bishopshodan Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: There is a reason why we have laws in this country. Public officials, even the RCMP, can throw around any word they want. Doesn’t make it true. The fact of the matter is under our current laws, anyone who is a part of or associated with ISIS is classified as a terrorist. The Coutts crew were found not guilty in a court of law for conspiracy to commit murder and were never even charged with terrorism. These are the facts that are indisputable. Anyone who disagrees with these facts simply has hurt feelings. What it makes is... not as crazy as you are painting it to call them terrorists. Since mayors and RCMP have done the same. Maybe they simply didnt think they could make those charges stick. Now, my opinion is that if those folks were Muslim Canadians...many in here would not hesitate to call them terrorist. I cant help but believe you would be one of them. 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: *posts statements made by Coutts group. Posts literal dictionary and UN definition of what terrorism is defined as* That's just like, your opinion though. So I guess by your own admission, if we take away the "affiliation to ISIS" then we can say the two individuals arrested are also not terrorists. Because reasons. But wait, the terminology Hippy, THE TERMINOLOGY! The gov said this and that so they're terrorists even though they're only being arrested for the EXACT same things the Coutts guys were so, by that definition they're terrorists and the COutts guys were just you know, freedom fighters and confused or mixed up. Or? So the “Coutts statements” and the “UN definition” of terrorism supersedes the laws in Canada? The Coutts crew committing an act of terrorism is literally your OPINION. That’s it. They were never even charged with committing terrorism. And what they were charged for they were acquitted. So not only the laws in Canada but also the jury disagrees with you. Meanwhile under the laws of Canada, the dude who was going to blow up the airport IS considered a terrorist. And will be deported. Sorry, if you don’t agree with the laws in Canada. If it makes you feel any better I think the Coutts crew should have been convicted of at minimum threats to a police officer and thrown in jail. They aren’t good people. But they also aren’t considered terrorists by the laws in our country. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: So the “Coutts statements” and the “UN definition” of terrorism supersedes the laws in Canada? The Coutts crew committing an act of terrorism is literally your OPINION. That’s it. They were never even charged with committing terrorism. And what they were charged for they were acquitted. So not only the laws in Canada but also the jury disagrees with you. Meanwhile under the laws of Canada, the dude who was going to blow up the airport IS considered a terrorist. And will be deported. Sorry, if you don’t agree with the laws in Canada. If it makes you feel any better I think the Coutts crew should have been convicted of at minimum threats to a police officer and thrown in jail. They aren’t good people. But they also aren’t considered terrorists by the laws in our country. Let's use Canadian definitions just so you know what you are defending: In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. Edited August 9 by Satchmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: What it makes is... not as crazy as you are painting it to call them terrorists. Since mayors and RCMP have done the same. Maybe they simply didnt think they could make those charges stick. Now, my opinion is that if those folks were Muslim Canadians...many in here would not hesitate to call them terrorist. I cant help but believe you would be one of them. If the Coutts crew were Muslim then the courts would need to prove that they were a part of a terrorist organization. In regard to the dude who wanted to blow up the airport, there was a video of him beheading someone on behalf of ISIS. They then confirmed he was a member of the ISIS terrorist organization. He and his father are now both being charged with terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder. The Coutts crew were never charged with terrorism, only the conspiracy to commit murder. So even the courts in Canada differentiated the two situations. This is what I have been trying to explain for the last 5 pages. But certain posters with hurt feelings keep trying to say the acts were the same thing even though the courts disagreed. If the Coutts crew were actually charged with terrorism we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 12 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Let's use Canadian definitions just so you know what you are defending: In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. So why weren’t they charged with terrorism then? Can you explain that? They immediately charged “the Muslim” with terrorism. So are you suggesting the courts in Canada and Crown Counsel are racist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 34 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Yes, the Liberals under JT are far left. Their policies dictate that. Compare their policies today to those of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. Back then the Liberals were actually fiscally conservative. Under JT, they spend money like drunken sailors. I do get excited about reporting news. Similar to the tv news stations. Bad news sells better than good news. So nothing like pushing the bad news to get a conversation going. What housing crash are you referring to? The market did tank in 2020. It would have completely crashed if not for the lowering of interest rates. That’s what saved the real estate market. Unfortunately, they lowered the rates too excessively and now prices shot up so dramatically that nobody can afford to buy a home any longer. 