e Martin O'Malle claims that climate change created ISIS
 

Trump is a jerk, but he's not nearly as crazy or stupid as this guy. O'Malley also apparently believes that we don't need a US military if we would just be nice to everyone. Because in our history, all we do is go around slaughtering everybody, right? Yeesh.


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...-created-isis/

After reading your link he didn't say either of those things.

Too much coffee this morning ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is what he said.

(1) "the rise of ISIS, was the effect of climate change". The effect of climate change, was the rise of ISIS. Does anyone really think that's not insane? If ZI turn off my air conditioner, the jihadists will go back to farming?

(2) "to work with other nations, to reduce them (threats) before we’re kind of backed into a corner where it seems the only response is a military response". Meaning, we can reduce th eneed for military responses by being more engaged. That's what Obama has tried. Acquiesence doesn't work with deranged sociopaths. Ask Neville Chamberlain.

Jim, the little "" things are meant to represent exactly what he said not how you interpreted it.

Spence, once more, you insult my abiity to interpret, without pointing out where my interpretation is flawed. I can only think of one reason why you fail to specify my flaws, and we all know what that is...

He explained, “For example, one of the things that preceded the failure of the nation state of Syria and the rise of ISIS, was the effect of climate change and the megadrought that affected that nation, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis that created the symptoms — or rather, the conditions — of extreme poverty that has now led to the rise of ISIS and this extreme violence.”


This makes complete and logical sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it makes zero sense, unless he can show that (1) the drought he refers to was caused by climate change (earth to you and O'Malley, itr's been dry there for longer than we have been emitting fossil fuels), and (2) a meaningful number of ISIS jihadists were peace-loving farmers who would not have been radicalized if it wasn't for said drought. And how would O'Malley know that? Does ISIS put jihadist bio's on their website? Do they have trading cards that have that info on the back? "I've got the 2015 complete ISIS set from Topps, and all of them said that if it weren't for SUVs, ISIS would not exist".

What do you expect from a guy who feels compelled to apologize for saying something as offensive as "all lives matter".

Not when you only form your opinion from the Brietbart sub-title.

But hey, Jim can't even spell his name right so perhaps that's an easier hurdle to correct.

Bush created ISIS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed.

In that, I would have to agree you are correct. The rise of ISIS (more accurately, the rise of its precursor, called Al Queda in Iraq) was obviously not caused by climate change, but brought about by the removal of Saddam Hussein.

It's also worth noting, if we are being intellectually honest, that Bush subsequently crushed Al Queda in Iraq, thanks to "the Surge". Al Queda in Iraq was decimated thanks to the surge, we have captured communication from leaders of that group, saying it was lost and to stop committing young jihadists to a lost cause.

So how did they rebound? Do you know? What allowed them to come back from decimation, and flourish?

Obama's complete withdrawal, which many warned would create a vaccuum from which a terror would emerge.

When Obama took office, Bush had already created ISIS, and then destroyed ISIS. On th eday of Obama's inauguration, he inherited a stable Iraq, where ISIS was not a major threat. It was on Obama's watch, that ISIS came back stronger than ever, thanks to his refusal to seek a Status Of Forces Agreement and leave behind sufficient troops to keep the hard-earned peace that is now just a memory.

You can't make that wrong, anymore than a crazy governor of Maryland can blame it all on global warming.

Mostly wrong, but I'll give you points for at least being consistent.

If global warming created ISIS, he has a pretty huge carbon footprint, does he not? Mansions, jets, cars,..., if there's any truth to man-made climate changem, and we all lived like Al Gore, then North Dakota would be exporting pineapples by now.

Could you name one specific thing that's wrong?

ISIS is mostly a result of the Shia led Iraq and the removal of forces and diplomatic pressure from the US. This was forecast early on by many people when Democratic Congress pushed hard for early troop removal followed then by the Obama administration took their hands off the wheel (for political purposes) and did not try very hard to keep Iran from pulling Maliki's strings. Clearly Obama made the right decision back then as we see how stable the middle east is these days.

