Monday, January 30, 2017

Quebec City Mosque Attacker was White, Non-Muslim

Alexandre Bissonnette (from his Facebook page) 

This morning I reported that the two suspects in custody in the Quebec City mosque attack had been identified as being of "Arab origin" and "Quebec origin." Soon, reports of "Arab origin" became "Moroccan" or "Moroccan-Canadian" And it was also claimed that the two suspects were students at Laval University - a school with a large Muslim population. A few hours ago two names were leaked - Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir - seemingly confirming the earlier reports.

However, the police just released Khadir, designating him as a mere witness. Bissonnette is now the sole suspect in custody. Apparently, he turned himself in after the attack, fourteen miles from the mosque.

There is no evidence that Bissonnette is Muslim.

Indeed, screenshots have now been posted of his Facebook page, showing that he is a supporter of various "right-wing" causes and politicians - including Donald Trump. And there are reports that he had an active social media presence opposing refugees and feminism.

Update: February 3: There are other reports that he "liked" some left-wing politicians and causes and had "pro-environment" views.

All reports (from an unknown number of original sources) suggested that there were two or three gunmen. But police are now going on the theory that Bissonnette was the lone shooter.

One widely circulated story quoted a witness claim they overheard a gunman shout "Allahu Akbar." It is unclear what we should make of this now. It's possible it was a mistake in the confusion of the attack (as the victims were Muslim, someone may have shouted out something similar). Or it could have been yelled by the attacker as a sort of sick joke, similar to the alleged words of the Munich shooter a few months ago.  


  1. Of course, you know the Left will run with this and blame *all* Trump supporters for this guy -- even though his support for Trump is irrelevant because he's Canadian.

    We're going to see more of this, unfortunately. This is where the "adults" have to get going, and fast.

    First, Trump and his supporters must publicly disown this man. Second, any responsible people left in the Democratic Party (which might not be any) must stop using identity politics as a vehicle for political power. Identity politics are destroying his country, especially from the Left. Then again, the Left *wants* this country destroyed, and since the Democratic Party is run by Leftist minions....

    1. What??? Why on earth should President Trump have to "publicly disown" this nut? There is absolutely no reason for President Donald Trump to acknowledge this loon at all, to say he should makes no sense. Just because some crazy likes a certain political figure, does not implicate a political figure, or put a responsibility on them in any way. President Trump is enforcing American LAW, nothing more. This has become entirely idiotic.

    2. And that is 1 shooting. Let's run the numbers on the numbers of shootings of non-Muslims by Muslims. We are about 1,000,000 to 1 here. Let's keep a perspective.

    3. As soon as Trudeau denounces the muslim gang rape of a swedish girl shown live on facebook...

  2. Trump is in under no obligation to denounce any actions of any of his putative supporters.

    It is THEY who support Him and this call is for Cucks to feel good about themselves because virtue signaling.

    FAR more - virtually uncountable more - are the innocent lives put to death by abortion and not one -NOT ONE - POTUS has denounced any abortionist by name.

    Apologising for the actions of others is Cuckism at its most reprehensible and rebarbative existence.

  3. When the terrorist, Unibomber, was found to have had a copy of Al Gore's "Earth in the balance" did Clinton denounce him?

  4. Just cannot fathom why this piece was titled:

    "Quebec City Mosque Attacker was a Right-Wing Trump Supporter"

    I get that perhaps the first reports were mistaken in respect of this young man being Islamic, but aren't you over-compensating a bit with your correction and boldly thrusting Trump's name prominently into focus?

    1. Maybe I over-compensated, but I thought it was justified. I think he clearly is a Trump supporter if that term has any meaning. And the "sensational" headline was partly a comment on the surprising nature of the final answer to the ghoulish Wheel of Fortune game we were all playing. I thought that that "surprise" was news in and of itself.

      I'm a Trump supporter, as well as a supporter of Trump's recent actions. And, as you know, I think Islam is a scourge. But I think it's important not to prevaricate on something like this.

      I agree completely with Kathleen that Trump is under no obligation to "publicly disown" him, etc.

      Lone-wolf anti-Muslim attacks are not unheard of - Anders Breivik being the most infamous example. I think what initially threw many of us (including me) was the seeming unanimity that there were 2 or 3 attackers. Co-ordinated (2+ people) anti-Muslim terrorism IS unheard of - at least in the contemporary West. Let's pray it stays that way.

    2. When you say things like "islam is a scourge" and when Trump or his allies say things like that, you encourage and abet this kind of behavior in which someone takes it upon themselves to fight this scourge with bullets. The result is that innocent people die.

      While you and others are not directly responsible, you implicitly condone this kind of action through your rhetoric in attacking a broad swath of people rather than attacking people who behave in an immoral way whatever their affiliation.

      Same goes for hose who cast all Trump supporters as immoral and evil. Any rhetoric that calls for blanket condemnation of a wide group of people is irresponsible and the more it is done, the more the unhinged will decide to take those words and turn them into violent action under the banner of their moral certainty.

    3. I didn't say "Muslims are a scourge." I said "Islam is a scourge." I attacked an ideology, not a group of people. And for what it's worth, I think Muslims themselves are the greatest victims of that ideology. Among other things, there are currently hundreds of millions of Muslim women living as quasi-slaves. It is they who will benefit the most if and when Islam is pushed back or recedes.

      And I should say that Trump and his closest political allies do not generally speak of "Islam" but rather "Radical Islam" - presumably they mean that strain of Islam that Muslims who happen to behave in an immoral way use to justify their actions. It's not clear to me why you wouldn't agree with that labeling strategy.

    4. I'm not sure if you get these updates, Liam, but for what it's worth, I changed the headline (4 days later!). I think I did overcompensate, and some additional information has come out that makes things more murky as to Bissonnette's motives.

  5. The islamophobia legislation now has its genuine 'cause celeb'. The seriousness of the crime will demand teeth. Expect tremendous ease in legal harassment , enhanced law fare, databases, tracking, and public shaming.