It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
S.J.WHahahahha, it baffles me how people can still deny climate change in this day and age with all evidence pointing towards the planet warming and humans cause it.
If that is the case, why the change from "global warming" to "climate change"?
Climate change is a international left-wing hoax, made to funnel taxpayer money to left-wing energy and environmental groups, which often times produce absolutely nothing (Solyndra, SunEdison, soon Tesla).
The data is also skewed by climate "scientists" intent on pushing an agenda and keeping their government grants. Hence the outright lunacy whenever scientists question the validity of anthropomorphic climate change, they're shouted down and ostracized by the leftist zealots.
And to the term climate change, aren't leftists so clever in Orwellian newspeak? No matter which direction the climate goes, they can claim the "theory" is not incorrect.
Anthropomorphic climate change is a lie, and none of the apocalyptic models these fraudulent scientists have been pushing for years have come true, oftentimes quite the opposite.
.MASSHOLE.If you ever took your head out of your ass you would see that much of what you are regurgitating is by your definition, plagiarism as well.
Ah yes, ignore my post above where I said I tend to fall to the right more than left.
You're politically "ambiguous" at best (and who knows in what other sense).
What is that new term they've coined for folks like you who claim to lean right? Cuckhold? Cuckservative? Something of that nature. I prefer the Spanish term cabrón.
CampeadorYou're politically "ambiguous" at best (and who knows in what other sense).
What is that new term they've coined for folks like you who claim to lean right? Cuckhold? Cuckservative? Something of that nature. I prefer the Spanish term cabrón.
Or wet towel, that works fine as well.
The ad-hominem attacks continue. As you continually neglect to provide anything of substance, you turn to the personal attacks to try to belittle anyone who disagrees with you. I am glad you have such a colorful vocabulary.
CampeadorIf that is the case, why the change from "global warming" to "climate change"?
Climate change is a international left-wing hoax, made to funnel taxpayer money to left-wing energy and environmental groups, which often times produce absolutely nothing (Solyndra, SunEdison, soon Tesla).
The data is also skewed by climate "scientists" intent on pushing an agenda and keeping their government grants. Hence the outright lunacy whenever scientists question the validity of anthropomorphic climate change, they're shouted down and ostracized by the leftist zealots.
And to the term climate change, aren't leftists so clever in Orwellian newspeak? No matter which direction the climate goes, they can claim the "theory" is not incorrect.
Anthropomorphic climate change is a lie, and none of the apocalyptic models these fraudulent scientists have been pushing for years have come true, oftentimes quite the opposite.
10/10 for sources. You gonna link me a Shell sponsored newspaper article? You'll find if you even do one minute of research that climate change is very very very real. Was the Montreal protocol also a left wing conspiracy? Get rid of CFC's and HCFC's ruining the Ozone layer.
S.J.W10/10 for sources. You gonna link me a Shell sponsored newspaper article? You'll find if you even do one minute of research that climate change is very very very real. Was the Montreal protocol also a left wing conspiracy? Get rid of CFC's and HCFC's ruining the Ozone layer.
Climate change is a hoax, climate "scientists" are a joke, they exist solely to "prove" the existence of anthropomorphic climate change (in order to continue getting government grants), rather than take an objective approach to the science.
CampeadorClimate change is a hoax, climate "scientists" are a joke, they exist solely to "prove" the existence of anthropomorphic climate change (in order to continue getting government grants), rather than take an objective approach to the science.
Climate change 100% exists and has always existed, since the beginning of time on earth.
Man-made climate change is something new and damaging to our planet and a threat to humanity and
global drought
Global temperature rise
Co2 concentration correlates with rising temperatures.
Charlie_KellyNot saying compeador is right but there is definitely a naturally occuring patern going on here boys...
There is a natural climate change, however that was in equilibrium with nature. Then humans came along and fucked everything up with farming, factories, etc,etc and threw it out to disequilibrium. Hence the spike in blue at the end of the graph.
S.J.WThere is a natural climate change, however that was in equilibrium with nature. Then humans came along and fucked everything up with farming, factories, etc,etc and threw it out to disequilibrium. Hence the spike in blue at the end of the graph.
hey fatass shut the fuck up, you sound so fucking uneducated when you talk
cobra_commanderWelcome to the 21st Century. Globalization has enabled folks to export their hate anywhere in the world. A quick survey of headlines over the last 2 decades will indicate the ease at which they do so.
