• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shooting at Canadian Parlament

It's refreshing to hear the truth from government.

Yes, it is. They just straight up and said it.

Did you hear about the old guy, their version of the Attorney General,. I think, that shot dead one of the terrorists in their Capital Building?
 
...and after they became a country we fought this little war with them and won territory, so his comment that some of the US was won in a war with Mexico is EXACTLY right.

Your dodge is weird though, because there is not need for it.

I didn't say it wasn't. You obviously missed his point, which was to use The Mexican War, fought in 1847, as proof that Mexico existed before The United States. The United States declared independence in 1776. Mexico declared independence in 1810.
 
Most to all of the terrorists are wild card lunatics who were deluded into acts of violence... don't white wash terrorism please.

No whitewash. I'm just guessing that an organized attack would look better, uh, organized. I'm guessing that both these guys got their Islam and radicalism from the internet.
Terrorism is terrorism, but some terrorists are a bigger threat than others. Compare, for example, what two guys in Boston did to what these two in Canada did.
 
So what? Tejas was a state in the United States of Mexico until 1836. Mexico lost a big chunk of it's territory in the Mexican-American War in 1845 (or thereabouts).
You like irrelevant trivia? Germany didn't exist until about 1875.

You claimed that Mexico existed before The United States...that's what. Now, admit your ignorance and let's move forward.
 
No whitewash. I'm just guessing that an organized attack would look better, uh, organized. I'm guessing that both these guys got their Islam and radicalism from the internet.
Terrorism is terrorism, but some terrorists are a bigger threat than others. Compare, for example, what two guys in Boston did to what these two in Canada did.
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.
 
No whitewash. I'm just guessing that an organized attack would look better, uh, organized. I'm guessing that both these guys got their Islam and radicalism from the internet.
Terrorism is terrorism, but some terrorists are a bigger threat than others. Compare, for example, what two guys in Boston did to what these two in Canada did.

I hear you and understand better now what you were saying... thanks. I agree.
 
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.

I agree with this too....
 
I didn't say it wasn't. You obviously missed his point, which was to use The Mexican War, fought in 1847, as proof that Mexico existed before The United States. The United States declared independence in 1776. Mexico declared independence in 1810.

They launched a revolt in 1810.
The declared independence in 1813.

That said, his point that Mexicans were in the area first is debatable on many levels.

1. The people that would eventually become known as Mexicans had been living in the area for thousands of years already
2. The area of Mexico was a recognized nation prior to the United States taking land from it in 1845 annexation of Texas which was Mexican territory.
 
You claimed that Mexico existed before The United States...that's what. Now, admit your ignorance and let's move forward.

We were comparing Mexicans in the US to the French in Canada.
Smarten up.
 
They launched a revolt in 1810.
The declared independence in 1813.

That said, his point that Mexicans were in the area first is debatable on many levels.

1. The people that would eventually become known as Mexicans had been living in the area for thousands of years already
2. The area of Mexico was a recognized nation prior to the United States taking land from it in 1845 annexation of Texas which was Mexican territory.

Spin it how you want, but not only is the dude incredibly wrong, it's neither here, nor ****ing there.
 
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.

No, it isn't. But to over-react is to reward terrorism, give the terrorist a victory.
 
We were comparing Mexicans in the US to the French in Canada.
Smarten up.

Do what you want. Don't make ignorant statements and I won't have to set you straight. Forward we go!
 
No, it isn't. But to over-react is to reward terrorism, give the terrorist a victory.
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?

Not telling the truth is reacting very badly, which is what happened in the Oklahoma case when the government, with the compliance of the media, tried to hide his Islamist identity. What the Canadian government did is far better than lying or sidestepping into the "workplace violence" nonsense.
 
Mexico dodn't exist before 1810. You knew THIS, right?

You need to read up on your own history apdst. Mexico did indeed exist in 1846, when the US invaded the fledgling nation in order to achieve the goal of more valuable land, and an expansion of the nation at the expensive of a lessor regarded neighbor. They were successful and took what was then about half the nation of Mexico. That's one of the reasons those south of the border don't seem as friendly as you might imagine when you visit.

It is quite an irony today that the issue of Mexican migrants has been such in the news, when in fact, they are infiltrating what was once their own country.
 
You need to read up on your own history apdst. Mexico did indeed exist in 1846, when the US invaded the fledgling nation in order to achieve the goal of more valuable land, and an expansion of the nation at the expensive of a lessor regarded neighbor. They were successful and took what was then about half the nation of Mexico. That's one of the reasons those south of the border don't seem as friendly as you might imagine when you visit.

It is quite an irony today that the issue of Mexican migrants has been such in the news, when in fact, they are infiltrating what was once their own country.
Isn't there a Mexican thread somewhere?
 
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?

Not telling the truth is reacting very badly, which is what happened in the Oklahoma case when the government, with the compliance of the media, tried to hide his Islamist identity. What the Canadian government did is far better than lying or sidestepping into the "workplace violence" nonsense.

Actually one of the biggest reasons they had to stick with the workplace violence thing is because there is no charge for terrorism under the UCMJ therefore it would make prosecuting him close to impossible.

Hasan was charged for murder and will be executed.

I know you guys want to have your little paddy because you think it's about appeasing radical Islam, when really it was about practicality so they could prosecute him to the fullest extent of military justice which they did.
 
Actually one of the biggest reasons they had to stick with the workplace violence thing is because there is no charge for terrorism under the UCMJ therefore it would make prosecuting him close to impossible.
Then charge him with murder. You can still call him a terrorist.
Hasan was charged for murder and will be executed.
Maybe
I know you guys want to have your little paddy because you think it's about appeasing radical Islam, when really it was about practicality so they could prosecute him to the fullest extent of military justice which they did.
They haven't yet.
 
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?

Well, it's getting close to over-reaction. In Vancouver they've got bomb-sniffing dogs in the transit stations.

Not telling the truth is reacting very badly, which is what happened in the Oklahoma case when the government, with the compliance of the media, tried to hide his Islamist identity. What the Canadian government did is far better than lying or sidestepping into the "workplace violence" nonsense.

It's a fine line, I guess. The public has to be told what's happening but locking down legislature buildings and military bases across the country feels like handing a victory to a low-functioning wannabe. If I'm right about the guy.
 
When you kill a terrorist, it will only create more hate.

When you put a criminal in jail it only creates more hate, so we should never put criminals in jail, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom