this opportunity to bash French Canadians.
French is a race! You should look up the definition of race and racism before you act like an expert.
I am French Canadian and to answer your questions I have no problems with the native Americans, and I have no problems with the “Indians” in India. The Anglophones are fine, and I have friends that are English Canadian. Just like many other Québecois that speaks French.
Yes French is a race. Look up the definition or race and racism. You are in fact, a racist.
People of French origin in Canada have always had far better relations with First Nations people than did those of English origin. At present, I would not say that Quebecers in general love Anglophones, or even like them. Luckily, all of us speak a third language that you can only understand if you live here.
“Luckily, all of us speak a third language that you can only understand if you live here.”
Thanks for the grade school history lesson and the condescension.
And you make my case.
Beverly, I doubt all of your claims and judgments because you’ve destroyed your credibility. Above you claimed Canada cannot lose Quebecers because they “are frankly the most interesting people in the country.” Even if you believe that inanity, that you lack the sense to keep it to yourself does not speak well for your judgment.
Certainly I’m not going to accept anything you report absent support from a credible source.
-Mona- spouts utter nonsense, again.
It was a common business practice by Hudson Bay Co to bring young Frenchmen over as trappers and marry them to various First Nation daughters. Assimilation was (and is) good for business. There are a great many French-named families along the US-Canada border, E to W, with native blood just a few of generations back. I married one and also dated another.
It is not my fault, nor does it speak to my credibility, if the two of you are totally lacking in the ability to catch a twinkle in the eye, or lacking in a sense of humour–slapstick, blatant, dry, or ironic. It is a huge part of Canadian-speak and, can be taken as insulting by some, but it is not intended to be. Immigrants from other cultures pick up on it very quickly. If you have no response to come back with except direct insults, minus twinkle, you may be doomed. As for the difference between French/Indigenous relations in Canada and English/Indigenous relations in Canada, you perhaps could read a Canadian history book, or look up same online in lots of places.
Do you also feel it would be “racist” to speak of the American South and its culture as especially racist?
Further reading: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-far-right-la-meute-1.3876225
Well. Done. You just lowered yourself at the level of what you are condemning. Learn about history. Learn about the damages of colonialism. Learn about survival, learn about feeling threatened of extinction. Not by Muslims, but by demography, by media, by economic factors. That’s the reality of being Quebecois.
On the other hand, this feeling of threat makes us more prone to be manipulated by extremist demagogues…
BUT, the Party Québécois was and still is a bunch of peace and love hippies. Artists, singers, philosophers. Our unofficial national anthem begins with the verses “gens du pays, c’est votre tour, de vous laissez parler d’amour” for crying out loud! Gilles Vigneault, Félix Leclerc, Michel Rivard were the most ardent nationalists… Not the stuff to push anyone to take a gun a do a mass shooting!
But it is true that there is some radicalisation going on in Quebec City itself, a place that can feel insular. But this radicalisation is inspired by “libertarian” ideologies and are closer to the Tea Party and Trumpism than the nationalist movement.
I note my comment doesn’t appear where I asked why the writer would use a Tweet which alludes to be President Trump when it clearly isn’t.
Trying x2 to leave this comment:
The police last night reported two people were arrested. Canada’s public broadcaster was reporting this second man as a shooter as well. Quebec police had a press conference at 9am this morning and did not clear this issue up. Only put out a tweet shortly before noon saying there was only one shooter. CBC only took down the second man’s name a couple hours before you published this story.
AKA – it’s not all the ‘right wing media’s fault. Maybe investigate why was the name leaked originally, as a suspect instead of a witness? And why did it take so long for the police to not clear that up?
No evidence he is a white nationalist here. WN”s don’t love Israel, nor the NDP, nor Dawkins and Co.
Canada wasn’t a nation before Europeans arrived. There were amerindian tribes live sparsely in the region. They built 0 of the institutions
It wasn’t “a nation” for a long time after they arrived, either.
Anyway, whether or not nations are “good things” is definitely still up in the air.
Canada wasn’t a nation before Europeans arrived.
Of course, that perfectly explains why those native populations are referred to as First Nations.
There were amerindian tribes live sparsely in the region. They built 0 of the institutions
Perhaps that was because they felt their own, um, institutions were sufficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
Considering the fact that Residential Schools were one of the institutions forced on them by the more ‘civilized’ immigrants who came to live with them, along with its concomitant forceful stripping of their culture and languages, I’d say the First Nations would have been well within their rights to chuck the fucking Europeans back into the ocean from whence they came.
Just wanted to point out that your use of the word “nationalist” could be misconstrued. The word in the past has been used (In French especially) to describe people who want Quebec to become its own country. We did get the pleasure of being designated a “nation” by Harper not too long ago.
It’s murky territory and you could argue it, but as someone who would like to see Quebec become its own country, and most definitely wants all religious groups and ethnicities to be included if that were to happen, using the term like you did kinda lumps me in with people who shoot Muslims for abhorrent reasons. Can’t say I’m a fan of that, especially considering how this is some of the only information people will read about my province. Thanks.
Thank you from a Cdn in US, for reporting what will be the truth…..This is
the same scenario as took place on the Parliamentary grounds, where a
disturbed individual killed an unarmed epitaph guard. We are sorry.
No evidence he is a white nationalist. WN’s arent known for loving Israel, or Sam Harris and Co
It doesn’t matter whether he was a white nationalist or not. The left can’t have their cake and eat it too. Not all Muslims are terrrorists, right? Not all white nationals are either!!!
I am a white nationalist myself by the way. As for the shooting at the mosque, I unequivocally condemn this act of violence, or any unprovoked violence for that mattter.
Very interesting editorial. Over here in Europe the MSM titled ‘terrorist attack on Mosque’. Never reported on Trump tweets saying it was a Moroccan Muslim perpetrator.
That is because Trump never tweeted any such thing. A lot of news agencies were and of course blogs but Trump never did. The author is a liar for implying he did.
That’s because President Trump never tweeted that or spoke of it. The writer of this story is no better than the people he is condemning. He chose a Tweet from someone with Trump’s picture for what purpose but to incite? He should get off his high horse.
Apropos your comment and Trump’s tweets, last Friday’s SZ Magazin, in its weekly humor feature “The three greatest lies”, devoted itself to Donald Trump. His were:
1. I think . .
2. I can . .
3 I know. .
which as far as I am concerned is the best and most accurate conceivable six word summation of what Donald Trump is not about.
I think that’s because Trump didn’t tweet anything like that. He may have “liked” the offending tweet, however.
“Islam critics Dawkins and Hitchens?” Please, don’t pigeonhole them. They’re critics of ALL religions. Get your facts straight, you clickbait tabloid.
So this shooting means we need more immigration? Hopefully Trump gets 8 years to clean up our demographics before the national IQ falls any further. The shooter at OSU was a Somali migrant , 30 years old posing as 18.
I hope this is sarcasm. The shooter here wasn’t an immigrant, the victims are.
Fascinating! The national IQ just dropped quite a few points due to this one comment.
From whom? Just the OSU shooter or the Charleston shooter or the Sandy school shooter or the every other mall shooter? Let clean up everyone and start over shall we?
The shooter at OSU was a Somali migrant , 30 years old posing as 18.
The Somali migrant who was responsible for the attacks at OSU, which were horrific enough in their own right, did not shoot anyone. He attacked using a car and knife. And he was 18.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/28/somali-immigrant-identified-attacker-ohio-state/94563226/
Why do you feel the need to lie about such things?
Geez, the only thing you got right about the “OSU car-and-knife attack” (he was subdued with a gun) is that the guy was a Somali migrant (refugee, and minority).
Now then. Besides posing as an ignorant xenophobic troll, sent here to test our topical propaganda knowledge, please share what else you’re doing to help raise the national IQ.
What shooter at OSU? Are you talking about Ohio state?
The Israeli Defense Forces?! I might have known this was another radical zionist nutcase, like Anders Breivik. More terrorist from right wing, nationalist loonies.
Fault of the police for witholding info. Need to move faster on these stories to avoid rumors.
I’m sorry but this is really stupid, by all accounts they were reporting what was known at the time. What about all of the other outlets that were reporting last night or early morning that had no facts. I can’t stand FN, but this article is way out of place. Would have been better to focus on all of the false reporting. Sadly enough they were all doing it. At this point the police have released multiple false reports. I think the story is that people care more about the race or religion of the shooter, or number of shooters than the victims.
Confusion is always the norm with Canadian police disclosures, where far too much deference is paid to police authority and control of information… here’s how police have essentially reported this incident to now:
Update. We can now say that one of which one? is a suspect, and other one a witness, but can’t tell you which one is who, or who did what to whom, and who said what, or if anything was said by anyone, and when to whom, and who is who, and who they are, but both were suspects at one point, when we can’t say, or when that wasn’t anymore — one turned himself in but can’t say who, and who the other one is and what, who, the suspect and or witness, who may have been both, or the other said, what and when — oh, what’s all this talk about charges? We can’t say who, or which one, is, or was going to be charged with what and when and why and where this is to happen if ever. All we can confirm is: something happened — but can’t say what, who, when, where, why, how, to whom……
Suspect in Quebec Mosque Attack Quickly Depicted as a Moroccan Muslim. He’s a White Nationalist.
A white French Canadian who is, by all appearances, a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist.
“One should be careful about trying to infer too much from a hodgepodge of facebook “likes” and, this early, even anecdotal claims about his political views.”
So we gotta be careful about being quick to judge, but you decide to add White Nationalist to the article title. Umm…
But that’s really not the truth, is it? A Moroccan suspect was OFFICIALLY reported by a major Canadian outlet (Presse,) which was based on an early Police report on a suspect who turned out to be a witness. Facts. What then happened was that for a couple of hours, right wing blogs (such as jihadwatch) depicted it as an Islamist attack.
The truth is, only TWO official outlets (Daily Mail UK and the Montreal Gazzette) took that “Moroccan” information and depicted the attack as likely Islamist. In the past few hours, dozens of major outlets – surging with relief that a Muslim was not involved – are now proudly reporting that a WHITE MAN (their term) committed the crime and some – like The Intercept – are going so far as to call conspiracy to cover up a white crime, and a deliberate, widespread attempt to falsely tar Muslims.