The United States, and the people who live here, enjoy the prosperity brought on by the ability to trade anywhere in the world. The same is true for almost everyone else in the developed and developing world. The cost of economic isolation can be seen in Russia, Iran, Cuba, and to a greater extent North Korea. This trade relies on a level of global and local stability.
The Issue is most countries in Europe have gotten addicted to freeloading National Defense and a somewhat stable global trade environment off the United States.
As much as everyone loves to hate on the United States' global impact none of you want Russia or China dictatong international policy. The UN is a fucking joke. The AU has more teeth than any organization of blue helemeted peace keepers.
Nope, some semblance of world stability is brought to you by the forward deployed Americans, Australians, and Brits. Our world is full of bad dudes who want to take us back to the Middle Ages. Someone's gotta put warheads to foreheads.
Remind me how Belgum and Norway are taking the fight to ISIS again?
Endless war is here, like it or not.
Do these "bad dudes" want to "take us back to the middle ages" or is that some propaganda bullshit to cover the fact up they want revenge for us killing their uncle's and fathers? In America we promote religious freedom. How condtradictory that that rule doesn't apply to people living in foreign countries 1000s of miles away. I didn't know world stability meant we had to commit genocide and claim that's how you spread freedom...
S.J.WThere is a natural climate change, however that was in equilibrium with nature. Then humans came along and fucked everything up with farming, factories, etc,etc and threw it out to disequilibrium. Hence the spike in blue at the end of the graph.
louie.miragsDo these "bad dudes" want to "take us back to the middle ages" or is that some propaganda bullshit to cover the fact up they want revenge for us killing their uncle's and fathers?
Even if the USA stopped sticking its dick in every beehive across the globe, the mentality embodied by ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations would exist because it is written in plain black & white in the Qur'an and in the Hadiths. When you take a literalist reading of Islam, it is what you get. To reduce Islamic terrorism down to mistakes in foreign policy is missing the point and ignores the actual motives the terrorists explicitly tell us they have.
Perhaps you've seen it in circulation, but his article from The Atlantic does a great job of laying out the above point and the Islamists' & Jihadists' desire to take the world back to the 7th century. Islamists & Jihadists see the time period written about in the Qur'an as the ultimate way of life and history has derailed us from staying in that perfection.
onenerdykidSo far, what he does claim to know is how to flip flop like crazy and be a racist. Also, being rich doesn't equate to possessing working knowledge of how to run a country. If that's your argument for why Donald Trump should be a proper presidential candidate, then I really don't think you understand the point of having a democratic government.
If you actually paid attention to what hes said youd know that he isn´t racist, hes just brash. What he says about muslims and Mexicans is factually accurate, he just didnt dance around when he said such things.
DJtearegasIf you actually paid attention to what hes said youd know that he isn´t racist, hes just brash. What he says about muslims and Mexicans is factually accurate, he just didnt dance around when he said such things.
No, I have paid attention and he has clearly said racist things, sexist things, mocked disabled people, encouraged people to commit violence, etc. He also says factually correct things with lots of brashness. He also says factually incorrect things with lots of brashness. He also contradicts himself & his own claims, and changes his song & dance to cater to his audience. (One of my personal favorites was when he claimed to love the Bible, and love it more than his own books, when speaking to Evangelicals). What's clear is that he will say racist & sexist things to an audience who believes such crap and he'll say completely different things on the same subject to a different audience just to win them over.
DJtearegasIf you actually paid attention to what hes said youd know that he isn´t racist, hes just brash. What he says about muslims and Mexicans is factually accurate, he just didnt dance around when he said such things.
onenerdykidEven if the USA stopped sticking its dick in every beehive across the globe, the mentality embodied by ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations would exist because it is written in plain black & white in the Qur'an and in the Hadiths. When you take a literalist reading of Islam, it is what you get. To reduce Islamic terrorism down to mistakes in foreign policy is missing the point and ignores the actual motives the terrorists explicitly tell us they have.
Perhaps you've seen it in circulation, but his article from The Atlantic does a great job of laying out the above point and the Islamists' & Jihadists' desire to take the world back to the 7th century. Islamists & Jihadists see the time period written about in the Qur'an as the ultimate way of life and history has derailed us from staying in that perfection.
