Bernie sanders: Climate change is directly related to terrorism

You appear to have a serious reading comprehension shortcoming because nowhere did I make either of those fallacious claims. The onus is on you to prove that I did.

 

By brief you mean stupid and wrong.

Sanders is a a fool me he is wrong as well.

Name the last terrorist attack launched in the name of climate change.

Until you name that attack you are proven absolutely wrong and sanders is proven an idiotic ass clown.

Nice going outing your boy as a world class retard.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) it, Climate Change kicked my dog, Ahllahu Snackbar!!!!!

 

That information was previously posted on this thread. You'll find two links. Go read them instead of mouthing off.

That is also being done, but I'll let you Google it your own self.

 

Sure, why not - this is like Obama (or Pelosi) claiming terrorism only exists because terrorists don't have jobs....

 

Mr. Nick, you can't fix stupid...it goes all the way to the bone.

 

I did and found nothing. Must be in your imagination.

 

Here are links to 14,800,000 stories about U.S. aid to Syrian refugees that I pulled up in 0.54 seconds. You need to refine your search techniques.

 

Just give me the ones that blame climate change.

 

Then stop helping the overpopulated third world, and they'll die off, leaving more resources for those of us who have been responsible with population growth.

 

That is true but it requires an intelligent person to understand it. When global warming, for example, reduces the rainfall it directly effects food production and hungry people are very likely to revolt and resort to acts of terrorism regardless of religious beliefs. When we look at the Middle East most of the countries are desert countries where any reduction in rainfall, that reduces food production, results in starving people that are more likely to revolt against the government. It's the fact that they're hungry that results in more violence.

Of course the fact that every country in the Middle East is based upon race/religion and are inherently tyrannical adds to the problem of starvation caused by global warming. At the same time the people would be far less likely to revolt against the tyranny if they had enough food, water and other basic necessities.

 

The only climate important in the strife in the ME is the political climate.

 

Why not just nuke them instead?

What a stupid proposition.

If it wasn't for the corrupt Shi'ite and Kurds (that the US installed as the government in Iraq) that are stealing the natural resources (oil) of Iraq for their own personal wealth and comfort, not sharing it with the Iraqi Sunnis, then there wouldn't be Sunni Muslims joining ISIS in the revolt against the Iraqi government. Saddam, even though he was a tyrannical dictator, did share the natural resources with all of the people of Iraq which is a primary reason why there wasn't a revolution against his government. Saddam, while he had a Sunni background, was really a secular dictator and not a sectarian dictator.

 

Truth?

Third world needs to be taught how to (*)(*)(*)(*) properly...

Yeah, they need to be taught how to at the very least (*)(*)(*)(*) and (*)(*)(*)(*) in a hole in the ground...

 

Only in a limited sense. The primary natural resource in the ME is oil that's being stolen from the people by the government and that's political. On the other hand because the oil is being stolen the people must rely on other natural resources such as rain that is necessary for food production. As the rainfall decreases due to global warming it reduces the natural resource necessary for the peoples survival and that's a climate issue. In a country with ample rainfall and food production the theft of the oil by the government would be far less important.

 

So we should just allow them to be irresponsible, even enable them by letting millions flood our advanced countries, which will use up all those resources anyway?

 

Bingo! Happy, comfortable people aren't likely to rise up in revolution and are far more likely to brush off calls of radicals to do so.

 

Despite the media claims and according to the science, there is only a tenuous if any, connection to AGW and drought.

 

No, I'm not building a strawman, I'm simply asking you to present evidence of your claim. So, I'll ask again, can you sight even one terrorist communication containing any mention of climate change, poverty, lack of water or anything thing else remotely connected to climate change as a reason, a motivation, for Jihad? When you do, I'll recant, if you can't, then you should. Fair?

 

So, where's the evidence it's working? I mean, if Obama's plan is working, there should be evidence, right?

 

Yea, it's gotten so absurd. I mean, when a guy stands on a US military base shouting Allah Akbar while he guns down unarmed people & the administration classifies it as a case of "workplace violence" you know it's moved beyond simply being PC and into dangerously stupid territory. But, ...........

 

Too bad too many see this beyond their paygrade or "status" in life...

 

None of which provided names of any terrorist attacks motivated directly or indirectly by climate change.

Simple fact until you can name such terrorist attacks you are proven wrong and your Messiah is an idiotic fool.

 

You want evidence that a starving mob is prone to riot ?

Frick and Frack man ... this is like asking for evidence that the sky is blue. It is easy to provide if you like but really now ?

This is both a straw man and a red herring = 2 fallacies. First I never stated that there was a terrorist that mentioned climate change.

Second .. Neither did Sanders .. it is a claim he did not make.

Why are you asking for proof for a claim that neither I nor Sanders made ? = Red Herring.

That Climate change will lead to scarcity of resources is a fact.

That scarcity of resources leads to civil strife is a fact.

I did not say anything about "Jihad" so why are you connecting the two ?.

The plight of the Palestinians has little to do with Jihad and much to do with scarce resources (land being one of them and access to markets is another).

Global warming may mean less land = more problems . That is all Sanders was stating and he is correct.

Will scarcity mean more religious zealotry ? Probably ! so that answers your question as well.

It may not be religious zealotry though ... It could be other forms of extremism such as totalitarianism, Facism or Communism.