Happy Face 29 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 That would be an interesting scientific study. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?referer=&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I didn't  http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/35813-paris/?p=1373029  You didnt what? Adapt your theory of motivation based on the information that was not consistent with the theory?  No you didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Â You didnt what? Adapt your theory of motivation based on the information that was not consistent with the theory? Â No you didnt. Have you adapted your theory of motivation based on the fact that the perpetrators weren't particularly religious, didn't go to mosque and didn't pray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Have you adapted your theory of motivation based on the fact that the perpetrators weren't particularly religious, didn't go to mosque and didn't pray? They clearly believed in reward in the afterlife though. When had attendance at a mosque been considered relevant? What are you suggesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Have you adapted your theory of motivation based on the fact that the perpetrators weren't particularly religious, didn't go to mosque and didn't pray? Â Don't need to as i am not concerned about their motivations, i am concerned by those who want to mitigate the reaction to the events by drawing upon the acts of western governments (whilst being very clear about the relevance of the US, UK, France within that). Â As i said yesterday, the world needs to decide on how to respond. If the world thinks there is mitigation for the terrorist behaviour then the response will be modified accordingly. Just like a murder case would be. If we dont agree that the proclaimed mitigation is relevant (as we see the perpetrator of the crime revealing other motivations - like Charlie Hebdo) then we can play down the case for the defence trumpeted by the propagandists who support the terrorists. We can then arrive at a better judgement: do we round them all up in a field and bomb the bastards (no mitigation, moral behaviour of utter filth) or diplomatically pursue resolution of interests and needs of the parties involved (full mitigation). Â This is why i think its important to focus on the moral judgement as that will define the response, in the same way (analogously) it defines a sentence for a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 So if the state of Israel ceases to exist tomorrow there will be peace in the Islamic world.Only one clown on here believes that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 So if the state of Israel ceases to exist tomorrow there will be peace in the Islamic world.Only one clown on here believes that  Tim Krul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34623 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Â Don't need to as i am not concerned about their motivations, i am concerned by those who want to mitigate the reaction to the events by drawing upon the acts of western governments (whilst being very clear about the relevance of the US, UK, France within that). Â As i said yesterday, the world needs to decide on how to respond. If the world thinks there is mitigation for the terrorist behaviour then the response will be modified accordingly. Just like a murder case would be. If we dont agree that the proclaimed mitigation is relevant (as we see the perpetrator of the crime revealing other motivations - like Charlie Hebdo) then we can play down the case for the defence trumpeted by the propagandists who support the terrorists. We can then arrive at a better judgement: do we round them all up in a field and bomb the bastards (no mitigation, moral behaviour of utter filth) or diplomatically pursue resolution of interests and needs of the parties involved (full mitigation). Â This is why i think its important to focus on the moral judgement as that will define the response, in the same way (analogously) it defines a sentence for a criminal. "The world" has already decided what the response will be. More bombs dropped on Syria. Cameron has today told Hollande he can use an RAF Base in Cyprus to crack on with it. Â What I don't get is, Syria is not that big and it was already getting bombed prior to the latest Paris attacks. So will this new bomb plan just involve dropping more bombs where bombs have previously been dropped? Or are there some sweet new bombing locations that we've just found out about that we were saving up for something like this? What is the actual plan here or is it just an opportunity for Hollande to shake his fist at the baddies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9015 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 "The world" has already decided what the response will be. More bombs dropped on Syria. Cameron has today told Hollande he can use an RAF Base in Cyprus to crack on with it. Â What I don't get is, Syria is not that big and it was already getting bombed prior to the latest Paris attacks. So will this new bomb plan just involve dropping more bombs where bombs have previously been dropped? Or are there some sweet new bombing locations that we've just found out about that we were saving up for something like this? What is the actual plan here or is it just an opportunity for Hollande to shake his fist at the baddies? Â flick his fag-ash at them and shrug, but yeah, that's my take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) "The world" has already decided what the response will be. More bombs dropped on Syria. Cameron has today told Hollande he can use an RAF Base in Cyprus to crack on with it. Â What I don't get is, Syria is not that big and it was already getting bombed prior to the latest Paris attacks. So will this new bomb plan just involve dropping more bombs where bombs have previously been dropped? Or are there some sweet new bombing locations that we've just found out about that we were saving up for something like this? What is the actual plan here or is it just an opportunity for Hollande to shake his fist at the baddies? Â i don't think further reducing syria to rubble is the answer. neither is western boots on the ground as it plays right into isis's hands. they could then play the western crusader card to recruit even more jihadis to the cause. Â i don't know what the fuck the answer is. i don't think anyone does. do you just leave syria to get on with it? Â can france be seen to do nothing after what just happened in paris? Edited November 23, 2015 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34623 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Â i don't think further reducing syria to rubble is the answer. neither is western boots on the ground as it plays right into isis's hands. they could then play the western crusader card to recruit even more jihadis to the cause. Â i don't know what the fuck the answer is. i don't think anyone