It's not just about temp change and ocean levels- it's the shifts in climate affecting ecosystems (for example, speeding up desertification in some places and bringing extreme weather to others). Sure, people can move inland, but moving inland isn't going to help the ecosystems. Humans are very adaptable, we have technology and skills to handle rapidly changing parameters- other organisms can't. Changes of salinity in water, drier soil, excessive rain, first/last frost, etc. are happening too fast and causing widespread destruction to and collapse of ecosystems worldwide- the affected flora/fauna aren't like us- they simply won't survive.
Good; natural ecosystems re a moral hazard, anyway- a giant, self-perpetuating torture dungeon. If somebody created predator species, or botflies, or ringworms, you'd have them executed for crimes against nervous systems. I vote, then, to execute natural selection.
It's our duty to save all living things capable of pain from their fates.
Bleak, but also hilarious the lengths the fossil fuel industry will be defended and coddled- almost as astounding as the people who refuse to understand how the greenhouse effect works despite encountering it on a regular basis. Scientists have been warning about the potential climate impacts since more than a century ago:
What a tremendously ignorant take. Do you get your science only from pop-sci articles 4 degrees removed from actual scientists? Can you point to any actual examples of this happening?
Do your own research - start with all the predictions from scientists in the 70's that were claiming that we were entering the next ice age.
Like this one:
>>>>
“The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. “If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
He was hardly alone. In 1975, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said that “(t)he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” Scientist Nigel Calder wrote that “(t)he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
Scientific consensus eventually moved away the global cooling alarums and instead began warning against global warming in the 1980s. Columbia University scientist James Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony was one of the watershed moments in putting the global warming agenda before the American people in a major way. These days, Hansen is suing the government on behalf of children and future generations because he thinks they’re not doing enough to stop global warming.
<<
The media and (some) scientists have cried wolf so many times, they now get ignored by the masses - and now they have to make ever more outrageous claims in order to get noticed.
This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region, which have been ongoing for decades. Just as the US has reason to retaliate against Saudi Arabia, many other places could also have reasons to push the ruling family out of power and gain influence.
It also fails to account for the autonomy of the people there. Is it really so hard to believe that they are rebelling against authoritarianism?
Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness?
Interestingly, the same can be said of unrest anywhere- undoubtedly the agendas of several states will always align with weakening their competitors/adversaries.
When you consider the things everyday people care about and strive for, it can be argued that any party interested in destabilizing another nation would play to those aspirations in such a way as to further their control- this is true of almost everywhere, it is not exclusive to any one people or any one institution, and it can be seen in every region. In any given place, if you take a close look, there are varying levels of influence from foreign powers- often with the goal to secure economic goals or obtain natural resources.
> This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region
That is a very simplistic, and correct view of how the US manipulates such tensions.
There are many of us international HNers, whose countries suffered multiple US backed coups or color revolutions, and even worse, whose grassroots popular movements were co-opted and subverted by the US.
So much that even the 'people's movement', Solidarity in Poland, that was the 'trade union' movement that overthrow their government, was CIA funded and organized. The same thing has been a staple of daily life in Middle East since 1960s, when CIA decided to fund and use Islamist groups.
As someone from one of those countries, I'm well aware.
I'm not saying the US, and/or proxies of the agendas of the powerful who stand to gain from exploitation and meddling, aren't involved. I would expect they are very much involved, and I would be very skeptical of any claim they aren't.
What I'm saying is simply that despite this, people in those places could conceivably be independently fed up- and their dissatisfaction with their regimes stands on its own and is valid. There is a lot of nuance and a lot of different intersecting motivations and interests at play.
I just think, in my personal opinion, that those things people fight and risk dying for (freedom from persecution, personal safety, to be able to put food on the table, to care for family, etc) aren't only happening because of outside factors and political reasons, these are human concerns. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere else, aren't just pawns susceptible to propagands- they understand there are all sorts of players trying to gain dominance over their lives. A lot of people in the US have these broad ideas about people in entire regions, as though they're monoliths- like people in Iran/Saudi Arabia were content and would have been obedient if not for foreign involvement, which I think is simplistic and I disagree with this assumption.
