Radicalized Islamist Kills one Canadien Soldier - Injures Another

[riggerrob 643]

Zombies 1 - Canadian Armed Forces 0

According to Vancouver media, Ottawa gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Quebec to immigrant parents. He turned into a troubled youth who sought answers in crack pipes, violence, petty theft, jail and mosques. For a while, hMZB was one of hundreds of zombies stumbling around Vancouver's dreaded Downtown Eastside near the corner of Hastings and Main. I have driven through that intersection hundreds of times. I will cross that intersection again today, on my way to visit the War Memorial a mere 3 blocks west.

Bibeau also searched for answers at a nearby Burnaby mosque (that I have driven past a hundred times). Bibeau was expelled from that mosque because of his radical views and irrational behaviour.

Calling this troubled young man a "moslem" is a lazy form of racial profiling. He was a troubled young man searching for answers anywhere he could: crack pipe, violence, paranoia, petty theft, jail, mosque, etc.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Skyrad

I agree with everything you said. However I would say regarding:

Quote

I do not approve of the Progressive's PC agenda towards Islam

Theres difference between Islam and Islamist inspired terrorism.

I am confused. You say you agree with me, but then you let your own Political Correctness come out. I am sure we can agree that not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact given than there are over a billion Muslims in the world, it is safe the say that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But Islamists are nothing more than a militant perverse persuasion of Islam and need I remind you that Islam's Holy Book the Koran has countless violent references in it on how to kill the infidel (you know none believers of the Islamic faith). Make no mistake Islamists are still practicing Islam and if any Islamic person is preaching violence in yours, mine or some other western secular nation, stop the Politically Correct bull shit and call them out on it. This is not going to go well if we don't stand up for what we believe in. Our father's and father's father's were not the pussy we are now back in 1939 through 1945.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wmw999 2,460]

I guess the difference is that literal Bible believers don't really do all that stuff (e.g. Slaves), while a few militant Muslims do

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I'm not a Christian. They tried to make me into one, including my own family members. Heck I even tried to become one myself on more than one occasion to be closer in tune with some in my family including my mother. But the Agnostic in me won out. I guess I won't be with my family in heaven. Anyway because I am not a Christian, I am not about to defend Christians who have murdered or enslaved people based on their religious beliefs. But I don't see a Christian Caliphate going on. Do you?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wmw999 2,460]

That's where the first part of my statement came in. They don't seem to . But it's still unfair to say it's the religious dicta, when Christian dicta say some of the same things. It's the people

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[riggerrob 643]

wmw999

That's where the first part of my statement came in. They don't seem to . But it's still unfair to say it's the religious dicta, when Christian dicta say some of the same things. It's the people

Wendy P.

...................................................................................

Judaism, Christianity and islam are all based on the same book. Look long enough and hard enough and you will find a passage in the Talmud, Bible or Koran to justify any act of stupidity. I just wish those mad mullahs would lead by example ... instead of the cowardly practice of brain-washing lonely young men to do their dirty work.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Make no mistake Islamists are still practicing Islam

Yep like the westboro baptist church practice Christianity.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[BillyVance 34]

Skyrad

Quote

Make no mistake Islamists are still practicing Islam

Yep like the westboro baptist church practice Christianity.

I'm fucking sick of those stupid ass motherfuckers, but at least they don't bomb, rape and kill people.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[mirage62 0]

+1

FWIW I sick and tired of people that try to tie these two together. More politically correct BS.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

mirage62

+1

FWIW I sick and tired of people that try to tie these two together. More politically correct BS.

How about the KKK?

They didn't burn a "plus sign" or a "T", it was a cross.

Or how about the Irish "Troubles"? Protestant against Catholic. As vicious and ugly as any of the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Islam is the current "Bad Boy," but Christians are far from innocent over the years.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mirage62 0]

GMAB, dang...man.

One the KKK is terrible, the Crusades were terrible. You can ALWAYs, ALWAYS find something that is bad.

Dare I mention Hitler?

It really doesn't matter that the Christians were bad, it doesn't make the current "Bad boy" ok.

Bad is bad.

Btw Islam isn't bad, it's the interruption that can be "bad" and it - like the Crusades or KKK needs to be called just that. BAD.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Skyrad 0]

BillyVance

***

Quote

Make no mistake Islamists are still practicing Islam

Yep like the westboro baptist church practice Christianity.

