• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
  • April 2024 Weather Video of the Month
    Post your nominations now!
Logo 468x120

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evan said:
I guess he was clued in enough not to post fake news like you are.

You don't think he knew about witness reports that the shooters had Québécois accent? It only took about 10 seconds of Googling to contradict the fake news you posted.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686



Now please explain how a recent Syrian refugee would have a strong Quebec accent.
Click to expand...



Evan, is it possible that a Quebec citizen became radicalized ? I assume you are not discounting the possibility one of the attackers could have been a Canadian gone bad.
 
Matt said:
Evan, is it possible that a Quebec citizen became radicalized ? I assume you are not discounting the possibility one of the attackers could have been a Canadian gone bad.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense to me that a radicalized Muslim would attack a mosque. It is so highly illogical that I don't see more than an extremely tiny chance that a Muslim was a perpetrator.

There were numerous witnesses that backed up the strong Québécois accent eyewitness statement. The only people I saw pushing a radical Islam angle were Trump supporters and alt-right trolls. What SL posted was ridiculous. Two Syrian refugees opening fire on a Mosque? Are people so biased to overstate Muslims as a threat that they now have them attacking a Mosque?

The Mosque was not a Shia specific Mosque. In fact, it seems to be primarily if not all Sunni. The "second suspect" that started being reported by media last night is a Moroccan. 99% chance he is a Muslim. 99.9% he is Sunni. So there is no sectarian argument here. So a Muslim attacking a Mosque and shooting people seems beyond illogical. Doesn't fit any known motive or pattern.

The police and media often make mistakes in reference to second shooters after an attack. I wouldn't be shocked if this guy was not actually a shooter or attacker and somehow got caught up in it. He could even be a witness. The possible motives for a Morrocan to do this wouldn't include teaming up with a Quebecer. So I think there is less than a 1% chance this is related to Islamic terror in any way. I never rule anything out until all the facts are in, but it would be highly illogical and doesn't fit with past Islamic terror attacks and motives.
 
Kory said:
How could this attack ever happen? One of the weapons used was "an AK-47" per police. That gun is restricted under Canadian law. And then a handgun requires strict licensing to get. It's just baffling how evil people will get their hands on things, regardless of law, to commit horrific acts.

And I'm reading one of the suspects is of Moroccan origin and they shouted "Allahu akbar."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170500/Five-dead-GUNMEN-open-fire-Mosque-Quebec-City.html
Click to expand...

I urge people to consider the logic of this. What is more likely? A Muslim killing members of his own branch of Islam in a terror attack in a non-Muslim country and shouting an Islamic slogan, or a non-Muslim attacker shouting that slogan as sarcasm or a form of vitriol?

From a criminal and terrorism psychology point of view, and based off of prior known Islamic terror attacks. There is simply nothing that suggests a radicalized or even disaffected Muslim would target a Mosque for a terror attack.
 
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
Evan said:
I urge people to consider the logic of this. What is more likely? A Muslim killing members of his own branch of Islam in a terror attack in a non-Muslim country and shouting an Islamic slogan, or a non-Muslim attacker shouting that slogan as sarcasm or a form of vitriol?

From a criminal and terrorism psychology point of view, and based off of prior known Islamic terror attacks. There is simply nothing that suggests a radicalized or even disaffected Muslim would target a Mosque for a terror attack.
Click to expand...
I'm only posting info I read on reputable sites and letting people make their own interpretation.

2 of the attackers have been identified: Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir.
 
Kory said:
I'm only posting info I read on reputable sites and letting people make their own interpretation.

2 of the attackers have been identified: Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir.
Click to expand...

And that information is no longer correct. I realize you didn't know that when you posted.

I'm simply saying that applying a bit of a logic filter to how things are reported can do a lot to stem inaccurate media reports and improper conclusions.



 
Last edited:
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
So President Trump has downgraded the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military and the Director of National Security from our National Security Council and have replaced them with the former head of a tabloid news reporting organization. Can someone tell me how this makes any sense?
 
gangstonc said:
Quebec police have said Mohamed Khadir is no longer a suspect.
Click to expand...

Well... I said I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he wasn't an attacker. Police sources are now saying he is actually a witness.

It makes sense if you think about it logically. Although not confirmed by police on the record, it has been alleged that both the witness and the suspect attend the same University. Perhaps that is a coincidence or a miscommunication, but if true it potentially explains why the police detained both.

One could speculate that perhaps they knew each other and Khadir had even invited the suspect to the Mosque while having no longer of his intentions. Police sources have said they were both in their 20s.

As I said, it never made sense that a Sunni Muslim was going to walk into a Mosque and Canada and start shooting other Sunni Muslims (speculation that the victims were Sunni. Not confirmed yet). It just boggled the mind and was too neat of a narrative after Trump's immigration order. You could tell by reading journalists on Twitter that they were being leaked more than they were saying but were very hesitant to speculate because at the time police considered both to be suspects.

Canadian police and the Justice system is more like the UK than here in the US. The media is generally much more cautious as well. With the PM of Canada being adamant that this was a terror attack, and police and provincial/city administration saying the victims were targeted based off of their identity/who they are/being Muslim, the Islamic radical narrative just didn't fit.

I will say what I always say. This isn't the first nor the last time it has happened. I, myself, have posted inaccurate or false breaking news information here on the forum. Take things with a grain of salt. Look for more than one source to corroborate the claim or angle you are seeing reported. Consid whether it is logical. Can you poke holes in the story? Does the story seem to change with each update? Have you seen completely contradictory reporting from another reliable source?

And that brings me to my last point. Radio talk show hosts with 6,000 followers are unlikely be to a reliable source. A verified national security expert with 75k followers is likely to be credible. Google people and read their LinkedIn and biography. Are they opining or reporting on a subject far outside of their experience and expertise?