Which is false.
What exactly is an “official” outlet? In any event, nothing in your comment shows the above article to be in error on any matter.
Just the word “shooters”, plural, is a fake right there, it seems.
There were 2 armed people involved. They were arrested. Thus “shooters”.
This mass murder already has a dollop of racism and thus is horrible enough without the false-flag bull$hit. Kindly, keep that garbage to yourself.
No. There was one shooter. The second man was detained as a witness. Try to keep up. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/30/six-dead-two-arrested-after-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque.html
There were 2 armed people involved. They were arrested. Thus “shooters”.
Even Fox news is now distancing themselves from that initial report:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/30/only-1-man-arrested-in-quebec-mosque-terror-attack-is-suspect-police-say.html
Because initial reports, made on the basis of fragmentary information from shocked victims and bystanders — is gospel truth and must not be challenged.
I suppose you’d like to be taken seriously right?
An armed person who is not shooting — and has not shot — is not a shooter.
“Islam critics Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens”
They’re critics of religion in general, not solely Islam.
One also having been a defender of Bush’s Iraq invasion, and now 5 years dead.
I’d be quite upset if he wasn’t neutral about Katy Perry… huh?
New Fox News headline: “Katy Perry linked to radical Islam?!?!?”
While Perry is a plagiarist, who makes bad taste remarks about tragedies, and associates with questionable people (HRC, Kanye), I don’t think she is connected with radical Islamist terrorism.
The biggest mistake progressive made was they stayed quite under Bush and complicit under Obama. Now with supremacist in complete control of the US government, silence is suicidal.
Considering 100% of mosque shootings in 2016 were black flag on black flag killings, in relatively certain how this will pan out.
Wtf does “liking” Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens have to do with being a white nationalist???
You are doing a heckuva job, Spicy.
That’s it, no more Canadians allowed!!
Canada’s public broadcaster only retracted the name of the 2nd person arrested (the one originally from Morocco) after noon on Monday, and then deleted their previous posts that included the names (writing this now within 3hrs of them doing that). And it was only just before noon that the police tweeted out that only one of the two people was actually a shooting suspect.
i.e. its not a right wing conspiracy to say one of the shooters was a Muslim of Moroccan origin … unless the police were in on it?
Trump is clearly the worst choice for President. A worthless piece of lying crap. He’ll never earn the title of President.
It is truly shocking how prescient George Orwell’s “1984” has become. It’s almost like someone is using it as a playbook.
Yes, who is your fav thought police officer? Mine was Obama.
More like “Duck Soup” (1933), which was about an out-of-control president who was a warmonger, a buffoon and an insulter of women.
Also, its disturbing how the white killer was initially portrayed… Please read the following article http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201701/29/01-5064348-six-musulmans-tues-dans-un-attentat-terroriste-a-quebec.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_meme_auteur_5064348_article_POS2
Glenn, you know better than to call this an act of terrorism. Muslims have to be the perpetrators of the violence in order for the media to call it terrorism.
We know this won’t be condemned as “fake news” by Trump. If Fox News said it, it is a fact to Trump. Expect Morocco to be added to the list of countries that are banned from immigration in 3…2…1…
Then explain how the IRA were labelled as terrorist for decades. I’m Irish and many of my fellow citizens were treated suspiciously by the UK, the US, Canada and elsewhere due to these connotations. ETA, the Basque nationalist group, have also been labelled terrorist for decades. Explain also how the Norwegian far-right man Anders Breivik who killed over 60 people has also been considered a terrorist. None of these groups/people are Islamist yet are considered terrorist. So no your point really doesn’t stand. A terrorist is anyone who is commits acts of extreme violence for a particular ideology whether that be nationalism, right-wing or left-wing extremism or Islam or some other religion.
Not so subtle Dawkins and Hitchens blame association there.
Fox has somewhat updated their story, though they don’t provide much detail about the French Quebecois suspect. I don’t follow their tweets to know if they’ve retracted those or not.
Yea they screwed up. But in their defense the police did arrest or detain 2 people, one was white and the other was of Moroccan descent. On the flip side the daily beast (Chelsea) reported immediately that it was 2 white supremacists that had nothing to do with this. They picked up a fake twitter feed from “Reuters News Break”.
Is the Trump admin. going to blame every homegrown terrorist on immigration?
If he’s a nationalist from Canada, he would have to be an Indian. Otherwise, he is simply a white supremicist.
What does that even mean? Canada isn’t a nation? The Inuit are from India? That a nationalist cannot be a white supremacist? Do you even use spellcheck?
Don’t quite understand rb’s comment either. Perhaps alluding to the fact that many First Nations people do not self-identify as exactly ‘Canadian’. Most of us are quite cool with that, understanding they had, have, their own ‘Nation.’
Great wit! Some didn’t get it. The only people who can justly say Canada is their nation (and hence act nationalistic about it) are those of indigenous descent. Canadians of Euro-descent: it ain’t your nation to be nationalistic about (according to rb)!
That’s what happens when you have open borders, someone comes along and takes it from you.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.