Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45756
    16 Nov '15 06:46
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The history of Islam from the 7th century forward has been one of military aggression. I find it hard to believe that 1400 years of history are controlled by the climate.
    Climate started in the 6th Century.
    QED
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    16 Nov '15 06:59
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Climate started in the 6th Century.
    QED
    Prove it. 😏
  3. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57089
    16 Nov '15 08:20
    Whodey, this isn't a radical religious based problem.
    This is, like all wars, about land, resources and power.
    Religion is just a means to an end. The same as flag waving, defending 'our' values, etc.

    It's just very hard to motivate people by being honest: go out and die for me, so I can be richer.

    See? It just doesn't work.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    16 Nov '15 08:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Did Bernie Sanders just blame the Paris attacks on a lack of water and climate change?
    Yes, yes he did. And this guy wants to be president.




    But he gets a lot more wrong than just that.


    “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.




    “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the ...[text shortened]... ant to win.

    http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2015/11/did-bernie-sanders-really-just-blame.html
    An excellent analysis by Bernie. Of course, anything that goes beyond "Islam is evil!" is too complex for right wing "minds".

    Before the Iraq invasion it would have been unthinkable that a radical Islamist movement could control large parts of Iraq and Syria, two of the most secular nations in the region. Incessant Western meddling in the Middle East has radicalized a growing segment of the population there. Naturally the only response thought of by the same "thinkers" who brought you that debacle is more of the same i.e. more military adventurism which will inevitably lead to more radicalization to be met by more military adventurism and on and on and on.

    It's long past time to stop the bleeding and get the hell out.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    16 Nov '15 08:41
    From a Guardian opinion piece in June 2015:

    A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

    Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

    Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

    That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

    The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

    It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

    In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

    What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

    Amen brother.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    16 Nov '15 09:031 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Bernie is right. A severe drought in Syria, caused by climate change, pushed many farmers into the cities where Assad's heavy handed response to their plight led to open conflict.

    It would be more correct, I suppose, to say that climate change was merely one of the contributing factors. But its one that you're going to be seeing a lot more of. Extreme climate events in the not so distant future are going to be displacing vast numbers of people.
    Details here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/global-warming-worsened-syria-drought-study

    Excerpt:

    From 2006, the Fertile Crescent, where farming was born 12,000 years ago, faced the worst three year drought in the instrumental record. Unsustainable agricultural policies meant that the drought led to the broad collapse of farming in northeastern Syria. Their livelihoods gone, an estimated one to 1.5 million people surged into the cities.

    The arrival of so many rural families came on the heels of a million Iraqi refugees who arrived after 2006, causing what Kelley refers to as a “huge population shock” in Syria’s most affected urban centres. Many of the displaced settled on the edges of cities, where already tough living conditions were made more challenging by poor access to water and electricity.



    The Iraq War: a gift that keeps on giving.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    16 Nov '15 09:521 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Did Bernie Sanders just blame the Paris attacks on a lack of water and climate change?
    Yes, yes he did. And this guy wants to be president.




    But he gets a lot more wrong than just that.


    “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.




    “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the ...[text shortened]... ant to win.

    http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2015/11/did-bernie-sanders-really-just-blame.html
    aside from the "climate change affects terrorism" point, which is not 100% true, YET, he was right.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    16 Nov '15 10:332 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    Bernie is not alone. If they have a "D" by their name, they all think this way.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-climate-change-greatest-threat

    "No challenge--no challenge--poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night.

    Although he re ...[text shortened]... stop human beings from engaging in the actions that cause "climate change" to avert that threat.
    I apologize whodey, I really could not believe the Democrats could be this crazy. But I just saw and heard it on this morning TV FOX News.

    Bernie Sanders did say the Paris attack was directly related to climate change and Hillary Clinton said that we are not at war with radical Islam. And a spokesman for President Obama said he still plans to take in Syrian refugees over considering the safety of American citizens.

    Trump and Cruz said this was all crazy talk coming from the Democrats and I defintely can't disagree with that. Carson said we could support the refugees over there, but to bring them here to the USA would be a suspension of rational intellect.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    16 Nov '15 11:12
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I apologize whodey, I really could not believe the Democrats could be this crazy. But I just saw and heard it on this morning TV FOX News.