I've heard people like Sam Harris discuss this at length. But we are generally safe in America despite what the news wants you to think.
So let's just say that that is pure fact and they want to some how change the way all of the westerners think. That means that we should wage an unconstitutional war where 10s of 1000s of people have been murdered by Americans? And you and I know that there are plenty of innocent folks among the dead.
Religion might be what causes them to kill but America is using their own version of religion, nationalism, to defend its actions. Either way this endless war is fucked. Evidence shows the terrorist attacks and suicide bombers increase when America intervenes. Evidence shows suicide bombers were non existent in areas before America showed up. Give it a google and do some reading. When I'm not in mobile I can bring up some studies
louie.miragsI've heard people like Sam Harris discuss this at length. But we are generally safe in America despite what the news wants you to think.
So let's just say that that is pure fact and they want to some how change the way all of the westerners think. That means that we should wage an unconstitutional war where 10s of 1000s of people have been murdered by Americans? And you and I know that there are plenty of innocent folks among the dead.
Religion might be what causes them to kill but America is using their own version of religion, nationalism, to defend its actions. Either way this endless war is fucked. Evidence shows the terrorist attacks and suicide bombers increase when America intervenes. Evidence shows suicide bombers were non existent in areas before America showed up. Give it a google and do some reading. When I'm not in mobile I can bring up some studies
Suicide attacks have always been a tactic used by a force that was seriously outgunned and outmanned. Ain't nothing new there.
That tactic shows up when America shows up because we out gun and outman any local militia. It used to be a militia vs a rag tag army. Now it's a militia vs a heavily armed and trained army, or in some cases the us army.
Who would folks rather rule the world- the USA, Russia, or China? Like it or not, there will never be sharing. I'd rather it be the USA.
louie.miragsSo let's just say that that is pure fact and they want to some how change the way all of the westerners think. That means that we should wage an unconstitutional war where 10s of 1000s of people have been murdered by Americans? And you and I know that there are plenty of innocent folks among the dead.
That wasn't the point I was arguing for, only that even if we stopped all wars/aggression in the Middle East that Islamic terrorism wouldn't go away. Religious tribalism (the us vs them among different religions) will perpetuate conflict as long as people truly believe their God is right, all others are wrong, and you will/ought to be punished for believing in your false Gods. The embodiment of this is currently best manifested in Islam. The evidence is manifold and anyone who doesn't see it isn't actually being honest with the information at hand. The question that is unanswered, however, is how to best deal with the problem and not kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process. There I'm with you.
onenerdykidThat wasn't the point I was arguing for, only that even if we stopped all wars/aggression in the Middle East that Islamic terrorism wouldn't go away. Religious tribalism (the us vs them among different religions) will perpetuate conflict as long as people truly believe their God is right, all others are wrong, and you will/ought to be punished for believing in your false Gods. The embodiment of this is currently best manifested in Islam. The evidence is manifold and anyone who doesn't see it isn't actually being honest with the information at hand. The question that is unanswered, however, is how to best deal with the problem and not kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process. There I'm with you.
It's human nature to want to prove you and yours superior. Religon is just the fashionable mode for this intrinsic need. It'll happen regardless of religon IMO.
The solution is an alien attack. That is the only way to unite the world and cease this global civil war- create an extra terrestrial war.
californiagrownSuicide attacks have always been a tactic used by a force that was seriously outgunned and outmanned. Ain't nothing new there.
That tactic shows up when America shows up because we out gun and outman any local militia. It used to be a militia vs a rag tag army. Now it's a militia vs a heavily armed and trained army, or in some cases the us army.
Who would folks rather rule the world- the USA, Russia, or China? Like it or not, there will never be sharing. I'd rather it be the USA.
CampeadorSure, but only one group yells Allahu Ahkbar before they press the detonator, and they've has the monopoly for a while.
Not to mention they're good at using suicide bombings against unarmed civilians as well.
onenerdykidThat wasn't the point I was arguing for, only that even if we stopped all wars/aggression in the Middle East that Islamic terrorism wouldn't go away. Religious tribalism (the us vs them among different religions) will perpetuate conflict as long as people truly believe their God is right, all others are wrong, and you will/ought to be punished for believing in your false Gods. The embodiment of this is currently best manifested in Islam. The evidence is manifold and anyone who doesn't see it isn't actually being honest with the information at hand. The question that is unanswered, however, is how to best deal with the problem and not kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process. There I'm with you.