700,000 trucks was what was reported in the news. Again, they tried to sensationalize it for headlines. Remember bad news sells better than good news. I think the stock market is due for a major correction. But that’s just my opinion. And I could be wrong. We will see. I told everyone that Biden was done back in February. So some of my predictions do come true. There are lots of “weird” things happening in this thread. That’s what happens when you have different opinions. Unfortunately, everyone thinks their opinion is right so that’s why you have conflict. I have no problem debating my opinions. However, when certain people have to resort to name calling and race baiting to try and win an argument they know they are losing, that’s where I draw the line. And that’s where the term “cult” comes in. What does "far left" mean to you? You use it like an insult so you should be able to clearly articulate it, and back it up in facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: If the Coutts crew were Muslim then the courts would need to prove that they were a part of a terrorist organization. In regard to the dude who wanted to blow up the airport, there was a video of him beheading someone on behalf of ISIS. They then confirmed he was a member of the ISIS terrorist organization. He and his father are now both being charged with terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder. The Coutts crew were never charged with terrorism, only the conspiracy to commit murder. So even the courts in Canada differentiated the two situations. This is what I have been trying to explain for the last 5 pages. But certain posters with hurt feelings keep trying to say the acts were the same thing even though the courts disagreed. If the Coutts crew were actually charged with terrorism we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I wasn’t around these boards back then so I don’t know if you were…but if you were I hope you spent this much time and energy defending Omar Khadr, his repatriation to Canada, his release, and the $10.5M paid to him. After all this is how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled… Seems obvious to me that we can disagree with court rulings but I take it you disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 8 minutes ago, Bob Long said: What does "far left" mean to you? You use it like an insult so you should be able to clearly articulate it, and back it up in facts. That's an interesting comment Bob, considering the last 5 pages have ignored all facts related to the Coutts crew and many posters have spun their own opinions as facts. Now, you are demanding that I provide facts. Too funny... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 4 minutes ago, 4petesake said: I wasn’t around these boards back then so I don’t know if you were…but if you were I hope you spent this much time and energy defending Omar Khadr, his repatriation to Canada, his release, and the $10.5M paid to him. After all this is how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled… Seems obvious to me that we can disagree with court rulings but I take it you disagree? Nope wasn't around then and don't know much about the case to comment in any meaningful way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: That's an interesting comment Bob, considering the last 5 pages have ignored all facts related to the Coutts crew and many posters have spun their own opinions as facts. Now, you are demanding that I provide facts. Too funny... Nice avoidance. But I get it, it would reveal too much about you. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 So to change the channel, this was funny. Anger merchant lost his supreme court case. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-jordan-peterson-1.7288497 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: So to change the channel, this was funny. Anger merchant lost his supreme court case. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-jordan-peterson-1.7288497 If he has that much of a problem with Canada, he's more than welcome to leave. He won't be missed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Just now, King Heffy said: If he has that much of a problem with Canada, he's more than welcome to leave. He won't be missed. It's truly sad what he did to a generation of young men. We can attribute a lot of the negativity we see today in right wing politics to him. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: It's truly sad what he did to a generation of young men. We can attribute a lot of the negativity we see today in right wing politics to him. Him and Joe Rogan. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flat land fish Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Just now, King Heffy said: Him and Joe Rogan. Whether you like either of their view points they both promote self responsibility, positive health habits and honesty. Some of their positions are over the top but you can say that of the left as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 33 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: So why weren’t they charged with terrorism then? Can you explain that? They immediately charged “the Muslim” with terrorism. So are you suggesting the courts in Canada and Crown Counsel are racist? Question 1: I don't know for sure but my previous post mentioned my speculation that they went a charge of conspiracy to commit murder for some judicial/tactical reason. Question 2: See question 1 Question 3: I'm torn between answering no and wtf are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: So the “Coutts statements” and the “UN