This is how Reuters reported on it Monday morning:
"A Canadian man who was killed by police after trying to run over two soldiers in Quebec 'had become radicalized', the government said after the first such incident since the country joined the fight against Islamic State militants.
The Canadian government did not specify what it meant by radicalised but in the past has used the term to refer to Canadians who become supporters of militant Islamic groups..."
At least the Reuters blokes had the decency to leave open the slight possibility that the would-be killer was, uh, had become, erm, a fohollower of the, umm, prophet.
And now for the coverage provided to the good citizens of the State of Belgium by our self-proclaimed 'quality newspaper' De Standaard:
"RADICALISED MAN RUNS OVER TWO SOLDIERS IN CANADA.
In Canada police has killed a man who earlier had run over two soldiers. The incident took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in Quebec. The perpetrator would be a radicalised man. One of the soldiers was wounded very badly, the other one received only light injuries..."
It's unbelievable (or, actually not), but De Standaard manages to COMPLETELY OMIT any reference to the Religion of Peace. Jihad, muslim, islamic? Dude, where's my adjective? A radicalized man? Golly, radicalized how? Prolly an archconservative rightwinger, a devout catholic, a Canadian teabagger version. Must be.
Don't believe me? I just checked out the page in question on De Standaard Online, and at the time of writing it's October 22, almost 1am in the morning. Nossir, still no JIM acronym:
One actually has to wonder, what a complete clusterfuck your brains have to be to be functioning at De Standaard's editorial staff? EACH AND EVERY DAY brings us more news about the appalling nature of the wicked moon cult known as 'islam', the brain'child' - make that brainmonster - of a leering, illiterate, murderous pervert. Each day brings more evidence of what islam is capable of once it gets hold of, and/or dictates, a man or woman's worldview. And yet the editors and columnists at De Standaard stubbornly keep insisting, even with the facts whizzing about their heads and ears, that islam has nothing to do with the steadily growing torrent of information that points in exactly the opposite direction: pure unadulterated islam is the motor behind the terror.
But NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!! The Vision of the Sophisticates shall prevail!
So, no mention of islam in the above article. The man was just.... "radicalized", you know. Happens all the time. No big deal.
Like I said, it's late, or rather very early, but still I'm going to do the job the De Standaard's editors are supposed to do - provide decent information. Got that, you assholes? Doing YOUR WORK for you again, and for free! Well, it did not take me long to fetch some data re the killer's identity and motives. His name is - was, the fucker's a goner - Martin Couture Rouleau, a 25-year old divorced loser with issues with his ex-wife and child. He converted to islam in early 2013 and changed his name to Martin Ahmad Rouleau, a name he also used on an Islamic-themed Facebook page featuring a plethora of Quranic verses. His Twitter profile under the name @AhmadRouleau sports the ISIS flag. A comment he left on Time Online last May reads: "Islam is the only true religion. Anyone who want scientific proof of God that your terrorist Zionism Rothschild media hide, contact me or add me if you re open minded...”
He had also grown a beard and had started wearing a turban:
But, NONE OF THAT qualifies for linking islam with Martin Ahmad's Rouleaus actions on Monday.
At least, according to Quality Newspaper De Standaard.