GM

Justin Trudeau plans to reintegrate ISIS terrorists into Canada

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

Do you trust global?

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/3871229/canada-concerned-returning-isis-fighters-justin-trudeau/amp/

 

In parliament, Trudeau pledged to prosecute those who broke Canada’s anti-terrorism laws by joining the ISIS group, but also said his government would try to reintegrate them into society.

i mean...what exactly else would you expect them to do? Since we cant execute them(illegal) then thats the only other option. Thats what happens when people are released from prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this country sometimes.

 

Seems like he's just such a massive pussy that he feels showing "compassion" towards these terrorists will earn him brownie points with his cuck SJW base.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I hate this country sometimes.

 

Seems like he's just such a massive pussy that he feels showing "compassion" towards these terrorists will earn him brownie points with his cuck SJW base.

might want to actually read about the issue than join in the anti liberal circle jerk going on in this thread

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yoshiyoshi said:

might want to actually read about the issue than join in the anti liberal circle jerk going on in this thread

Yeah, I did :rolleyes:

 

bye

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I hate this country sometimes.

 

Seems like he's just such a massive pussy that he feels showing "compassion" towards these terrorists will earn him brownie points with his cuck SJW base.

Me too. Every time someone posts a biased article, designed to inflame negative feelings towards a minority and it draws all the closet redneck racists like flies to sh!t...

 

I wish they'd all pack up and move south, so they can be surrounded by like-minded individuals who walk around in such perpetual fear of imagined boogeymen, they make sure they're armed at all times.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Me too. Every time someone posts a biased article, designed to inflame negative feelings towards a minority and it draws all the closet redneck racists like flies to sh!t...

 

I wish they'd all pack up and move south, so they can be surrounded by like-minded individuals who walk around in such perpetual fear of imagined boogeymen, they make sure they're armed at all times.

so you would have even more people to obsess over daily.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Yeah, I did :rolleyes:

 

bye

Ya no you didn't

 

And adding the word cuck as a way to somehow justify or strengthen your statement is about as stupid as shooting yourself off in a rocket to prove the earth isn't flat.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

So glad I didn't vote for this idiot. Authorities already know of sympathizers here and do nothing. The government has already relocated IS fighters here; there was an article a while back on CBC about one. They hid his identity - he was allowed back and never charged with joining a terrorist group or going overseas to fight because he is "remorseful", and they couldn't verify whether he actually cut anyone's head off.

This cuck culture is going to get people here killed. Just watch. 

I didn't either.   Calling him an idiot - I could think of a few other choice words.   People called me an idiot for NOT voting for him.   Wonder what they think now.    OMG, he better be one and done. . .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

so you would have even more people to obsess over daily.:lol:

Yeah, but only until their toddler shoots them with one of the guns they leave lying around...

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

So glad I didn't vote for this idiot. Authorities already know of sympathizers here and do nothing. The government has already relocated IS fighters here; there was an article a while back on CBC about one. They hid his identity - he was allowed back and never charged with joining a terrorist group or going overseas to fight because he is "remorseful", and they couldn't verify whether he actually cut anyone's head off.

This cuck culture is going to get people here killed. Just watch. 

You're correct.

 

Trudeau soft pedals terrorism, again

Is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau up for the serious task of combatting terrorism in Canada?

Judging by his response to this week’s stunning revelation of ISIS supporters working at the Montreal airport, Canadians could be forgiven for believing Trudeau is not. 

When asked by a reporter if individuals expressing extremist views should be allowed to continue working at our country’s airports, Trudeau’s response was remarkable for its lack of clarity and courage.  

 

"I think that’s part of the kind of conversations we have to have as a society,” said Trudeau.

 

 

“Keeping people safe is paramount important, but defending our rights and freedoms is as well, and making sure we do that in the right way.” 

You can’t make this stuff up. Trudeau wants to have a national conversation about whether terrorist sympathizers and ISIS supporters should be able to work in strategic locations at our national airports. 

He wants us to consider the rights and freedoms of terrorist sympathizers and ISIS supporters in order to strike the right balance between our safety and their freedom to do what? Support jihad? 

Trudeau is becoming a parody of an apologetic leftist who believes terrorism is our fault and zealous Islamists and jihadists are simply misunderstood.

We’ve seen this sort of weak-kneed response from Trudeau before, in his early days in politics.

In 2011, Trudeau spoke out against the then Harper government for its use of the term “barbaric” in a new Canadian citizenship guide. 

The guide told newcomers that, “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings’, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.”

 

Trudeau said that was “too harsh” and urged the government to make an “attempt at responsible neutrality”.

He eventually apologized and walked back his comment, after he was heavily and rightfully criticized. 

In 2013, Trudeau again told us what he really thinks. 

Following the Boston Marathon bombings by radical Islamists, he said we need to look at the “root causes” of terrorism. 

“There is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded,” Trudeau said in an interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge.  

“And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?”

Rather than unequivocally condemning terrorism and violence, Trudeau’s responses fall in a murky, grey area. 

