So are you really trying to pretend he didn't know the family walking around in traditional of South Asian Muslims were Muslims or that it wasn't intentional?How many perpetrators of acts of terrorism give themselves up willingly ?
So are you really trying to pretend he didn't know the family walking around in traditional of South Asian Muslims were Muslims or that it wasn't intentional?How many perpetrators of acts of terrorism give themselves up willingly ?
Except if the guy confessed it.Whichever one is true, the police were very reckless to conclude a motive that quick....
Strange that you have no problem calling out Franky's obsessive support of anti-Israel terrorists but want to go to lengths to deny the likelihood that this was terrorism.Nice try Frank no facts, so what slogans did he shout? no one has said or knows
he “may” Have had swastikas, Not he did,
he was just involved in an incident and he’s asking somebody to call the cops that is pretty normal
Nobody they’ve spoken to has said he ever said anything racist whatsoever it’s funny how you automatically jump to the conclusion he is with no evidence.
Glad you are so concerned about jumping to conclusions based on what the police said while never shown any issue with people assuming a killing by a darker skinned person must be Islamic terror even when the police say it isn't.The problem with identifying the act as racially motivated terrorism is that, whether that turns out to be true or not,: a) trolls will push the buttons of liberals by pretending to support the attack (those kek comments are undoubtedly trolls), and b) real white supremacists will try to take credit for the event.
You shouldn't have even concluded yet that he was radicalized at all. You should be waiting for reliable evidence to be shared by the police/crown.
its facts where is the PROOF it was a terrorist act?Strange that you have no problem calling out Franky's obsessive support of anti-Israel terrorists but want to go to lengths to deny the likelihood that this was terrorism.
No hate crime charges, the guy is mentally ill . His schoolmates said he wasn't all there, played video games loud in the middle of night, he laughed when he got busted.its facts where is the PROOF it was a terrorist act?
oh that's right there is NONE not one bit of info has been released proving it was anything
Are you confused why the police haven't hand delivered the case file to you yet?its facts where is the PROOF it was a terrorist act?
...
I don't want the fileAre you confused why the police haven't hand delivered the case file to you yet?
IJVCanada is calling out B'nai Brith for Islamaphobia.To bad the police aren't concerned about snowflakes who want to defend people who kill random Muslims.
Strange how you come into these threads claiming be a supporter of Muslim rights then hop right over to defending forcing some Muslims to live in apartheid rule.Strange that you have no problem calling out Franky's obsessive support of anti-Israel terrorists but want to go to lengths to deny the likelihood that this was terrorism.
who cares what someone posts on twitterIJVCanada is calling out B'nai Brith for Islamaphobia.
I'm sure you'll back that call as well.
How about Error O'Toole who said this:Not the first time Doug has acted before he had the facts. In fact, there's been an entire pandemic of errors like that.
As usual, you're not getting it. There ARE circumstances where the perpetrator of a crime identifies himself as racially motivated and/or a terrorist. Often, they make that clear by what they say to the victims right at the crime scene and/or what they say online about their intentions. In this case, the police did not disclose they had information of that sort. If the accused actually gave a statement to police that he intended to kill these people because of their race/religion, what is the reason the police haven't said that? In cases where the accused doesn't identify himself as racially motivated or a terrorist it can be very difficult to establish that motivation. It would certainly take more than one day of police work to put that evidence together.Glad you are so concerned about jumping to conclusions based on what the police said while never shown any issue with people assuming a killing by a darker skinned person must be Islamic terror even when the police say it isn't.
Sorry but the police would be held accountable (in whatever way police are held accountable) if they made the claims about a hate motivation without evidence.
The police said they are withholding evidence for the court case, that releasing it could imperil their case.As usual, you're not getting it. There ARE circumstances where the perpetrator of a crime identifies themself as racially motivated and/or a terrorist. Often, they make that clear by what they say to the victims right at the crime scene and/or what they say online about their intentions. In this case, the police did not disclose they had information of that sort. If the accused actually gave a statement to police that he intended to kill these people because of their race/religion, what is the reason the police haven't said that? In cases where the accused doesn't identify themselves as racially motivated or a terrorist it can be very difficult to establish that motivation. It would certainly take more than one day of police work to put that evidence together.
Police need to be careful not to inflame racial tensions when these kinds of conclusions are not indisputable. No reasonable person should trust that police will always get this kind of subtle analysis right. If they have indisputable evidence, they should release it. Otherwise, they may end up making a number of politicians look foolish, and will have provoked strong feelings of grievance unnecessarily. Once people have a sense of grievance, sh#t happens that shouldn't happen.
I know that Wikipedia is your God (says so much about you), but here is a contrary view:Dutch, no.
Dutch and Plattdeutsch are different languages, albeit related. You would find variants of the same name, but the name would not be exactly the same. I'm guessing i.e. - "Veltman" = Dutch. "Feldmann" = German.
"Feld" = German for field or countryside. "Veldt" = Dutch or Afrikaans.
Yep. O'Toole is making the same mistake, and I'm even less a fan of him.How about Error O'Toole who said this:
So he put the cart before the horse as well??
Not credible. It may have come from Prussian Feltmann or something like that. But Veltman is a Dutch name.I know that Wikipedia is your God (says so much about you), but here is a contrary view:
Veltman Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
Learn about the Veltman Family Crest, its Origin and History. Where did the Veltman surname come from? Where did the family branches go?www.houseofnames.com
Also, Veldt may mean Dutch or Afrikaans (I'm not sure about that, I'm more familiar with its use to describe African grasslands), but VELT does not. But, of course, you knew that even as you posted. Notice , of all the variations on the spelling of this surname, none of them are Veldtman. It goes without saying that many Dutch have German (Prussian) heritage.
Another test of TERB logic.Not credible. It may have come from Prussian Feltmann or something like that. But Veltman is a Dutch name.
The guy is your responsibility.
He's Dutch, DO.I know that Wikipedia is your God (says so much about you), but here is a contrary view:
Veltman Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
Learn about the Veltman Family Crest, its Origin and History. Where did the Veltman surname come from? Where did the family branches go?www.houseofnames.com
Also, Veldt may mean Dutch or Afrikaans (I'm not sure about that, I'm more familiar with its use to describe African grasslands), but VELT does not. But, of course, you knew that even as you posted. Notice , of all the variations on the spelling of this surname, none of them are Veldtman. It goes without saying that many Dutch have German (Prussian) heritage.