reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 informs the prime minister about a reported terrorist attack at the Niagara crossing of the Canada US border, with two people dead and one injured. They ask for an update on the government's action plan for homeland security. Speaker 1, a reporter, questions the terrorism claim, citing US and Canadian officials who deny any evidence of terrorism. Speaker 0 corrects the reporter, mentioning that CP had previously made three corrections for false information in one article. They consider checking with the Guinness Book of World Records for such a case. Speaker 0 clarifies that CTV reported the Canadian government's presumption of terrorism in the incident.

Speaker 0 states that over 6,000 bodies have been found, citing information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other government bodies. Speaker 1 questions this claim, asking for clarification on where these bodies were found and if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported finding 6,000 bodies. Speaker 1 asserts that as a journalist, Speaker 0 should be concerned about the accuracy of their claims. Speaker 0 requests to complete their questions.

There was a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-US border, resulting in at least 2 deaths and 1 injury. The prime minister is being asked for an update and an action plan to ensure the security of the people. The prime minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that multiple agencies are involved in providing support. Four border crossings are currently closed, and additional measures are being considered across the country. The prime minister excuses himself to gather further updates. In a separate discussion, concerns are raised about government spending and its impact on inflation.

During a question period, Pierre Polayev cited a Fox News report about a terrorist attack, which was the only outlet reporting it at the time. He was questioned about the responsibility of using media reports when the Canadian government was still learning about the situation. Polayev defended his statement by criticizing the Canadian press for making three corrections in one article. Another speaker pointed out that attacking the agency instead of addressing the question was not appealing in terms of leadership and constructive conversations. The discussion ended with the mention of a GTA voter who didn't appreciate the aggressive tone.

Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 if they still believe the NRA is a terror group. Speaker 0 clarifies that they support the 2nd amendment and do not consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 regrets tweeting about it in 2018, to which Speaker 0 responds that they don't recall tweeting it but if they did, they don't consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 then asks if Speaker 0 regrets endorsing various politicians, and Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't recall endorsing Bernie Sanders but they do like him, and they voted for Barack Obama without regrets.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about how the far right might exploit an event to justify their cause, emphasizing the need to recognize ISIS as a terrorist organization and treat the incident as a terrorist attack. They worry about the potential impact on the rise of extremism, particularly in Germany, the UK, and Europe. Speaker 1 notes social media users inquiring about the perpetrator's appearance, questioning whether the intent is public service or something malicious. They reference the instigation of riots and state they are Muslim.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about a controversial statement made regarding Israelis and Arabs. Speaker 1 admits that the tweet was dumb and clarifies that it specifically refers to the Hamas leadership. Speaker 0 disagrees, pointing out that Speaker 1 also made derogatory comments about Palestinians. Speaker 1 denies this and emphasizes that it was only directed at those who oppose Israel. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning Speaker 1's statement about the Palestinian Arab population being rotten.

There has been a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada US border. Two people have died and one is injured. The prime minister is asked for an update on the situation and the action plan to ensure the security of the people. The prime minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that the NSIA, Minister of Public Safety, CVSA, RCMP, and Transport Canada are all providing support. Four border crossings are currently closed and additional measures are being considered at all border crossings. The prime minister will continue to work closely with US officials and provide updates. They excuse themselves to gather further information.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

Speaker 0 references the World Trade Center bombing and a diplomat who allegedly issued a terrorist visa with CIA involvement. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief at a plan to fake a terrorist event to secure congressional funding. Speaker 0 responds that faking the deaths of 4,000 people is impossible, implying the event must be real. Speaker 0 adds the event should not be blamed on Muslims.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Speaker 0 asks if the government was involved in the 9/11 attack and if there is a conspiracy. Speaker 1 disagrees, but believes it's the first time fire has melted steel. They mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7 and suggest it couldn't have fallen without explosives. Speaker 0 asks who is responsible, and Speaker 1 admits they don't know but insists it was an implosion. They suggest looking at films and consulting physics experts to understand. Speaker 1 says it's unthinkable, but if someone could prove it, it would be significant.