Even as Prime Minister, Trudeau doesn’t seem to have it in him to unequivocally denounce Islamists and would-be jihadists. 

Instead, he seems to prefer trying to understand the social aspects of terrorism and consider the terrorists’ feelings. 

But when it comes to the safety and security of Canadians, it’s a black and white issue. 

Particularly in protecting our national airports – a known target of Islamic State radicals.

We don’t need to ponder how to protect the rights and freedoms of those who want to kill us and replace our Western civilization with a theocratic Islamist dictatorship. 

Those who side with our enemy – those who promote ISIS propaganda and call for attacks in Canada – should suffer the consequences of their actions. 

In the case of the radicalized employees at Montreal’s airport, our Prime Minister shouldn’t think twice about demanding these individuals be fired, if not arrested and charged for inciting violence and supporting terrorism. 

Canada does not need a national conversation on terrorism.

We need a firm and thorough response to combat our enemies and keep Canadians safe.   

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/torontosun.com/2017/03/31/trudeau-soft-pedals-terrorism-again/wcm/c598f261-eec7-4fa2-bdcc-57104bd61286/amp

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ryan Strome
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any shred of evidence of breaking laws while globally terroristing about, they should face justice in Canada. The article is heavily biased, but the issue is real.  We have enough people in Canada who need rehabilitation, who didn't pledge themselves to an organization that rapes, murders and smuggles humans.  As a Canadian on Canadian soil, I am expected to act in a legal manner or face the consequences, lets say for example, that I load a bunch of drunk partiers in the back of my pick-up truck and do donuts in an empty gravel parking lot and the cops come.  I will get a ticket for driving with undue care and attention (it's true, that's the charge), and I will face the consequences of being a total a$$hat. Instead of rehabilitation and driving courses, I will get stifling fines and points on my license that will haunt me for months as I struggle to pay it off.  That's for doing donuts in a gravel lot.  Pledging to ISIS should have repercussions if you want to reintegrate, real repercussions.  I'm not completely against the concept, but I would like to see serious tough standards for them and a zero tolerance policy if they show any signs of violence or radicalization...further signs of radicalization I should say.  Perhaps a departure from my generally vanilla reformist opinion, but ISIS really invokes emotion in me...and not good emotions.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

This cuck culture is going to get people here killed. Just watch. 

Of course, that's how it works.  They undoubtedly have the legislation they want passed already written up, so once a "terrorist act" happens they can trot it out, same as the 363-page "PATRIOT Act" came out just weeks after 911.  Problem-reaction-solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, taxi said:

If you're referring to Khadr, you know it's more complicated than that. Chretien allowed him to be brought into Guantanamo. Then Harper, a couple of years later, did nothing to free him. 

He was convicted of murdering our allies.  Harper did nothing to free him because he did not deserve to be free, and because he had a damned good idea what wood happen if the Canadian 'progressive' legal system got hold of him - which is exactly what did happen.  Chrétien allowed him to be taken to Guantanamo because he was doing a Pontius Pilate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Me too. Every time someone posts a biased article, designed to inflame negative feelings towards a minority and it draws all the closet redneck racists like flies to sh!t...

 

I wish they'd all pack up and move south, so they can be surrounded by like-minded individuals who walk around in such perpetual fear of imagined boogeymen, they make sure they're armed at all times.

Minority? Huh, I guess you could call murdering terrorists that, fortunately, but I wouldn't call that their essential defining characteristic- since it is people's actions that define them, not accidents of birth.  As for the article being "biased" - in what way, exactly?  Just because an article carries an opinion in addition to facts, does not mean the article is biased. If I state that Charles Manson was a murderous monster, and I give sound reasons why, the fact that I make a moral judgement does not reduce to bias - that would be like claiming that my condemnation of murderers is mere 'bias' and that there is nothing objectively wrong with murder.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo does this make Canada a country who harbours terrorists. Why aren’t we being bombed by the UN? Our prime minister is making us more guilty of this than Afghanistan was back in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Ya no you didn't

 

And adding the word cuck as a way to somehow justify or strengthen your statement is about as stupid as shooting yourself off in a rocket to prove the earth isn't flat.

I think it's the same guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just gonna leave this here.  If you can answer ALL of the factual information regarding Khadr and explain why he gets hate vs Harper and Ara who didn't I will accept your point and accede the argument

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/27/opinion/heres-one-question-your-angry-mp-cant-answer-about-omar-khadr

 

“Omar Khadr pulled the pin from a grenade and tossed it at Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, a U.S. Army Delta Force medic, on July 27, 2002.”

So wrote Peter Kent, Conservative MP and foreign affairs critic, in The Wall Street Journal on July 16 this year.

Kent's op-ed was part of a full-on media blitz, where elected Conservative MPs took their grievances to American media after the Liberal government reached a settlement with Khadr reportedly worth $10.5 million. Michelle Rempel even appeared on Fox network's Tucker Carlson show.

Yet they have been conspicuously silent on one point. Just how exactly did Khadr "pull the pin from a grenade and toss it" at Sgt. Speer?