But according to Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, this view is too simplistic. Pape knows his subject; he and his colleagues have studied every suicide attack in the world since 1980, evaluating over 4,600 in all.
He says that religious fervor is not a motive unto itself. Rather, it serves as a tool for recruitment and a potent means of getting people to overcome their fear of death and natural aversion to killing innocents. “Very often, suicide attackers realize they have instincts for self-preservation that they have to overcome,” and religious beliefs are often part of that process, said Pape in an appearance on my radio show, Politics and Reality Radio, last week. But, Pape adds, there have been “many hundreds of secular suicide attackers,” which suggests that radical theology alone doesn’t explain terrorist attacks.
According to Pape’s research, underlying the outward expressions of religious fervor, ISIS’s goals, like those of most terrorist groups, are distinctly earthly:
What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.
Pape’s analysis is consistent with what Lydia Wilson found when she interviewed captured ISIS fighters in Iraq. “They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate,” she recently wrote in The Nation. “But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS.”
louie.miragsWhat 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.
Pape’s analysis is consistent with what Lydia Wilson found when she interviewed captured ISIS fighters in Iraq. “They are woefully ignorant about Islam and have difficulty answering questions about Sharia law, militant jihad, and the caliphate,” she recently wrote in The Nation. “But a detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of Islam isn’t necessarily relevant to the ideal of fighting for an Islamic State, as we have seen from the Amazon order of Islam for Dummies by one British fighter bound for ISIS.”
Rather, that is overly simplistic. What Pape and Wilson still cannot explain: why isn't there the same type of response in Tibet, which has been under forced Chinese occupation since 1959? Perhaps because martyrdom and jihad are not concepts fundamental to Buddhism? I have a very hard time believing that if you swapped out all of the Buddhists from Tibet and replaced them with devout Muslims that you would have the same Tibet today. Or view it another way- do you honestly believe that if the Middle East was completely occupied by devout Jainists that you would have the same violent scenario today? Such an idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore, the religious leaders & recruiters within ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the 19 hijackers from 9-11, etc. are not idiots nor woefully ignorant of Islam but quite the opposite. They can recite verse after verse from the Qur'an & Hadiths and challenge most any view point concerning Islam with scriptural reference. They are/were also highly educated, many of which possess(ed) advanced degrees and work(ed) in the fields of engineering, architecture, & medicine. They are/were hardly poor, downtrodden, or uneducated. Is the average grunt at the front-lines not an Qur'anic expert? Probably not- many are undoubtedly uneducated in the actual text who instead look to their religious leaders for the message of Allah. Just as many Christian soldiers during the Middle Ages (or even today!) did. Many true believers aren't theologians- they are just believers.
Ultimately, when Islamists or Jihadists give us their motives & intentions in plain language, why do you or anyone else try to give a different explanation for their actions? When the Jihadist says "the reason I want to kill Westerners is because they are Godless beings who act in complete opposition to the will of Allah" why would you or anyone then say "Oh no, that's not true. You are simply the victim of a military occupation, that's why you want to kill people". Seriously! How can anyone be so completely arrogant that you think you know someone's true motives better than the person him/herself?
onenerdykidRather, that is overly simplistic. What Pape and Wilson still cannot explain: why isn't there the same type of response in Tibet, which has been under forced Chinese occupation since 1959? Perhaps because martyrdom and jihad are not concepts fundamental to Buddhism? I have a very hard time believing that if you swapped out all of the Buddhists from Tibet and replaced them with devout Muslims that you would have the same Tibet today. Or view it another way- do you honestly believe that if the Middle East was completely occupied by devout Jainists that you would have the same violent scenario today? Such an idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore, the religious leaders & recruiters within ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the 19 hijackers from 9-11, etc. are not idiots nor woefully ignorant of Islam but quite the opposite. They can recite verse after verse from the Qur'an & Hadiths and challenge most any view point concerning Islam with scriptural reference. They are/were also highly educated, many of which possess(ed) advanced degrees and work(ed) in the fields of engineering, architecture, & medicine. They are/were hardly poor, downtrodden, or uneducated. Is the average grunt at the front-lines not an Qur'anic expert? Probably not- many are undoubtedly uneducated in the actual text who instead look to their religious leaders for the message of Allah. Just as many Christian soldiers during the Middle Ages (or even today!) did. Many true believers aren't theologians- they are just believers.