People in an uprising and nations in upheaval are especially vulnerable to external groups swooping in to manipulate the situation to their interests- this much is true, and it can also be true that people would have been rising up regardless. How this plays out over time is yet to be seen but unfortunately the most likely scenario is some other despot will step in to further their personal agenda at the expense of the people, whether they align with US interests or otherwise... like anywhere else, those in power will fight to maintain and gain power and control, no matter the human cost and devastation- this is true everywhere.
How this plays out over time is either of the two: 1) The protests fail, either due to the momentum fading or the government suppressing 2) The protests succeed, and the country gets a US backed government. Along with all the privatization, removal of labor protections and social welfare, decline in life standards.
Unfortunately, there hasnt been any case of the protesters somehow being able to avert that while still succeeding. Because such protests and movements need organization to succeed. And if there wasnt an indigenous, powerful source of such organization present in the country for a long time, the organization will be coming from those who are backed by the US.
A US backed government would mean hell for both Saudis and Iranis - Saudi Arabia has VERY extensive social programs that literally guarantee everyone's comfort, life and education. Iran does not have those, but it still has enough such programs and the traditional cultural relations and social fabric is still alive. Those tend to get destroyed in the first wave of privatizations and 'free marketization'.
Saudis not always acquiescing to US pleas/demands historically hasn’t ever regime change ops. They have Long history of cooperation likely, arms deals, key to keeping dollar for their market, keep up starving slaughtering Yemen, where as Iran has been one of baddies since 1979
I agree but what you’re missing from threat modeling is relative capability of actors. And yes not there’s degrees of of organic discontent which is key to amplifying or muting etc. they’ll have intelligence and adapt vectors. For example the girl was killed is a fact. The trick is building narrative and this is where likely lies of omission or exaggeration or semantics come in in e.g. girl is dead, it’s evil repressive regimes fault, we demand justice. Not perfect science for sure
You're absolutely right it's been going on for decades, but I think looking into that history is also telling. In 1953 Iran was a relatively secular and democratic nation that had generally positive, though flagging, relations with the West. Then their leader decided to reduce US/UK control over his country's oil assets. So of course we had to bring democracy to them. But since they already had a democracy, autocracy would have to do instead. [1]
We staged a coup, overthrew their democracy, and installed an extremely unpopular puppet dictator and monarch. 26 years later in 1979 there was another revolution, except this one was carried out by the people of Iran, and not the CIA. The puppet (still ruling from 1953 interestingly) was overthrown, and in his place an Islamic theocracy was created. And since then it's invariably been headed by leaders that, for some reason, haven't been especially fond of the West - and frequently imply we're up to shenanigans. That scenario continues to this day.
Ultimately I no longer really believe that we deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to black ops types scenarios. We've turned what should be a sort of last resort act of subterfuge into what increasingly seems to be a front-line approach to international relations. The most bizarre part is that these shenanigans never even really seem to achieve anything. Iran just being one example of going black ops to undermine one enemy, only to create one 10x more deadly, dangerous, and hostile than the former.
All we really seem to be achieving is the fast-tracking of WW3.
I agree. I am sure that the hack boosted the morale of many protestors. It is tragic but us normals have no way of determine the degree to which it was inside job. Who is going to trust the CIA, etc if they deny it?
Ya, we can't really know, but I think it's fair to say that powerful though the CIA is, they can't synthesize these kinds of protests from nothing. So, even if the CIA did hack these TV stations to aid the protesters, it's something that could just as easily have been done organically too, so I'm not sure it really matters whether they did or didn't.
No, GP is a legit comment. Everything you say about Iran is also true of Saudi Arabia (in the sense of the ruling regime being autocratic and oppressive) but it's expedient for the establishment in the US to condemn one regime and support the other.
> Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness?
Out of all the nations on Earth, perhaps a majority of them have some kind of discontent among the population. Then, with this blank cheque being given, the nations with the most powerful intel agencies can empower the ones they want into full-blown protests.
The conspiracy theory that Russia influenced the two recent American presidential elections naturally come to mind. If that was the case—and I don’t doubt that they might have invested a small pittance into FB ads—then they were surely just building on existing unhappiness, as Trump supporters are too numerous to all be sleeper agents of the waning super power that is Russia.