I'm fucking sick of those stupid ass motherfuckers, but at least they don't bomb, rape and kill people.

true they leave that to the Christian fundamentalists who target abortion clinics.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Btw Islam isn't bad, it's the interruption that can be "bad"

And that was the only point I was making. Theres a difference between Islam and Islamists. (The latter being a perverted interpretation)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[winsor 236]

Skyrad

Quote

Btw Islam isn't bad, it's the interruption that can be "bad"

And that was the only point I was making. Theres a difference between Islam and Islamists. (The latter being a perverted interpretation)

Bullshit.

Read the Koran. It makes Mein Kampf look like an exercise in sweetness and light.

[Skyrad 0]

So does the Old Testament & Torah

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[winsor 236]

Skyrad

So does the Old Testament & Torah

The Tanakh is Bronze Age family lore. Its significance within the Tribe is mainly a combination of 'this is our Mr. Bad Example history' and 'you've come a long way, baby.' It was not put forth for general consumption.

I can think of no Parsha that fails to demonstrate our Patriarchs had a lousy batting average.

I have read both Tanakh and Koran, and there is no comparison, either in content or intent.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 3,008]

>The Tanakh is Bronze Age family lore. Its significance within the Tribe is mainly a
>combination of 'this is our Mr. Bad Example history' and 'you've come a long way,
>baby.' It was not put forth for general consumption.

So you read it with an eye towards history and what its intended usage was. Thus, instructions on how to kill every man, married woman and child in a village - but keep the virgins to rape - is not an instruction, but rather a history lesson on "what not to do."

That's fine, but keep in mind there are many people who view the Koran exactly the same way.

[winsor 236]

billvon

>The Tanakh is Bronze Age family lore. Its significance within the Tribe is mainly a
>combination of 'this is our Mr. Bad Example history' and 'you've come a long way,
>baby.' It was not put forth for general consumption.

So you read it with an eye towards history and what its intended usage was. Thus, instructions on how to kill every man, married woman and child in a village - but keep the virgins to rape - is not an instruction, but rather a history lesson on "what not to do."

That's fine, but keep in mind there are many people who view the Koran exactly the same way.

A) The record of the Tribe having engaged in such behavior some 3,000+ years ago (with the excuse of divine instruction) is not a matter of pride.

B) The Tanakh is a tribal history, not intended for universal consumption.

C) The Koran is the unrepentant ranting of an illiterate, violent pervert who got much of his inspiration from a garbled interpretation of the Tanakh. The parts this vicious deviate held most dear are those which best suited his malevolent inclinations.

D) The Hebrew scriptures have historical merit in the same sense as do any surviving writings of that era (though I think the earlier tale of Gilgamesh has more to recommend it).

E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy.

[riggerrob 643]

... E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy.

..................................................................................

Please explain how that makes those authors better than L. Ron Hubbard

[winsor 236]

riggerrob

Quote

... E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy.

..................................................................................

Please explain how that makes those authors better than L. Ron Hubbard

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Forgive me for overlooking elron, since he does make it a trifecta.

About the only differences that come to mind are that elron was at least semi-literate, was not known to have a flock of wives, and apparently was willing to wait until they hit puberty. Other than that they are like peas in a pod.

For the record, I am lumping together Islam, Mormon and Scientology as isms created from whole cloth by charismatic individuals. Joseph Smith and the Profit Muhammad were illiterate opportunists who used Judaism and Christianity as a loose basis for their diatribes, while L. Ron Hubbard was literate, if maladjusted, and synthesized a variety of bits and pieces into his particular ism, liberally infused with pure nonsense.

As a mental well being indicator, any of them work just fine. If you think it's silly, you may be okay; if it even begins to make sense to you, you are certifiably FUBAR.

Mein Kampf provides a baseline for malevolence that is greatly eclipsed by the Koran. The Profit Muhammad, far from being a 'Prince of Peace,' was a murderous, rapacious ne'er do well, and the recital of his diatribes reflects that.


BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,465]

winsor

***>The Tanakh is Bronze Age family lore. Its significance within the Tribe is mainly a
>combination of 'this is our Mr. Bad Example history' and 'you've come a long way,
>baby.' It was not put forth for general consumption.

