Shooting at Quebec City Mosque

[Crazedwraith]

Six people have been killed and another eight wounded in a shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, police say.

Shots were fired at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre on Sunday night, where more than 50 people had gathered for evening prayers.

One suspect was arrested at the scene and another was arrested nearby. Police do not believe there are other suspects at large.

The Canadian authorities are treating the shooting as a terror attack.

"We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a centre of worship and refuge," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a statement.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard also referred to the shooting as a terrorist attack.

The dead were aged between about 35 and 70 years old, police spokeswoman Christine Coulombe said. Some of those injured were in a serious condition, she said.

Police said the area was secure and the situation was "under control". Thirty-nine people had left the mosque safely, they said.

Earlier, a witness had told Reuters news agency that up to three gunmen had been involved. The news agency also reported that a "heavily armed police tactical squad" had been seen entering the mosque.

The president of the mosque, Mohamed Yangui - who was not inside at the time - said the shooting had happened in the men's section of the mosque.

"Why is this happening here? This is barbaric," he said.

On its Facebook page the centre thanked the public "for the hundreds of messages of compassion".

In June last year the same mosque was the target of an Islamophobic incident when a pig's head was left in front of the building, with a card saying "bonne appetit".

Eating pork is forbidden in Islam

[cosmicalstorm]

The women were thankfully separated from the men according to Islamic gender apartheid tradition. Shooter seems to be a Muslim refugee. Did I get that right?... Is Trump ordering these incidents via some Manchurian Candidate program? Sweet jesus what a timing.

[Crazedwraith]

Shooter seems to be a Muslim refugee.

That would be ironic given Trudeau's recent statement, but I can't see that detail in the article I posted. What's your source on it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The women were thankfully separated from the men according to Islamic gender apartheid tradition. Shooter seems to be a Muslim refugee. Did I get that right?... Is Trump ordering these incidents via some Manchurian Candidate program? Sweet jesus what a timing.

\

You will provide sources for your attribution of the attack immediately. Also, you are on spectacularly thin ice at the moment.

[Grumman]

The women were thankfully separated from the men according to Islamic gender apartheid tradition. Shooter seems to be a Muslim refugee. Did I get that right?... Is Trump ordering these incidents via some Manchurian Candidate program? Sweet jesus what a timing.

You will provide sources for your attribution of the attack immediately. Also, you are on spectacularly thin ice at the moment.

It makes no mention of refugee status, but La Presse says one of the shooters was of Moroccan origin - "Deux agresseurs - dont un d'origine marocaine..."

[Wild Zontargs]

From the CBC live-blog:

We've learned that one of the suspects is of Moroccan descent.

To recap what we know:

The two men who've been arrested are Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir, sources have told Radio-Canada. Police haven't confirmed their names, citing the ongoing investigation.

The suspects were not known to police.

One of the suspects called police and told them his location and that he was armed. He waited for police to arrest him.

[...]

Suspects names confirmed

A Quebec court clerk has confirmed the names of the suspects to be Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir.

[Wild Zontargs]

Reports are now that only Alexandre Bissonnette is a suspect, the other person of interest has been re-classified as a witness.

[Simon_Jester]

Alexandre Bissonette, for reference, is a Quebec white guy, not a Muslim.

Interesting how cosmicalstorm (or the media sources he uncritically repeats these days) went from "two people of interest, one a Quebecois and one a Moroccan" to "the shooter was a Moroccan refugee," when in fact it turned out that the reality is "the shooter was a Quebecois and the Moroccan is a witness."

But hey, buckyballs for brains, what can you do?

[Flagg]

Alexandre Bissonette, for reference, is a Quebec white guy, not a Muslim.

Interesting how cosmicalstorm (or the media sources he uncritically repeats these days) went from "two people of interest, one a Quebecois and one a Moroccan" to "the shooter was a Moroccan refugee," when in fact it turned out that the reality is "the shooter was a Quebecois and the Moroccan is a witness."