>the intent was to make sure people instantly understand without context
This goes without saying, but this isn't exclusive to AlQaeda. Using video editing to convey a strong message isn't enough reason to conclude there is a link to foreign intelligence. Most likely they were just trying to be direct and convey a message (a statement to the regime that the people are tired of and angry about the oppression/violence)- none of what you mentioned to explain your association to AlQaeda makes any sense- "musical tribal message"? Are you inplying AlQaeda is controlled by a foreign agency? Which agency?
Really makes it sound like you have a very vague understanding of the region, alongside a very strong bias.
> If they were against ethnic groups, as the current western propaganda wants us to believe, they would have applied that policy so they'd have less of that "problematic ethnic group"
> They didn't, which mean they are fine having ethnic groups
Or, they just didn't deem the issue relevant enough to spend the resources to deal with it. China is a large country, some of those ethnic groups exist in remote locations, some very difficult to reach- it has been the case numerous times when a natural disaster occurred and aid was slow to reach those regions because of logistical difficulties.
Perhaps it wasn't that they are fine with the ethnic groups, but that they were indifferent and/or deemed them unimportant unless they had sufficient reason to think they warranted the attention/involvement.
Mind that just because they didn't want to lower their numbers, doesn't mean they have no issue with those groups, or that they wouldn't have issues with them if the situation and their perception of them changed.
None of what you mention presents plausible evidence of your statement implying that CIA/MI6 have monolithic control over information regarding the camps. Not to say they aren't manipulating information or have no involvement, but none of the evidence you present backs up your claim.
Enforcing the birth of children and sending people to camps are two very different issues.
The content not being HD could be explained by them using less detectable drones. I would imagine that flying a military or HD drone over sovereign territory would be dangerous and an act of aggression, so it's within the realm of belief that someone, perhaps covertly, used a drone less likely to draw suspicion, not easily detectable or traceable to foreign interests.
Moreover if you watch the Frontline (the same source you cited above) documentaries about Iraq, you'll find they present people working in intelligence at the time explicitly told officials Zarqawi was sketchy and that the information he presented was not supported by the intel they had.
I'm not saying it's a certainty without doubt that the camps are everything what some sources allege them to be, but it's also not certain without a doubt that they aren't.
Really sounds to me like all those flimsy excuses are just fabrications to obfuscate an ulterior motive behind the sensors. It's very sinister and dishonest, like the person authorizing their usage and answering questions about that decision either doesn't fully understand why they're doing what they're doing, has no regard for the ethical issues involved with invasive surveillance as well as no concern for misuse of resources, or hiding something. Perhaps all of the above.
If you do decide to partake, make sure you have someone with you, not only in case things go awry but just to help guide you along. It can be very disorienting and scary, when you start realizing the shop has sailed, so to speak. Hard to put it to words, and I'm sure people experience it differently, but if you start to panic things can take a turn. I had a friend once call me, terrified and barely coherent, when I showed up they were not even sure how much time had passed or what they'd done. Luckily I was able to calm them down, and things went smoothly from there.
Most importantly do research and be very very careful with doses or combinations, as (depending on what you have and where you got it) it's possible to overdo it when you think you didn't take enough. Better to err on the side of caution than to be overwhelmed, and because people react differently don't just think because someone else's dose worked for them that it will work for you.
Even without knowing the letter of the law to a T I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. Sure, the CJ system is broken and awful... but your ideas of why are just incorrect.
> I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption.
As fas as I understand it, they didn't seize Bitcoins. They seized the computer, and the computer is still in the government's hands.
If they really wanted to seize Bitcoins, they could transfer them to the Wallet they own. Given the fact that they left them where they were, means they didn't seize them, and they can't complain that a person moved them somewhere else.
The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.
I think you might be stretching this a lot... try to drive past the front gate at your local military base and we can see just how reserved their use of force is.
It is true, however, that the military has strict rules for when lethal force are permitted. I'm not sure how that counters anything said here, since LE also has very strict rules.
In hindsight, we can all examine the facts and agree the force used in that situation was unwarranted. But that's the benefit of hindsight.
