Obama tells DiCaprio CLIMATE CHANGE contributed to Syrian civil war

Sorry the Syrian Civil War is part of the topic...I suggest you read the whole OP/title.

 

Agriculture has been down by 70% for nearly a decade.

 

I tend to think that agriculture is the foundation of society. When agriculture fails and hunger strikes ...people become discontent with their government and turn to religion. This is when radical religious views can take hold and fuel rebellion. I tend to believe that people tend to think their plight is caused by turning from their God and their only hope is in renewed faith and following religious principles. Under these conditions a radical religious dogma can take hold...such as Isis.

 

Thats usually what happens when foreign governments hire terrorists to foment a civil war

 

In this case, the crash in agriculture came from a multi-year drought - not meddling from the outside.

 

Dead people dont farm

[video=youtube;nDryblsSH3w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDryblsSH3w[/video]

 

Syrian farmers began abandoning their farms in 2005..

 

Is that why hillary and obama flooded syria with international terrorists and heavy weapons?

 

Obama wasn't president in 2005, genius.

 

Lul.. Comedy gold, and that's coming from someone who accepts the basic premise that humans are probably impacting earth's climate to some extent. It's funny because it serves the interests of those who will point to every instance of seemingly unusual weather patterns and blame anthropogenic climate change without a second thought, which actually demonstrates a bad case of confirmation bias and a lack of critical and scientific thinking. It's also sad when science gets politicised, and this AGW stuff is a major case of that. The science is in!

 

And hurricanes happen all over the world. They are also called cyclones and typhoons. But I guess if it doesn't happen in the u s it doesn't count.

 

You had me up to the religion part.

The number of ISIS fighters (and those of other groups) has never been large. It absolutely does NOT represent what would happen if those who were (or are) hungry in Syria were to turn to ISIS - even though ISIS is of their sect and very much opposed to Assad's.

The same goes in Iraq, where Sunni civilians were willing to support the USA against AQI (before ISIS) even though AQI was of their sect and they were being attacked by Shi'a militias, and even though the USA had done enormous damage to Sunnis (deBaathification, our refusal to opppose Shi'a militias).

In my opinion, we are FAR too ready to suspect religious motivations in this region. Sectarian issues absolutely do exist, but a major portion of what is going on is attributable to secular causes.

We in the US would use our privately owned arms against our own government if we were starving and Obama started dropping barrel bombs on us so he could stay in office. That isn't because we're all terrorists. That isn't because we're all Christians.

 

Are you saying Isis did not rise from discontent?

 

Quite true.

However, the starvation that kicked this thing off came from the drought, not the zombie apocalypse of Assad's dreams.

 

Growth of population from 2 million to 23 million and poor water management had everything to do with it.

 

No, it rose from discontent - Assad's tyranny and war on his own people plus the agricultural devastation of years of drought. But, ISIS can't claim to represent any significant percent of those who have profound justification for discontent.

In a region with tens of millions of people it has found it hard to attract more than tens of thousands (a tenth of a percent) even when ISIS was ready to fight Assad or Maliki who were using the state military against the people.

Remnants will remain in various places, so I'm not suggesting that we ignore ISIS even slightly. I just think their attempted religious connection is false and not being accepted.

 

The Mid East has suffered from centuries of overgrazing and poor land management. I am convinced the lack of rain as a result of these practices has fueled this problem. But it is being used as a power grab to be sure.

 

Umm, where else do you think hurricanes strike - out in the midlands?

 

Now that is hilarious. Hurricanes in the middle of the ocean are still hurricanes. Haha

 

There population growth has been about that of Canada.

And, it's easy to point to poor water management when the ruler is a tyrant and the nation has been in drought for years. The drought was historically significant. And, blaming the catastrophe on management doesn't change anything. There are many countries that have been caught out by drought - the US, for example.

 

Forget it...

Midlands... what do you think that means? The middle of the ocean?

 

Are they not a hurricane until they hit land? Hilarious

 

Only parts of the US. It is called regional variation.

 

Well, their weather pattern is going to be coming off the sea and Homs is less than 50 miles inland. It's not like the US midwest where evaporation from a land mass is a significant source of rain water.

But, I'm no expert on Syrian land use and irrigation.

The bottom line of the posted links is that they had a serious multi-year drought that was a significant factor in kicking off the catastrophe we see today.

 

Very few but that but Obama did.