But hey, buckyballs for brains, what can you do?

Invent a time machine and teach his ancestors the possible/likely consequences of generations of inbreeding?

[Wild Zontargs]

Alexandre Bissonette, for reference, is a Quebec white guy, not a Muslim.

Yup. Since there's no immediate mention of relevant mental health issues, it'll be interesting to hear what exact flavor of stupid this asshole is operating under. Shooting up a building full of people minding their own business is pretty clearly under the category of "not OK".

According to the CBC (and I'll admit I generally take them with a grain of salt, as their editorial tone has become rather less politically neutral over the last few decades, but they're probably still our best / least click-baity news outlet), he's an anthropology and political science student, and is "unfortunately known to several activists in Quebec City for his pro-Le Pen and anti-feminist positions at Laval University and on social networks", so he's probably a shit-disturber to begin with. Doesn't sound like your stereotypical Canadian version of a "dumb redneck" or anything. He apparently spoke with police about his actions, so hopefully we'll eventually get to hear just what the fuck he thought this was going to accomplish.

[mr friendly guy]

Australian news are reporting among other things that
a. He got bullied
b. He was displaying ultra nationalist white supremacist views according to those who clash with him online.
c.He had trouble making friends.

When can we expect the Right to apply the same standard to white supremacist, er I mean white nationalist ideology that they do with Islam?

[Dragon Angel]

When can we expect the Right to apply the same standard to white supremacist, er I mean white nationalist ideology that they do with Islam?

"They will never be a significant problem compared to the scale of Islam"

...is what I've always heard. Liberals too fall into this. It's incredibly maddening.

Those are, unfortunately, infamous last words...

[Flagg]

Australian news are reporting among other things that
a. He got bullied
b. He was displaying ultra nationalist white supremacist views according to those who clash with him online.
c.He had trouble making friends.

When can we expect the Right to apply the same standard to white supremacist, er I mean white nationalist ideology that they do with Islam?

I don't know, what's the temperature in hell?

[cosmicalstorm]

He was a Nazi Troll Trump supporter so I let my anti-Islamic bias get the better of me. I expected the first such attack to occur inside the US.

[Simon_Jester]

So, the lesson is to drop your anti-Islamic bias like it was a ticking bomb, then. Right?

Since it just led you to take a neutral statement and 'accidentally' twist it into something that is literally the opposite of true. You took "two persons of interest, a Quebecois and a Moroccan," and assumed that the Quebecois was presumably harmless, while the Moroccan must be an EVIL MUSLIM KILLER.

When in fact, the Quebecois was the killer, and the Moroccan was an innocent witness.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is absolutely horrifying, both on the obvious human level, and for the larger context in which it occurs.

Canada has up until now come across as pretty much the "last sane man" in the western world, voting out the anti-Muslim/anti-refugee Harper and replacing him with Trudeau while country after country was swinging hard to the Right (Brexit, Trump, etc.).

Canadians need to be politically engaged and push back strongly against this kind of bigotry before it becomes entrenched here as well.

It is particularly disgusting that Trump's White House latched onto this attack and tried to use it as an argument for their Muslim Ban. I'd actually like to see Canada put sanctions on the US at this point (particularly travel bans on Trump administration officials and sanctions targeting Trump business). Though rationally I know that Canada is unlikely, to put it mildly, to start an economic conflict with its greatest trading partner, whatever the provocation.

[Flagg]

So, the lesson is to drop your anti-Islamic bias like it was a ticking bomb, then. Right?

Since it just led you to take a neutral statement and 'accidentally' twist it into something that is literally the opposite of true. You took "two persons of interest, a Quebecois and a Moroccan," and assumed that the Quebecois was presumably harmless, while the Moroccan must be an EVIL MUSLIM KILLER.

When in fact, the Quebecois was the killer, and the Moroccan was an innocent witness.