does. do you just leave syria to get on with it? Â can france be seen to do nothing after what just happened in paris? That's what I was getting at. If all this is is them not being seen to be doing nothing (and I suspect that's exactly what it is or else why weren't the sites they are about to bomb already being bombed), then what use is that to anyone? Â I don't pretend to be informed enough to know what the actual solution is, but all I need is basic common sense to know that dropping bombs as an alternative to "being seen to be doing nothing" isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Meanwhile, Donald Trump hardens his stance on Syria, says he's close America's doors to refugees if elected president and vows to restore the use of waterborading when interrogating terrorist suspects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34623 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 He could genuinely get in on that platform though. You and Renton would vote for him for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) That's what I was getting at. If all this is is them not being seen to be doing nothing (and I suspect that's exactly what it is or else why weren't the sites they are about to bomb already being bombed), then what use is that to anyone? Â I don't pretend to be informed enough to know what the actual solution is, but all I need is basic common sense to know that dropping bombs as an alternative to "being seen to be doing nothing" isn't the answer. Â i doubt french air strikes on syria will do anything to prevent another terrorist attack but Hollande will be under massive pressure to be seen to respond to what is effectively an act of war. the french people will be baying for blood as i suspect the british would if the same thing happened here. this is the worst ever terrorist attack in France - all civilian casualties, no military targets. Isis claimed responsibility for the attacks and we know they hold territory in Syria and Iraq. Is striking back the wrong thing to do? Edited November 23, 2015 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 He could genuinely get in on that platform though. You and Renton would vote for him for starters. Â any more of that lip and i'll be down to see you with my waterboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 He could genuinely get in on that platform though. You and Renton would vote for him for starters. Well no, the guy is a dangerous nutters with extraordinarily bad hair. I oppose everything he stands for. Â But it's left wing apologists who refuse to face facts that make the election of right wing lunatics more likely. Trump wants to register all American Muslims, a horrendous policy reminiscent of 1930s Germany. But ironically, there are people on here blaming the Jews, or Israel, anyway. That would enrage me if I was a Parisian affected by this shit, or a Jew, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9015 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Can't be arsed going through the thread, are they saying "it's the Jews", or are they saying it was the creation of Israel, and the subsequent illegal expansion by some Jewish settlers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 "The world" has already decided what the response will be. More bombs dropped on Syria. Cameron has today told Hollande he can use an RAF Base in Cyprus to crack on with it. Â What I don't get is, Syria is not that big and it was already getting bombed prior to the latest Paris attacks. So will this new bomb plan just involve dropping more bombs where bombs have previously been dropped? Or are there some sweet new bombing locations that we've just found out about that we were saving up for something like this? What is the actual plan here or is it just an opportunity for Hollande to shake his fist at the baddies? Â Sure and i agree that just bombing the fuck out of Syria is not the response. However, the UN Security Council and the diplomatic consensus route (rather than any diplomatic outreach to ISIS) can be best leveraged if we have a clear moral judgement on the actions of the terrorists. If the Chinese see the response as legitimate in the face of immoral US oppression then the diplomatic consensus will be undermined. We also need the 10 non permanent members to align with this view. Then we need other actors in the region.... Â Thats why its important to shout down the apologists and those wanting to equate execution of innocent people with unintended consequences of war (and make jumps across borders blaming all western actors equally for the actions of others). As a 'consequentialist' in my moral outlook, an unintended death weighs as heavily as an intended death but international law and the response to the greatest threat to world peace and order on the planet requires additional thought, a broader perspective on the longer term consequences to order if we dont address this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?referer=&_r=0 I tracked down the original paper, by Kelley et al. (2015). It's not science as I understand it. Bizarre that any scientist would put their name to this in fact, it nearly all supposition using the testimony of a Syrian farmer to justify the link. Bizarre stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Can't be arsed going through the thread, are they saying "it's the Jews", or are they saying it was the creation of Israel, and the subsequent illegal expansion by some Jewish settlers? On this board, the latter of course. That's bad enough imo. Wtf does it have to do with France for starters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Neither in fact. Britain, US, Russia and co did the carving up and propping up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Personally I think we should use the drones, fitted with loud speakers and play cheesy one hit wonders at them until they give in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34623 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Personally I think we should use the drones, fitted with loud speakers and play cheesy one hit wonders at them until they give in. They should use you as a Bouncing Betty imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Can't be arsed going through the thread, are they saying "it's the Jews", or are they saying it was the creation of Israel, and the subsequent illegal expansion by some Jewish settlers? That simply cannot be seen as the root cause of Islamist suicide bombings in Paris, whichever way you look at it. Â Plenty of people oppose the creation of Israel and Israeli settlement expansion without feeling the need to detonate themselves in a public space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Personally I think we should use the drones, fitted with loud speakers and play cheesy one hit wonders at them until they give in. I'd be more likely to submit to that form torture than water boarding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now