Skip to comments.New Zealand shooter, QAnon fans get their radicalization from the exact same place
Posted on 03/18/2019 2:55:58 PM PDT by MNDude
even though theres no evidence that the shooter is a Q believer, the radical anti-immigrant rhetoric of the shooter matches up perfectly with the fascistic beliefs of QAnon. For one thing, the manifesto is strikingly similar to the recently published QAnon book in its tone and style, as both are full of long rambling digressions and personal grievances, often backed up by Wikipedia citations.
QAnon is part of this radicalization, with its believers espousing end-of-the-world fantasies about shooting looters, hanging the Clintons, and scooping up their enemies in ad hoc trials. All the while, Twitter and Facebook allow it to continue with little moderation. And several times these fantasies have spilled into real-life, in the form of murder, arson, and police standoffs. Ultimately, the major tech companies could prevent another Christchurch by removing, banning, or deplatforming many of the worst offenders spreading the messages and incitements to violence racist violence. This includes the QAnon conspiracy. And that could be the biggest reason of all that Q believers want so badly to latch on to this horrific crime. Some of them want to get away with it too.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailydot.com ...
I would be quite glad if it ended up being true.
LOL liberals dont need 8chan, they can go on CNN and talk about punching Trump supporters in the face. Go on Facebook and post pics of their fantasies, like beheading Trump. And there is no need to imagine jackboot thugs scooping politically connected people up on trash charges and whisking them away to jail, the Democrats have already made it reality.
Oh lookie another disguised libtard and yet the fingers are still free to tap tap tap away.
There there little princess snowflake, dab your tears. Those mean people who say that Q isn’t true - they don’t know the Secret Truth like you do.
Someday, not today, and obviously not in the past... but someday, all the Q things will come true. Really they will.
The libtard speaks? me thinks his breath smells something akin to it coming out his derriere. But that is always the case with libtards always speaking out their bum.
Your liberal tears are boring and this thread is dead. Run along back to the Q knitting circle and get some hugs and affirmation from your fellow delicate sob sisters.
If you would like to see another side to the coin with some great reasoning then read this:
“Brian Cates” who formerly went by “Stealth Jeff” is not a Q guy as far as I know. At least he never really talks about Q.
Q did just link to his post however. I read Brian pretty much every day just because he has a very reasoned mind. He makes a lot of sense.
Interesting. You are right he doesnt mention q but his premise is identical, namely that the forces of good have been investigating secretly all the bad guys and indictments are coming. Isnt this the q belief?
I agree he doesnt do the q gitmo, military tribunals and other insanity but his former name, Stealth Jeff, suggests that he believes sessions was accomplishing a lot, when the evidence, and pres Trump firing sessions says the opposite.
One of the reasons he may not be hooking up his opinions with q is his desire to have some respectability in the pundit world. At least now he can articulate his opinions, however speculative, without being considered a nut.
There are several like him. They claim that they have arrived at their opinions independently. Here is another one that had a HUGE following on Twitter until they banned him for being to dangerous for the left. So he went to another Twitter like forum.
And here is list of very articulate articles that some of these guys have written. Totally non Q.
On Military Tribunals.
Now lets assume that at the very least there was this huge plot by government officials to take out Donald Trump. What about the Clinton’s selling government secrets? Extremely classified emails(SAP) on Hillary’s hacked server that she had no business even having(How did she even get them?). Pay to play in the Clinton foundation. Collusion in all branches of the DOJ to cover up those crimes. The entire U1 Scandal.
You might even agree with some of that based on the news. Wouldn’t some of that amount to Treason? How do you try cases of treason by government officials? How do you keep a corrupt judge and a bunch of leftist jurors, and lawyers(and the media) from throwing the trial?
One possible answer might not seem so crazy even if it is hard to grasp. A person is not crazy to at least consider the possibility. Remember when they asked Judge Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearing if he supported military tribunals. Why would they ask him that?
It is wild to think that this forum was founded on the Clinton corruption(White Water). Maybe the time has finally come.
The issue is not whether the criminals in the demparty and the deep state are guilty and belong in prison. Of course they do. And I hope the new AG agrees and prosecutes aNd imprisons them.
The issue of trying civilian US citizens who are not unlawful combatants is well settled. There is NO likelihood at all that any tribunals are going to be used on any political figure. Period. It violates the law and the Constitution. That is just one of many idiotic notions that these conspiracy nuts dont understand and will never accept. Never. They would rather believe anonymous kooks who invent a game for money than consult people who actually know the law.
Nothing undermines legitimate desire to prosecute criminals like Hillary, etc more than crazy conspiracy nonsense.
Some of the writers you mentioned know that. That is why they will not be identified with this totally discredited nonsense. Some of theses folks are minor pundits, some make a few buck on advertising but all of them are smart enough not to be thought of as nutwads. Unlike some of our FRiends who will believe till theyre dying day. Regardless of the evidence.
Watching this from the Kavanaugh hearing.
I believe that Graham is asking this question because The Clinton’s among others, are going to be proven to have been involved in crimes in accordance with the manor described.
I agree that many of the crimes would still have to be tried by the normal criminal process. But I believe that some will fit the manor described by Graham. What I am not sure of is if espionage with the purpose of compromising the security of the united states would fit the profile of being a terrorist activity.
Graham is completely correct. As I stated previously, an unlawful enemy combatant (of which there is a specific legal description in the law and the US Supreme Court cases) can be tried by tribunal.
Political criminals like Hillary, podesta, Comey, clapper and all the rest of the deep state dirtbags are not enemy combatants, as much as some folks would like to think they are. They do not meet the legal definition that the courts have set down. So, they will never be deprived of their rights under the Constitution to be tried in the federal courts by a jury of their peers.
This is not just my legal opinion, it is the opinion of almost all lawyers and judges, including Sen Graham who spent 30 years as a military lawyer. The only people who think the law is different are the anonymous boys down at the manure plant who invented the q phenomenon to have a little fun and make a little money at the same time sucking in well meaning gullible people grasping for some sense of justice.
Graham clearly asks if Civilians can be tried by military tribunals under certain circumstances. And the Judge agrees that according precedent that yes they can. That is what I heard.
You heard right. What you missed is graham saying the civilians who are unlawful enemy combatants.
Only those type of civilians can be tried in military courts.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress on Jan. 3, 2006 and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 17, 2006, stated:
The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means:
1. a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
2. a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”
Lets zero in on:
“or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States”
I am pretty sure that there is evidence that some of these people did that. The Clinton’s for sure(selling secrets-selling our uranium). McCain in Syria meeting terrorist’s. That gives us a clue what they have all been up to.
Now would conspiring against the President of the united states to overthrow him and to severely impede him in his duties- be considered hostile?
The Term “hostile” is a pretty vague term.
There you go projecting again. Dry your eyes and lift your dress don’t want your mommy getting mad at her little girl for getting her Sunday best dirty now do we.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.