Stop. You'll just get a headache. I mean I fully expect "Well Muslims are more likely blargle blargle fart". Unless he just runs away.

[Dragon Angel]

Cosmicalstorm's statement is pretty much the epitome of what has been building up. All that negative propaganda against Muslims, decades of news media focusing primarily with few exceptions on Muslims as terrorists, decades of popular culture using Muslims as villains, decades of politics treating Muslims as threats to be scrutinized and profiled...

What did people think would happen after that?

Build up enough cultural inertia against them, while throwing in supposed "rationalist" dickshits like Dawkins and Harris adding fuel to the fire, and the world will end up panicking over a boogeyman. Unfortunately, this boogeyman is made up of billions of human lives that may suffer for decades more, as long as this inertia does not shift.

[Joun_Lord]

I think both sides, and I am aware this is about as likely to happen as me to fall up a flight of steps and come out looking like Brad Pitt, need to stop being so biased and stop jumping to damn conclusions.

Moronic right wing fuckers of course want any attack to be Muslims. Shooting? Muslim. Bombing? Muslim. Somebody got ran over? Muslim. Stubbed their toe? Muslim. Its easy to blame outsiders for problems, easy to think there is nothing wrong internally, everything is everyone elses fault, and they are right.

Of course left wing fuckers have the same problem of wanting to blame any attack on white Christians. If the attack is done by a white guy it backs their narrative that problems are of Christians and/or white people, that Muslims aren't a problem, that there aren't external problems, everything is everyone elses fault, and they are right.

Both are right to a degree. White dudes mad that non-white dudes are snogging white women and believing in non-white Gawds act like the tiny brained morons they are, they commit terrorist attacks no matter what Fox News says. But there are problems with Muslim extremists too, there are problems with bringing trouble from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and America, they commit terror too. Both the white Christian extremists and Muslim extremists are similar, are part of a regressive ideology that has no place in the modern world and polite society. Both are likely to hurt people, there are plenty of examples of both doing horrible shit.

But both are also different in that ones existence backs up the talking points of either conservatives and liberals and the other makes their views look bad. People are so committed to being right, to not being wrong they will automatically assume any attack, any disturbance is done in a manner that makes them look better.

Anyway it goes, white, muslim, Christian, whatever, I hope there is a hell just so the piece of shit or pieces of shit can fuck off to there.

[Shroom Man 777]

No one denies the danger posed by Muslim extremists and the toxicity of the societies and ideologies they stem from.

But. Your whole "but both sides!" false equivalency seeks some kind of comfort zone in some perceived middle ground at the expense of avoiding the acknowledgement of how your local and national power structures (that disproportionately affect the rest of the world) are imbalanced and unjust and are mistreating lots of people. And this is urgent and pressing precisely due to the fact that they are the official power structures and hierarchies of society (whose influence and impact have been demonstrated throughout history) - rather than some fringe radicalized counter-culture.

For fuck's sake, it's not as if Trump's cabinet is full of gangbangers or wannabe jihadis. gangbangers and wannabe jihadis are dregs of society and alienated young shits that due to their powerlessness wallow in crap and go to die in the sidewalks or get one way tickets to Syria and/or engage in some ultimately suicidal outbursts that take bystanders with them. But that is precisely why they're nobodies. In comparison to the malignant people who are (and have been) in positions of power, in charge of policies, attuned to large segments of the population, populations that historical context has shown to have exploited other minority groups.

[Shroom Man 777]

God damn this preposterous hesitancy - why the hell do people have to keep on prefacing that "the other side can be just as bad" when calling out something actually appalling? Such gutlessness - the fear of being called out for being partisan or unfair paralyzes people from actually addressing actual ails. It's like those shitty "middle ground neutral" trends in news, "a man alleges that the Earth is flat though scientists release statements purportedly disagreeing with this..."

It's false equivalency that's normalizing the preposterous. "Oh let's find a SENSIBLE NEUTRAL middle ground between segregation/Jim Crow and Civil Rights/desegregation! Because those loud protesters are so rude!"