Not Global warming, though Saddam's damming of the Tigris and Euphrates has as much to do with drought conditions south of Baghdad as anything.

Change you can believe in:

http://change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/

'Cept they never did it - they walked away, called the war over, and left the pieces to fall where they may.

let me polish that statement. BUSH created Isis. Obama fertilized it. The next POTUS is going to have to pour some round up on it to kill it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just remembered.... Who went over to help Isis get their act together and helped arm them in Syria ? JOHN #^&#^&#^&#^&ING MCAIN ! :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right . . . so the Chinese are responsible for the gun violence in Chicago because they invented gun powder. Right . . . . the South was actually responsible for giving blacks equal rights because it had slaves. Right . . . . Bush created ISIS because he invaded Iraq . . . or global warming created ISIS because it caused poverty in the Middle East.

It's interesting how the "liberal" mentality will claim on the one hand that Western, especially US, interference in the life of Muslim people deprives them of their right to self-determination and the right to their own dignity, while on the other hand it makes insignificant the influence of Islam in determining what Muslims do-- interesting how they insult Islamists by claiming they are motivated by what the West does rather than by their own beliefs and desires.

When people do anti-social things, liberals must find an outside agent as the cause, usually some purist "conservative" value to blame.

The idea that there is something in Islam which creates an ISIS is not fair. It is a conservative Western construct, and must be dismissed as such. Fundamental Christianity, supposedly being in the conservative fold, is, of course, the cause of all sorts of bigotry and destructive tendencies. It might actually, if root causes are traced back to origins, be the cause for the creation of ISIS. Think about it. Bush, the war monger who invaded Iraq is a Christian. Fundamentalist Christians are reputed to deny man-made global warming.

It could not be, in the political mind of the left, that the roots of ISIS can be traced back to Muhammad. And from there to Osama Bin Laden's desire to re-establish the dominance of Islam that its founder established. It could not be that the purification of Islam from its lapse into various secular Western ways is an object of not only Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Baghdadi, et. al., but of all the various branches of Islamic fundamentalism--Al Qaeda and its affiliates, ISIS, the Umma, all the children of Islam that Bin Laden claimed for his global jihad. It could not be that ISIS is a spiritual descendant of Muhammad and all that followed after him. It could not be that ISIS was created by the desire to restore the power of Islam which had been crushed long before Bush or global warming, and to re-establish the beloved caliphate and to join in, even lead, the jihadists around the world in the expansion of Islam.

No, that would be unfair to the noble religion of Islam--the religion of peace. Especially so because small-minded "conservatives" make such unfounded accusations. It is retrograde fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, conservative war-mongers who stir up that reputed small minority of Muslims who, it is said, are not actually Muslims, but are some aberration created by Bush . . . or global warming. It is certainly not fair to believe that a silent majority of Muslims would actually support a re-established caliphate brought about by an aggression like that of Muhammad himself.

I could not guess what would insult a jihadist more--the invasion of Iraq or to say that he exists because of that invasion. Or, if possible, the even more ludicrous claim that he practices jihadist war because of global warming

Again, you left out, for political reasons, the fact that Bush also "poured round up on it and killed it." That's exactly what he did with the Surge. Exactly. Why can't we be honest?

Obama is the President, will be for another 17 months, right? Why do you say it's up to the "next President" to kill ISIS, why can't you bring yourself to say that Obama sought this job on his own, therefore it's his responsibility to spend the next 17 months pouring round up on it, whether he likes it or not? Why does he get a pass for the next year and a half?

Nebe, that is beyond a stretch. We also aided the anti-Soviet Afghans after the Russian invasion, does that mean that the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Queda?