Pay attention to how the media reports. You will see things like: "a government official, a police source/official, sources say, a witness that did not want to be identified said, witnesses claim, officials allege, etc." There are a million variations of this, but look at the details. Is it an on the record claim? An anonymous source? Eyewitness or government official? Is the source a reputable person if their name is given?

People could consider doing that or can continue posting fake news they get from FB and Twitter. Syrian refugees, a group that has never committed a terror attack in the US, were unfairly maligned as the perpetrators. It didn't take much searching to uncover that Reddit alt-right trolls and Trump supporters were the one who fabricated that allegation. They even admit to it. They wanted to spread misinformation and try to counteract the negative public reaction that Trump's Executive Order had received. That's not politics. That's propaganda.
 
Since I try to be non-partisan and fair, I wanted to mention that the Obama administration did in fact do something similar to what Trump's Executive Order did. No, it isn't the 7 countries list which 80% of Conservative media has misunderstood to be a unilateral Obama admin action (instead of the Congressional legislative action it actually is).

I am referring to Obama suddenly and without warning suspending the wet foot/dry foot policy implemented back in 1996. Obama did so using an Executive Order, and the result was chaos.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Cubans at or near the border -- or at sea -- were suddenly left in no man's land. Can't return home without facing political prosecution and jail time, and now can't immigrate to the United States. Many. Of them had sold all their possessions and used the money to pay smugglers or others to help reach the US.

The Obama admin defended the order and its sudden and chaotic implementation by saying if they had phased it in or set a date there would have been a sudden spurt of dangerous sea and border crossings. What did they base that on? The fact that for the last two years there had been a sudden spurt of dangerous sea and border crossings because Cubans expected the policy to end under Obama. So, basically, what they claimed that wanted to prevent was already happening. Similar to the idiotic argument that Priebus made yesterday about not being upfront about when the travel ban started.

Why am I bringing this up? One, because I believe in being consistent, two we shouldn't let the Obama administration claim they have some type of moral authority in relation to Trump. We have millions of Syrian refugees without a place to go precisely because of Obama's inaction and cowardice.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/...der-policy-wet-foot-dry-foot-obama-trump.html
 
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
Stormlover said:
Canadian PM is clueless
16388260_10211756459447889_5245939138646889968_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Mosque terrorist identified as Trump supporting "right-wing troll" that posted extreme anti-refugee statements and was enamored by nationalistic politics like those espoused by Marine Le Pen.

This means, that in the past 40 years, Trump supporters in North America have killed six people in terrorist attacks in North America while foreigners from the 7 countries Trump banned from travel have killed zero.

There was a poster here that stated "if just one life could be saved" he would support travel restrictions or bans. I assume that poster supports banning Trump supporters that leave the US for any reason from being able to return as well as the exclusion of any foreign Trump supporters from entering the United States?

Or could we acknowledge there needs to be less hysteria and knee-jerk reactions to acts of terrorism, and instead have sensible policy based on true threat risks determined by national security professionals?

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...paign=Shared+Web+Article+Links&service=mobile
 
I have no opinion yet on whether or not this was an appropriate or intelligent move by the acting AG, but WOW.



 
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
Wait wasn't she doing what the judges ordered? Constitutional Crisis in Ten Days. That was quick!
 
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
WesL said:
Wait wasn't she doing what the judges ordered? Constitutional Crisis in Ten Days. That was quick!
Click to expand...
Not at all.Nothing of the sort. She instructed the justice dept to not defend it in court, and did so publicly, and in a political manner. She didn't go discuss it with the president, she just did it. She left him no choice but to fire her. Judges don't make laws, they made a restraining order only on the ones already here or on the way, not on the overall legal 4 month ban. That will be decided in court and Trump has to have a justice dept that will defend it.
 
Evan said:
No shame, eh? You libeled an entire nationality and accused their most vulnerable members of terrorism.

You have time to spike the football in what you think is a victory, but no time to edit or delete your post? Or even apologize for posting 100% false information?
Click to expand...
Evan,give it up. I'm not going to engage your constant, ridiculous accusations on the new TW. Not...going ...to ...play...that. The end.
 
TalkWeather Members Do Not See This Ad - JOIN TODAY
WesL said:
Wait wasn't she doing what the judges ordered? Constitutional Crisis in Ten Days. That was quick!
Click to expand...

She didn't make a case for how she knew the executive order to be definitely unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, she needed to resign since she wasn't going to follow the EO, and then she could have given a complete statement on why she resigned in disgust.

She serves at the pleasure of the President. Although I commend her standing up for what she believes in (and agree with her), she needed to resign first unless she could make an airtight case it was unconstitutional.

Trump's response was predictably unpresidential & childish. He called her weak and used other insulting language. She was firm, reasoned, and sensible.

This is just my opinion. Others feel she had the right to oppose the order until fired.

Trump also fired the Acting Director of ICE and had Spicer spew vitriol toward the State Department dissent channel.

Trump thinks this is his company and he is the king. He is finding out that isn't true. There will be more of this. There will be more judicial orders and people taking stands of conscience. It is pretty clear he is on the road to impeachment. Already allegations his admin ordered CBP to ignore federal court orders. He also had House Judiciary staffers sign NDAs, and didn't allow them to inform their bosses (House Republicans) that they were working on the Executive Order.

He has also pissed off General Mattis and DHS Secretary Kelly. Are we to believe they are no longer honorable men simply because they question Trump?

It didn't even take a week for this to become very simple and clear. You can support Trump and all of his actions or you can support the Constitution. They are mutually exclusive. Can't do both. People must choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top