Let me be more precise: How did an 80 pound kid lying face down under a collapsed roof throw a grenade over an eight foot barrier and then 80 feet away to kill Sgt. Speer?

There's a challenge going around Twitter for Conservatives to explain it. The challenge is to read this review of the evidence, written from my perspective as a former prosecutor, and explain to Canadians how Khadr did it.

The Tories all know about it, because it's been called to their attention many times. Over 100,000 Canadian political junkies have viewed the Twitter challenge, and so far not one person can find the answer. Even Khadr's (probably false) confession doesn't explain it.

No one can explain it, because the evidence demonstrates that Khadr didn't kill Speer. It shows, in fact, that the U.S. military and the Canadian government knowingly misled the public about what happened in that firefight, and Conservatives are perpetuating that false narrative.

To briefly re-cap, here's the problem with the American story.

It's the photograph that cannot tell a lie.

Actually, it's two of them — military photos taken of the scene where Khadr were found after the brief firefight that mortally wounded Speer. For years the American military kept these images out of sight of Canadians and the U.S. public.

They were finally unearthed in 2009 by the superlative Toronto Star investigative reporter Michelle Shephard.

Here's the first. Omar Khadr's in this picture, but you can't see him.

screen_shot_2017-07-24_at_10.08.50_pm.pn Omar Khadr (centre bottom) beneath the rubble after a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. Photo courtesy of the U.S. military, originally published in the Toronto Star

The figure at the top isn't Omar Khadr, but a fighter who was shot and killed during a firefight, which supposedly took place just moments earlier. Khadr lies just below him, buried under the rubble of what is described in records as a collapsed roof.

That roof most likely collapsed on Khadr sometime during the four hour air bombardment that immediately preceded the firefight. This photo also appears to have been taken before he was shot in the back by U.S. Special Forces.

In the second photo below, taken after Khadr was shot, brush and debris appear to have been cleared from his head and torso. It doesn't look like his body has moved at all.

That Khadr is still partially buried suggests that he was shot where he lay. Neither photo shows evidence that he was even conscious at that point.

screen_shot_2017-07-24_at_10.09.22_pm.pn Omar Khadr lies motionless after being shot, with debris cleared away. U.S. military photo obtained by the Toronto Star.

According to Shepard, military records indicated that “a soldier stood on top of Khadr’s body before realizing someone was buried.”

This flies in the face of the story America told the world about the boy known as Guantanamo’s Child.

According to that version, mere seconds after the gun battle, Khadr was discovered crouching or leaning on some brush, his back turned to American soldiers, and was then shot in the back. Which doesn't explain how he got buried under a collapsed roof.

In fact, long enough after the firefight that soldiers with cameras were photographing the scene, Khadr was still undetected, lying face-down and incapacitated, buried under rubble. He was probably shot in the back as soon as the guy who stood on top of him realized he was there.

Khadr was then patched together by a medic who described him this way, "I don't know if I can call him a little kid but he sure looked little to me. He's 80 pounds or something. He's a little guy...”

A riddle for the Tories

From the compound he was taken to Bagram, home to the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He lay there in a coma for a week before undergoing a torturous interrogation while still severely wounded.

That Khadr confessed under agonizing pain and three continuous weeks of sleep deprivation is not surprising. That he pled guilty in the only possible legal path out of Guantanamo Bay is also not surprising.

But if his confession and guilty plea have any weight whatsoever, they have to match the known and incontrovertible facts. They must match the photographs of the scene.

They don’t.

So here’s the riddle Conservatives should have to answer: explain how Khadr did it.

It would be great if reporters would ask that question. Canadians should ask it in public. Folks on Twitter could put it to all the angry Tories still trying desperately to keep this story alive.

The answer is not that Khadr confessed. He’d have confessed to flying in on a dolphin from Mars, and so would we, had we been in his shoes.

Nor is the answer that Khadr's a terrorist.

The sole reason Canada left Omar Khadr to rot in Guantanamo Bay for a decade is because he was supposed to have killed an American soldier. Remember when the only prisoners in Guantanamo were the worst of the worst? These were people that Dick Cheney famously said would have to be killed if they couldn't be held there.

These were all people who were deemed so dangerous they could never be brought to America to be tried in open court. The death of Sgt. Speer is the only reason Omar Khadr was ever there at all.

So as Peter Kent, Michelle Rempel, Stephen Harper and, oh, Andrew Scheer hold themselves out as experts on that tragic death, go ahead and ask them to tell us just one thing.

How did Omar Khadr do it?

 

3 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

He was convicted of murdering our allies.  Harper did nothing to free him because he did not deserve to be free, and because he had a damned good idea what wood happen if the Canadian 'progressive' legal system got hold of him - which is exactly what did happen.  Chrétien allowed him to be taken to Guantanamo because he was doing a Pontius Pilate.

Just going to leave this here again

 

And ask why, why do people feel the need to mutter Khadr without EVER mentioning Arar and not once trying to answer any of the questions within this article when claiming "he's a guilty terrorist"

 

From here on out when I need to be convinced humanity is full of idiots I will visit this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.