Sure does. Bin laden was on the pay roll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem with the Internet - you can't see when the Tinfoil Hat is on, or the Sarc Hat :huh:

I realize this interview is on Fox news, which as the people in government of one prominent Sanctuary City will tell you is not a real news source, but here is outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Ordierno. I really recommend you take the couple minutes and lok at the video.

Takeaway: ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US

Easy Read between the lines: Obama is either not getting info/opinion from his senior military leadership (doubtful) or willfully choosing against that advice.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ave-prevented/

Then using your logic, as detbuch said, the Chinese are ultimately responsible for white cops killing unarmed blacks, because they invented gunpowder.

When you decide if someone is responsible for something or not, the abiity to foresee the consequences is part of it.

For example, when the CIA helped the Afghan rebels fight the Soviets, I don't know that anyone was warning the president that if the Soviets were driven out, the rebels might pose a greater threat than the Soviets. i don;t think that was foreseable.

When Bush invaded Iraq, there absolutely were concerns that removing Hussein could make way for a more dangerous threat to emerge. Bush went ahead anyway, so he deserves some culpability for the rise of ISIS.

And when Obama announced he wa sgoing to oversee a complete withdrawal, all kinds of people warned that we needed to leave behind a sufficient force to keep the peace, but Obama was confident that because everyone adores him, it would all be OK. The facts show who was right and who was wrong.

"which as the people in government of one prominent Sanctuary City will tell you is not a real news source"

No, any news source that's not uber liberal, isn't real, you see.

"ISIS could likely have been prevented with more engagement from US" Well, we know this for a fact, because thanks to the Surge, they were decimated. More accurately, their predecessor, Al Queda in Iraq, was decimated.

"willfully choosing against that advice." He had to be aware of what so many were saying. He chose to ignore them. Now, it's possible that if he left behind a peacekeeping force, they all would have been killed, and you could argue that would be worse than the ISIS threat.

Here is what cannot be debated. On the day of his inauguration, Obama inherited a stable, pewceful Iraq. That peace and stability came at a horrific price to our country. Under his watch, those gains have largely evaporated.

And Nebe, one last time, can you please explain why it's not Obama's responsibility to spray round up on ISIS? He has had a lot of time to engage them if he wanted, and he has another 17 months. Why don't you include that on Obama's "to do" list? Why does his to do list sem to be limited to golf, fund raising, and attacking reporters who have th enerve to ask a tough but fair question?

The guy is so weak. He caves in to Iran without demanding the release of the Americans held hostage. How about the fact that Iran pays people to kill Americans, did Obama ask them to stop doing that as partof this deal, or not?

Now we are opening up Cuban embassies. There is a convicted American female cop killer who fled to Cuba, been there for a long time. When the Cubans came to Obama with their hat in their hand, begging to restore relations, why couldn't he have said "sure, I will restore relations, as soon as that cop-killing bitch is back in American custody".

He is SO WEAK. Like Carter, and Neville Chamberlain, he thinks appeasement will make all our problems go away. When does that ever work?

Well, at least you're getting somewhere. The rise of al Qaeda must be put in context of the Cold War.

Keep up the lessons spence :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you pay attention to them? Surely, if you do, you must have learned that the Cold War occurred before Bush and global warming. Maybe, also, you may ask Spence to expand and expound on that context thing.

Everything is context to you if it diverts attention from your hero. But I am surprised you did not put it into the context of Bush (sr) seeing that he had US forces in S.A. after Desert Storm (key motivator of Bin Laden). Or maybe the fault of the British, due to Egypt and Muslin Brotherhood. Or Nazis and East Africa. Or Russia and the Caucuses. Or China and the Ugyhurs.

It's easy to say if we had a residual force everything would be peachy, but it wouldn't have fixed the underlying issues stemming from de-bathification and ongoing repression of the Sunni minority. Worse perhaps it would give the impression that we were endorsing it. It also would have likely sucked the US right back into a ground war...which ISIS would simply love.

I don't think Obama is deaf, it's just a very complex situation.