    Bernie Sanders did say the Paris attack was directly related to climate change and Hillary Clinton said that we are not at war with radical Islam. And a spokesman for President Obama said he still plans to take in Sy ...[text shortened]... ugees over there, but to bring them here to the USA would be a suspension of rational intellect.
    You really enjoy wallowing in ignorance, don't you?
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    16 Nov '15 11:51
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Climate started in the 6th Century.
    QED
    😲
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    16 Nov '15 14:08
    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/15/9738342/climate-change-conflict-terrorism

    What everyone gets wrong about the link between climate change and violence

    During the Democratic presidential debate on Saturday night, CBS moderator John Dickerson brought up the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and then asked Bernie Sanders if he still believes climate change is our greatest national security threat. (Sanders had said as much in a previous debate.)

    Sanders didn't back down:

    Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.

    Much snickering ensued on Twitter, especially over that bolded sentence, with the prevailing sentiment that Sanders' argument was self-evidently silly.

    Sanders says climate change poses a greater threat than terrorism. Icebergs aren’t blowing people up, sir. #DemDebate
    — toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) November 15, 2015


    I'd say Sanders' reply was a little off-base — but the outraged reaction was absurd. The truth about climate change and conflict is far more complex and nuanced than a short soundbite can allow, but it's foolish to dismiss the entire topic out of hand.

    ...............



    I note that people have already posted the Guardian making roughly similar points as this article.

    The tldr explanation for those incapable of complex thought is this...

    For the slightly longer version, I'll quote from this 2013 interview I did with Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell of the Center for Climate and Security. Here's how Femia described the chain of events:

    We looked at the period between 2006 and 2011 that preceded the outbreak of the revolt that started in Daraa. During that time, up to 60 percent of Syria's land experienced one of the worst long-term droughts in modern history.

    This drought — combined with the mismanagement of natural resources by [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, who subsidized water-intensive crops like wheat and cotton farming and promoted bad irrigation techniques — led to significant devastation. According to updated numbers, the drought displaced 1.5 million people within Syria.

    Around 75 percent of farmers suffered total crop failure, so they moved into the cities. Farmers in the northeast lost 80 percent of their livestock, so they had to leave and find livelihoods elsewhere. They all moved into urban areas — urban areas that were already experiencing economic insecurity due to an influx of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees.
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    16 Nov '15 14:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Did Bernie Sanders just blame the Paris attacks on a lack of water and climate change?
    Yes, yes he did. And this guy wants to be president.




    But he gets a lot more wrong than just that.


    “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.




    “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the ...[text shortened]... ant to win.

    http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2015/11/did-bernie-sanders-really-just-blame.html
    The attack in Paris just basically increased France's death toll from homicide by roughly 25% over
    the present annual average.

    Which just goes to show how low Homicide rates are in western countries. [even the USA]

    A single heat wave can kill several thousand people, or several thousand percent more than the annual
    death toll from Homicides. [even if such large terrorist attacks happened annually.]

    Far more people are killed in car crashes, far more people are killed by the flu.

    Indeed, changes in spread of disease [with tropical diseases moving north] could easily kill many thousands
    more people than terrorism.

    Air pollution from burning fossil fuels in cars factories and power stations annually kills tens of thousands.


    The attack in Paris was bad, we should take reasonable steps to reduce the chances of such attacks happening
    again. [We didn't achieve such low murder rates by not caring when they happen] But the idea that terrorism
    in the west even comes close to the threat level posed by global warming and associated climate change is absurd.

    And, as has already correctly been pointed out, climate change is a 'threat multiplier' that increases the risk and scope
    of wars and terrorism.
  13. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    16 Nov '15 15:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    Are you suggesting that the attack in Paris is linked to climate change?

    Was the attack the result of a lack of water?
    Its kinda strange that you never hear the Islamo terrorist scream " El Nino ! " before they slaughter innocents.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    16 Nov '15 15:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I apologize whodey, I really could not believe the Democrats could be this crazy. But I just saw and heard it on this morning TV FOX News.

    Bernie Sanders did say the Paris attack was directly related to climate change and Hillary Clinton said that we are not at war with radical Islam. And a spokesman for President Obama said he still plans to take in Sy ...[text shortened]... ugees over there, but to bring them here to the USA would be a suspension of rational intellect.
    Sanders may or may not have a point but his real thrust was about the future, if climate change effects water supplies there will be eco-wars. You can take that to the bank.

    I think you just think if we put our heads in the sand or up our ass, take your pick, all this falldarah over climate change will just go away and a hundred years from now people will just have a big laugh over the fear of the people from century 21.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    16 Nov '15 16:15
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Its kinda strange that you never hear the Islamo terrorist scream " El Nino ! " before they slaughter innocents.
    There's a fine line between playing dumb and being dumb.

    Have you crossed it?
Back to Top