Ultimately, when Islamists or Jihadists give us their motives & intentions in plain language, why do you or anyone else try to give a different explanation for their actions? When the Jihadist says "the reason I want to kill Westerners is because they are Godless beings who act in complete opposition to the will of Allah" why would you or anyone then say "Oh no, that's not true. You are simply the victim of a military occupation, that's why you want to kill people". Seriously! How can anyone be so completely arrogant that you think you know someone's true motives better than the person him/herself?
louie.miragsWhat 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.
Utter bullshit. Suicide bombing is an entirely religious phenomenon, with the exception of the Tamil Tigers. You quite simply do not blow yourself up if you don't have a belief in martyrdom and paradise. Consequently, while "military intervention" may play a role in justifying some of these people's actions, it's not the baseline cause of the method used.
In other words, it's entirely possible that many of these people would have attacked civilian targets on the basis of a political response, but their decision to do so suicidally is absolutely and inextricably tied to their honest belief that this isn't the end and they'll be rewarded in the afterlife for doing so.
Not to mention, they tell you at length and with their dying breath that they're doing what they're doing for the glory of God. Why do you believe a perpetrator of a crime in every other circumstance but this one? If a guy kills his wife and confesses that he did it because he thought she was having an affair, do you doubt him?
It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.
It's like a bad Monty Python sketch:
"We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it."
"No you didn't."
"Wait, what? Yes we did..."
"No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons."
"WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers."
"No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so."
"Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."
"Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."
"What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn't even enter into it!"
"Listen, it's our fault. We don't blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out."
"Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we're not going to let you take it away from us."
"No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame."
"OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?"
J.D.Utter bullshit. Suicide bombing is an entirely religious phenomenon, with the exception of the Tamil Tigers. You quite simply do not blow yourself up if you don't have a belief in martyrdom and paradise. Consequently, while "military intervention" may play a role in justifying some of these people's actions, it's not the baseline cause of the method used.
In other words, it's entirely possible that many of these people would have attacked civilian targets on the basis of a political response, but their decision to do so suicidally is absolutely and inextricably tied to their honest belief that this isn't the end and they'll be rewarded in the afterlife for doing so.
Not to mention, they tell you at length and with their dying breath that they're doing what they're doing for the glory of God. Why do you believe a perpetrator of a crime in every other circumstance but this one? If a guy kills his wife and confesses that he did it because he thought she was having an affair, do you doubt him?
It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.
It's like a bad Monty Python sketch:
"We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it."
"No you didn't."
"Wait, what? Yes we did..."
"No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons."
"WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers."
"No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so."
"Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."
"Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."
"What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn't even enter into it!"
"Listen, it's our fault. We don't blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out."
"Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we're not going to let you take it away from us."
"No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame."
"OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?"
He used studies to come up with his findings. Hard to argue with facts. I find it crazy that so many people rationalize us killing 1000s of people in a foreign land. We're going to look back at these times in the future shake out heads in disappointment.
What would you do if a foreign super power killed your father and your uncle? Just let it go? What do you expect?? If you want to rationalize America bombing these countries then you can't be surprised the next time a terrorist strikes a western country.
Look at it this way, we've killed how many people since '03? We don't even have an exact amount. 100s of Americans have died in the war. And what has changed? Are the terrorist stopping? Nope. Its creating more terror...
Various powers have intervened in various foreign nations for a considerable period, and the inhabitants have had a wide variety of reactions. They don't all blow up buildings or themselves. As noted, if anyone should be reacting in this way, it's Tibetans, but they don't.
As for the aforementioned "studies", read the damned things. They attempt to draw conclusions that make no sense. You can manipulate statistical models to suit a pre-set political agenda, and people do this all the time. On this topic, this sort of project is dressed up as analysis quite a bit. See for example this complete pile of garbage: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0022NGACK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
There's no doubt that geopolitical factors, like Western imperialism, play a role in fostering resentment towards the United States. However, the primary goal of an organization like ISIS is actually local - they really, truly want a Caliphate. They want to establish it, have everyone see it as a viable way of organizing a country, and then they want it to take over the world - for entirely religious reasons.