It's like saying "this societal norm of alienating those who are different is bad, it's bad that those who are different are not only emotionally/psychologically/mentally abused but also physically abused and it's bad that government policies discriminate these people..." and then prefacing that with the disclaimer that "oh vocal advocates and activists who faced stigmatization their entire lives are also exactly just as bad because they write such mean things in tumblr or shout at people in college! And that's exactly the same amount of badness!"

It's like the President in Dr. Strangelove.

Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm... I'm sorry, too, Dmitri... I'm very sorry... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well... I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are... So we're both sorry, all right?... All right.

[Flagg]

Cosmicalstorm's statement is pretty much the epitome of what has been building up. All that negative propaganda against Muslims, decades of news media focusing primarily with few exceptions on Muslims as terrorists, decades of popular culture using Muslims as villains, decades of politics treating Muslims as threats to be scrutinized and profiled...

What did people think would happen after that?

Build up enough cultural inertia against them, while throwing in supposed "rationalist" dickshits like Dawkins and Harris adding fuel to the fire, and the world will end up panicking over a boogeyman. Unfortunately, this boogeyman is made up of billions of human lives that may suffer for decades more, as long as this inertia does not shift.

I have no love for Islam, it's just as ridiculous as the other Abrahamite sects and I don't mind criticism of its more harmful dogma, especially where women are concerned, as long as similar or worse bullshit from other religions is criticized. When you just focus on one group of people it makes you a cunt. That said, it's not so much Muslims, its Arab (assumed) Muslims (or any brown skinned person with a turban since Sikhs have been targeted by ignorant inbred gun-fuckers). I mean all you have to do is look at the Boston Marathon bombing where allegedly credible news outlets were releasing pictures of totally innocent Arabic appearing young men and saying "These are the bombers! Go lynch arrest them!" And then it turned out that no, it was a couple of literal caucasians behind it.

But yeah, this incident proved the point, as the usual suspects in the racist media and the dumbass peanut gallery here immediately seized upon a guy being Moroccan and claiming/assuming he was a refugee (I'm not aware of any conflict in Morocco that would produce refugees, but "brown and Muslim!"). It would be funny (in a non-gallows humor way) if it weren't so rage inducing and depressing.

[Flagg]

I think both sides, and I am aware this is about as likely to happen as me to fall up a flight of steps and come out looking like Brad Pitt, need to stop being so biased and stop jumping to damn conclusions.

Moronic right wing fuckers of course want any attack to be Muslims. Shooting? Muslim. Bombing? Muslim. Somebody got ran over? Muslim. Stubbed their toe? Muslim. Its easy to blame outsiders for problems, easy to think there is nothing wrong internally, everything is everyone elses fault, and they are right.

Of course left wing fuckers have the same problem of wanting to blame any attack on white Christians. If the attack is done by a white guy it backs their narrative that problems are of Christians and/or white people, that Muslims aren't a problem, that there aren't external problems, everything is everyone elses fault, and they are right.

Both are right to a degree. White dudes mad that non-white dudes are snogging white women and believing in non-white Gawds act like the tiny brained morons they are, they commit terrorist attacks no matter what Fox News says. But there are problems with Muslim extremists too, there are problems with bringing trouble from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and America, they commit terror too. Both the white Christian extremists and Muslim extremists are similar, are part of a regressive ideology that has no place in the modern world and polite society. Both are likely to hurt people, there are plenty of examples of both doing horrible shit.

But both are also different in that ones existence backs up the talking points of either conservatives and liberals and the other makes their views look bad. People are so committed to being right, to not being wrong they will automatically assume any attack, any disturbance is done in a manner that makes them look better.

Anyway it goes, white, muslim, Christian, whatever, I hope there is a hell just so the piece of shit or pieces of shit can fuck off to there.

Nice, a golden mean fallacy wrapped in hope for eternal torture for the "bad guys". You're really pathetic.