Speaker 0 describes a scene outside their front porch where a protester, a woman, blocked traffic with her car. She parked perpendicularly, and ICE had six or seven vehicles with multiple officers. The protester’s car blocked the road, preventing passage for the convoy. ICE officers yelled at her to move and then became aggressive, approaching her driver’s side door and attempting to open it. The woman then began to reverse as she appeared frightened. An officer leaned across in front of the vehicle and shot the woman point-blank in the face, with about three or four shots fired. The woman’s foot pressed the gas, she tried to escape, hit a telephone pole, and crashed into several cars. Speaker 0 notes there were perhaps only about 10 protesters, but many ICE agents and six to seven vehicles, each with multiple officers. The scene was dispersed yet extremely chaotic, and it seemed the ICE agents did not have a plan or were unprepared. The woman was slumped over in the car. A neighbor, who identified as a physician, offered to take vitals, ask for a heartbeat, and request CPR, but was told to back away and that medics were on the way, a process that took about fifteen minutes. In that interval, it’s implied she may have deceased, and no lifesaving measures were attempted. Speaker 1 asks about how the secretary of Homeland Security and the president characterized the incident, labeling it a domestic terrorist attack, a ramming attack, and an attempt to kill or run over ICE agents. Speaker 0 responds that this characterization is the only reason they are there, and they would prefer not to speak, but they believed the incident would be misconstrued as self-defense. They insist the event was totally preventable and absolutely unnecessary, distinguishing it from self-defense. Overall, the account presents a chaotic confrontation between a small group of protesters and a larger ICE presence, culminating in the shooting of a protester, followed by a delayed medical response, and a subsequent framing of the event by government officials as a domestic terrorist attack.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

There has been a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada U.S. Border. Two people have died and one is injured. The Prime Minister is asked about the government's plan to ensure the security of the people. The Prime Minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that the NSIA, Minister of Public Safety, CVSA, RCMP, and Transport Canada are all involved in providing support. Four border crossings, including the Rainbow Bridge, are currently closed, and additional measures are being implemented at all border crossings. The Prime Minister assures that they are in close contact with U.S. officials and will continue to provide updates. The Prime Minister excuses themselves to gather further information on the situation.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0: It's important to note that this is your opinion. Israel's Hamas has reiterated their stance, claiming otherwise. Speaker 1: May I interrupt? We need to clarify that there is no evidence yet. It's crucial to understand that Hamas has said many things before, but now we have proof. How have we proven it? I hope you will show it too. We have recorded conversations between members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which clearly demonstrate where exactly this rocket is going. So, it's not just Hamas and Israel. Each side denies the other's claims. Speaker 0: I understand your point, but we won't be able to resolve it here.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement in a book regarding anger and whether they contribute to it. Speaker 1 defends their use of charged language in politics but clarifies that they have an issue with assuming people with different political views are of bad character. Speaker 0 brings up Speaker 1's description of President Obama's State of the Union address as fascist, to which Speaker 1 admits it was a poor choice of words. Speaker 0 points out that being bad or wrong doesn't necessarily make something fascist. Speaker 1 offers to critique the column if it is read aloud.

There was a terrorist attack and explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-US border, resulting in at least 2 deaths and 1 injury. The prime minister is being asked for an update and an action plan to ensure the security of the people. The prime minister acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and mentions that various agencies are involved in providing support. Four border crossings, including Rainbow Bridge and Peace Bridge, are currently closed, and additional measures are being considered for all border crossings. The prime minister excuses himself to gather further updates. In another topic, the government's spending is criticized for causing inflation to rise.

Speaker 0 argues that for years the radical left have compared Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers, and that this rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism seen in the country today and must stop right now. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 describe the unfolding World Trade Center attacks. They say they cannot confirm that a plane hit one of the two towers, but live pictures are showing events. They report seeing another plane and state, “We just saw another one apparently go” and “into the 2nd Tower,” suggesting the second plane’s impact and calling it deliberate. They note, “Now given what has been going on around the world, some of the key suspects come to mind, Osama bin Laden. Who knows who knows what?” Speaker 3 and Speaker 4 respond to the crisis, with one expressing concern about the attackers and implying a confrontation with the culprits. Speaker 4 adds, “But he said, you can you can come and debate me. He invited that debate. He certainly didn't invite the violence,” and comments on the global nature of the problem, identifying “the people on the extremes, the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra progressives.” They state that these groups “often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.” Speaker 5 reiterates a personal, contextual stance with the line, “I'm Israeli. And I …” (implying a personal perspective on the conflict). The dialogue collectively frames the incident as a large-scale terrorist attack and discusses the broader ideological landscape, contrasting claims of human rights and free speech with the use of violence by extreme groups.

Speaker 1, the minister of finance and deputy prime minister, clarifies that it is not their responsibility to designate who is a terrorist. They explain that there are authorities specifically assigned to handle such tasks. Speaker 0 mentions a meeting with Dave from CSIS, where they discuss the need to designate a group as terrorists. However, Speaker 1 reiterates that it is not their role to make that designation.

Speaker 0 expresses shock and disbelief at something they just witnessed. Speaker 1 argues that what they saw was not a plane, but Speaker 0 disagrees. They discuss the explosion and the confusion surrounding it. Speaker 1 mentions people jumping off the building, and Speaker 0 reacts with disbelief. Speaker 1 mentions filming the incident and witnessing the second building explode. Speaker 0 reacts with shock, mentioning that the prime minister is gone.