So you read it with an eye towards history and what its intended usage was. Thus, instructions on how to kill every man, married woman and child in a village - but keep the virgins to rape - is not an instruction, but rather a history lesson on "what not to do."

That's fine, but keep in mind there are many people who view the Koran exactly the same way.

A) The record of the Tribe having engaged in such behavior some 3,000+ years ago (with the excuse of divine instruction) is not a matter of pride.

B) The Tanakh is a tribal history, not intended for universal consumption.

C) The Koran is the unrepentant ranting of an illiterate, violent pervert who got much of his inspiration from a garbled interpretation of the Tanakh. The parts this vicious deviate held most dear are those which best suited his malevolent inclinations.

D) The Hebrew scriptures have historical merit in the same sense as do any surviving writings of that era (though I think the earlier tale of Gilgamesh has more to recommend it).

E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy.

So your book of fables you read and discard the parts you find distasteful. The other book of fables you read and you highlight the parts you find distasteful.

Sounds like a prime example of confirmation bias to me.

[winsor 236]

SkyDekker

******>The Tanakh is Bronze Age family lore. Its significance within the Tribe is mainly a
>combination of 'this is our Mr. Bad Example history' and 'you've come a long way,
>baby.' It was not put forth for general consumption.

So you read it with an eye towards history and what its intended usage was. Thus, instructions on how to kill every man, married woman and child in a village - but keep the virgins to rape - is not an instruction, but rather a history lesson on "what not to do."

That's fine, but keep in mind there are many people who view the Koran exactly the same way.

A) The record of the Tribe having engaged in such behavior some 3,000+ years ago (with the excuse of divine instruction) is not a matter of pride.

B) The Tanakh is a tribal history, not intended for universal consumption.

C) The Koran is the unrepentant ranting of an illiterate, violent pervert who got much of his inspiration from a garbled interpretation of the Tanakh. The parts this vicious deviate held most dear are those which best suited his malevolent inclinations.

D) The Hebrew scriptures have historical merit in the same sense as do any surviving writings of that era (though I think the earlier tale of Gilgamesh has more to recommend it).

E) The Koran, like the Book of Mormon, was but the dictation of a cunning sociopath whose goals were power and an endless supply of strange pussy.

So your book of fables you read and discard the parts you find distasteful. The other book of fables you read and you highlight the parts you find distasteful.

Sounds like a prime example of confirmation bias to me.

Nice try.

I know Rabbis who are historical scholars, and are well aware that in the time frame in which the Tanakh was generated the norm was to include mythological constructs along with otherwise verifiable data. Read some of Mary Renault's work to get some idea of what I mean.

The Book of Esther, as an extreme case, takes place in an era that was comparatively well documented elsewhere, but no mention is made by other sources of the events described therein. This calls into question the veracity of the whole account - yet we celebrate Purim for its traditions anyway.

One does not have to accept the role played by Olympians to surmise that there is some factual basis for the Iliad or Odyssey. Since they were 'Epic Poems,' the principle of 'poetic license' comes into play.

Do I 'believe' anything in one book or another? No, I accept the plausible, subject to credible refutation.

Was there a 'Santa Claus?' Sort of - there was a Byzantine big shot named Nicholas who gained a reputation for his generosity and good deeds, and became 'Saint Nicholas.'

Is there a 'Santa Claus?' Sort of - there is the Thomas Nast variant that has become a part of popular culture, and has every bit as clear an identity and characteristics as Sherlock Holmes, Superman and Mickey Mouse.

The Tanakh is a compilation of characteristic Bronze Age into early Iron Age writings, some details of which are historically verifiable (within limits), and amounts to a heavily stylized history of a very large and very dysfunctional extended family.

The Koran and the Book of Mormon are, again, the ramblings of charismatic illiterates that used the Tanakh and Christian Scriptures for a claim to legitimacy, and served to entrench the power base of their respective sources.

Due to its recent origins, the Book of Mormon can be refuted line and verse in any and all of its original claims (Joseph Smith was a virtuoso bullshit artist). The Koran does not make as many specific claims subject to analysis, but those that it does are routinely false.

Scientology is complete nonsense coming and going. L. Ron Hubbard makes comic book authors look like masters of insight.


BSBD,

Winsor