[Simon_Jester]

God damn this preposterous hesitancy - why the hell do people have to keep on prefacing that "the other side can be just as bad" when calling out something actually appalling? Such gutlessness - the fear of being called out for being partisan or unfair paralyzes people from actually addressing actual ails. It's like those shitty "middle ground neutral" trends in news, "a man alleges that the Earth is flat though scientists release statements purportedly disagreeing with this..."

It's false equivalency that's normalizing the preposterous. "Oh let's find a SENSIBLE NEUTRAL middle ground between segregation/Jim Crow and Civil Rights/desegregation! Because those loud protesters are so rude!"

It's like saying "this societal norm of alienating those who are different is bad, it's bad that those who are different are not only emotionally/psychologically/mentally abused but also physically abused and it's bad that government policies discriminate these people..." and then prefacing that with the disclaimer that "oh vocal advocates and activists who faced stigmatization their entire lives are also exactly just as bad because they write such mean things in tumblr or shout at people in college! And that's exactly the same amount of badness!"

It's like the President in Dr. Strangelove.

Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm... I'm sorry, too, Dmitri... I'm very sorry... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well... I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are... So we're both sorry, all right?... All right.

I think the root cause is that people have this tremendous mental block against criticizing people they see as powerful and vengeful.

Our inner monkey-brain likes to latch onto people who successfully use violence against their enemies as 'cool' or as the 'alpha male' figures of our society. To reflexively hesitate to say bad things about someone with a history of punishing people who say things they don't like. This is a survival mechanism for tribes of apes, because it results in all the smaller apes NOT getting torn apart by the biggest ape.

But it's not JUST a reluctance to speak out against powerful figures when they're all up in your face and in a position to tear your head off. It comes with this inner auto-censor, we hesitate to even THINK nasty thoughts about powerful and vengeful people we see as the leaders of 'our' society. There are people in whom this tendency is relatively weak, and they are known for speaking truth to power and confronting it.

But there are also people in whom it is so strong that they are just plain incapable of ever denouncing the people at the top of their hierarchy. They just Can Not Say "you know what, the guy in charge, despite being corrupt and powerful and married to your mother, is a real low-down asshole who's doing the wrong things here." Or "you know that group of people who insults and doxxes people on the Internet? They are unabashedly wrong, and the low-status group they're harassing are not wrong.

The very fact that a group of people is being targeted by the alpha of their pack is, to these sub-beta-male personalities, sufficient proof that they deserve to be targeted. Even if what the alpha is doing is kind of harsh, they still "see both sides," because they're hardwired to just never really dissent from the actions of their perceived alpha.

This same kind of person, if they lived in Syria, would be trying to find a golden mean between ISIL and "not-get-conquered-by-ISILism." Because they can "see both sides." Well, actually they know one side is massively in the wrong here, they don't really "see both sides." But the problem is, the side in the wrong is the side that seems like a big badass winning machine to their inner monkey-brain. And they're incapable of saying "yeah, the powerful guys are assholes who deserve to lose this one, and we'll sort it all out later after they've been put down hard."

EDIT:

Give people like this enough time, of course, and they unfailingly adapt to the new hierarchy and forget they ever really had misgivings. That's why it's a survival strategy- because you don't take the risk of actually fighting the bad guys when they muscle in on your society.

Unless of course the new hierarchy of bad guys LOSES, at which point the sub-beta-male will blubber endlessly about how they were "just following orders" and 'doing what everyone else was doing.'

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't think it has to do with the power being wielded by the "alpha" figure... it's more like just... a hesitancy to become partial to one side, even if one side is objectively more or less XYZ than the other.

It's like the whole "we gotta hear both sides out and be fair" deal with evolution and creationism in textbooks, in conspiracy theories and ancient aliens in History Channels, let's listen to these "alternative sources" when it comes to health or history or science or the Moon Landing or the 9/11 attacks, etc.