Regardless, we should not focus on how many rounds were fired. We should instead focus on how the wrong decision was made in the first place.
That is the point of this entire thread. Do not use round count to indicate anything. It just doesn't indicate anything...
The active threat of someone intentionally driving through a security checkpoint at a military base is an entirely different context. At the point they're crossing the threshold they've already disregarded very obvious markings, signs, obstacles, and undobtedly commands from the sentries on post. There are a number of scenarios for which there are pre planned responses- deviating from those leaves you facing the UCMJ and you're expected to have a very solid justification for using deadly force.
Shooting at a vehicle not actively causing harm due to a perceived threat because it looks like the vehicle of someone you reasonably expect to be a threat is... well, that's a stretch.
Anecdotally I can say from personal experience there is a lot more restraint being used when guarding people/places relating to national security in place where you can reasonably expect to encounter threats and terrorism than the amount of restraint police here use at civilians domestically.
I live in a residential area outside of a military base. Civilians accidentally drive into the base's properties and roads all the time. The most that happens is that someone in camo tells you that you're trespassing and to not do it again. Speaking from experience.
Those strict rules boil down to 'whenever you feel threatened.'
If it ever goes to court, the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger. Which is, of course, next-to-impossible.
> the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger.
Close, but not quite. It's not about what the person was thinking, it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.
For what it's worth, this is how it works for civilians too.
The only burden is to convince a jury a reasonable person would also believe there was a threat given the same situation. Reasonable meaning having the same information as the people involved, ie. without the benefit of hindsight or later discovered facts.
> it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.
Then why are the seven LAPD officers that shot at the pickup truck during their manhunt for Dorner not serving ten-to-twenty?
Because if me and six of my closest friends shot up a random, non-threatening truck with two women in it, there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't convict us, and there's not a prosecutor in the world who would decline to press charges.
They are only held to the same standards as the rest of us in theory. In practice, the bar is so low, it's practically nonexistant.
I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.
They did not just get together and shoot up a non-threatening truck with two women in it, as you say. That's what we would say in hindsight, given the facts as-discovered after the incident.
The question you should be asking, but didn't, is why the first officer that opened fire is not in trouble for an obvious (in hindsight) wrong call. I would hazard to guess qualified immunity played into that officer's case. Perhaps that is where you should focus.... not on the number of rounds used.
> I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.
In no universe were they justified in their manhunt for a 250lb man to open fire at a pickup truck of the wrong model and color, driven by two women.
The first rule of using firearms, regardless of whether you shoot one round, or one hundred and five, is that you need to know what the hell you're shooting at before you do it. Are you saying that they opened fire without having any idea who they were shooting at? What kind of reasonable person would do so? One that is blind? One that has zero regard for human life?
That's not a lapse in judgement, that's not a 'whoopsie daisies', that's not grounds for a civil suit, that's a felony if done by anyone without a badge. A hanging offense if someone were killed over it.
What I'm saying is clearly a jury (if this went to court, I don't know and will not research further since it's irrelevant) had facts and knowledge that you do not. Specifically, the knowledge possessed by the officers at the moment this happened.
We have the benefit of knowing all the facts now, after the event occurred. We are privy to information the officers did not have at that moment - specifically that it was an unarmed vehicle without the suspect inside.
Very often the outrage from these events centers around post-event facts that were not known at the time the event happened. This is why it often appears like LEO's get "off" without punishment when the reality is they acted reasonably given the information they had at the moment.
Perhaps it should be discussed if the call was actually reasonable or not. That's fine. What's not fine is pretending 107 rounds fired means anything at all... it doesn't.
So no, despite what TV wants you to think, there are not gangs with badges driving around shooting up random trucks for funsies. That's just not reality.
> The first rule of using firearms
To be pedantic, this is not the first rule of firearms.
If the police are looking for a dangerous suspect in my town, I, as a civilian, can feel free to start shooting up any vehicle that is of the same type as that of the suspect?
And I should be in the clear, as long as I can reasonably argue that I don't know who I was shooting at?
Is this the society you think we live in? One where the prosecutor will not charge me, because, aw shucks, he can't prove that I knew what I was doing when I started blasting?