definition” of terrorism supersedes the laws in Canada? The Coutts crew committing an act of terrorism is literally your OPINION. That’s it. They were never even charged with committing terrorism. And what they were charged for they were acquitted. So not only the laws in Canada but also the jury disagrees with you. Meanwhile under the laws of Canada, the dude who was going to blow up the airport IS considered a terrorist. And will be deported. Sorry, if you don’t agree with the laws in Canada. If it makes you feel any better I think the Coutts crew should have been convicted of at minimum threats to a police officer and thrown in jail. They aren’t good people. But they also aren’t considered terrorists by the laws in our country. The law enforcement officers. Mayor of the town. Prosecutors all called them domestic terrorists in their own words, or defined their planning/actions as that of domestic terrorists but that's just my opinion. Or maybe the actual terminology of the law in canada as well In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. "Just my opinion though" Whatever. Not like the news reporting 700 THOUSAND trucks (which they didn't, that was just some idiots on twitter making claims while the news showed the truth) should be believable for those claims like you mentioned but the law enforcement officers involved should not be believed. I guess that's just my opinion Edited August 9 by Warhippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 20 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Nice avoidance. But I get it, it would reveal too much about you. Unlike the other posters I don’t have a problem answering questions with facts. It’s a long list so might take me a bit of time to answer your question. Again, the personal insults only get used when you are losing an argument and have nothing else to give. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 Just now, Elias Pettersson said: Unlike the other posters I don’t have a problem answering questions with facts. k 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 10 minutes ago, flat land fish said: Whether you like either of their view points they both promote self responsibility, positive health habits and honesty. Some of their positions are over the top but you can say that of the left as well. They also promote conspiracy theories and health misinformation and give a platform to a lot of hateful folks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Unlike the other posters I don’t have a problem answering questions with facts. It’s a long list so might take me a bit of time to answer your question. Again, the personal insults only get used when you are losing an argument and have nothing else to give. Cool. So can you please answer my question now? Define what far left means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 23 minutes ago, Bob Long said: So to change the channel, this was funny. Anger merchant lost his supreme court case. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-jordan-peterson-1.7288497 If Jordan Peterson was so smart, why did he hire an employment lawyer that doesn't even understand our actual constitution? We don't have freedom of speech. We have freedom of expression but not freedom from consequence for the words we say Peterson's lawyer, Howard Levitt, called the decision "a tragic day for Canada." "It seems ironic, even tragic, that he, one of the most adept persons in social media in this country and beyond, is going to attend 're-education' from people inherently less skilled and knowledgeable than he is himself," Levitt wrote in an email to CBC News. "The decision is a tragedy for freedom of speech in this country." Levitt, an employment lawyer, said the decision will have a "chilling" impact on Canadians who are members of regulated trades and professions. "They now have to concern themselves with political and other enemies making complaints to their regulatory bodies over their political comments, with the risk of their ability to practice their trade. Most simply will avoid debate entirely," he wrote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 6 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Question 1: I don't know for sure but my previous post mentioned my speculation that they went a charge of conspiracy to commit murder for some judicial/tactical reason. Question 2: See question 1 Question 3: I'm torn between answering no and wtf are you talking about? Crown Counsel didn’t charge the Coutts crew with terrorism. So they went ahead with the “lower hanging fruit”. Crown Counsel “immediately” charged the “Muslim” and his father with terrorism along with the conspiracy charge. Can you explain why? The only explanation I can think of is “racial profiling”. Is that what Crown Counsel did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Cool. So can you please answer my question now? Define what far left means. I’m having one of my dinners Bob. It might be awhile. Stop being so demanding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 7 minutes ago, Warhippy said: The law enforcement officers. Mayor of the town. Prosecutors all called them domestic terrorists in their own words, or defined their planning/actions as that of domestic terrorists but that's just my opinion. Whatever. Not like the news reporting 700 THOUSAND trucks (which they didn't, that was just some idiots on twitter making claims while the news showed the truth) should be believable for those claims like you mentioned but the law enforcement officers involved should not be believed. I guess that's just my opinion At least you can admit it is all your opinion and nothing you said was actually factual. You have my respect now Hippy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.