Almost nothing can be attributed to a single, underlying root cause. But do not for a moment doubt the central importance of religion in motivating behaviour. It's actually really hard for people who grew up in our context to do that, because we can't imagine people actually, literally believe in things like winged horses. Our sense of someone who is religious is usually a pretty nominal one; people believe in the tenets and profess a deeper belief in the religious text they subscribe to but don't ACTUALLY think a woman was made out of a dude's rib.
Well, some people literally do. They have zero doubt that when they push that button and blow up a few dozen people on the bus they're on, they will be instantly transported to paradise where their virgins await them. Once you take that belief into account, the specific actions they've taken aren't all that surprising.
And, he isn't going to use data to target demographic groups for the GE. Yikes.
Additionally, he is neglecting to release his taxes. Something tells me he is overstating his income or most of it is tied up in financial assets he doesn't want to/has not disclosed.
REGRESSIVELEFTClimate change 100% exists and has always existed, since the beginning of time on earth.
Co2 concentration correlates with rising temperatures.
Gosh I really hope you aren't thinking this is a valid graph or a valid point. You can line up the graph however you want. You can vary the CO2 levels and the temperature so they line up. Also, Those temperatures are varying by a whole ONE FAHRENHEIT. Lol. If you spread out the temperature graph logically with a wider range of temperatures, it would not be much of an increase. It's all about perspective.
louie.miragsHe used studies to come up with his findings. Hard to argue with facts. I find it crazy that so many people rationalize us killing 1000s of people in a foreign land. We're going to look back at these times in the future shake out heads in disappointment.
What would you do if a foreign super power killed your father and your uncle? Just let it go? What do you expect?? If you want to rationalize America bombing these countries then you can't be surprised the next time a terrorist strikes a western country.
Sure he used studies, but as JD rightly notes, he's clearly viewing the data through his own agenda/filter and drawing conclusions from the data that support his views. In order to think Pape is speaking factually, you have to completely discount the motives given to us by the terrorists themselves. That is an incredibly huge mistake. Additionally, does Pape have any explanation for why the same Islamists/organizations murder cartoonists, satirists, and authors? There is no foreign policy blunder that can be even remotely linked to those deaths.
To your second point, are we still hating the Germans for killing our grandfathers? Or the Japanese? Or the British for trying to subject their way of life upon us? We waged war against these countries, often killed thousands upon thousands of their civilians, yet now we are close allies with them. We don't send in suicide squads and blow up their civilians in retribution for the deaths they caused us. Likewise, they don't do the same to us. War is one thing, a religious death cult promoting martyrdom & jihad is another. This is why if you remove the USA's foreign policy blunders from the equation, you will still have an ISIS or an Al-Qaeda or random Islamists doing what they do.
And just because I believe the above, it doesn't mean that I support things like the Iraq War or how we are exactly handling the current conflict. Just because I think Islam is huge collection of shitty, contradictory ideas, it doesn't follow that the only course of action is to drop bombs on civilians.
milk_manGosh I really hope you aren't thinking this is a valid graph or a valid point. You can line up the graph however you want. You can vary the CO2 levels and the temperature so they line up. Also, Those temperatures are varying by a whole ONE FAHRENHEIT. Lol. If you spread out the temperature graph logically with a wider range of temperatures, it would not be much of an increase. It's all about perspective.
.MASSHOLE.Stopped watching when he said he was self-funding his campaign. He isn't anymore. WHOOPS.
And, he isn't going to use data to target demographic groups for the GE. Yikes.
Additionally, he is neglecting to release his taxes. Something tells me he is overstating his income or most of it is tied up in financial assets he doesn't want to/has not disclosed.
You're oh so ambiguous.
The man self-funded to beat all his Republican opponents, to the sum of tens of millions of dollars. Now that his message has prevailed, its time for the party apparatus to fall in line.
Unless of course you believed that he had a billion dollars in liquid assets just ready to go, I thought you worked in finance?
Trump is just playing his cards correctly, he's now in a position to demand the release of Clinton Foundation financial statements (the non-fraudulent ones) as a condition for the release of his returns.
