-1=e^ipi

If ISIS were in other countries, it wouldn't be called ISIS, would it? The probability that an organization called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, would be in Iraq and Syria and not in other countries is 1. Therefore trying to derive some correlation between the existence of ISIS and US intervention in the manner you are trying to do is nonsense. Why is that strange?

Look, if you make a 2C target and then try to find a scientific basis for it, then that approach is backwards and dogmatic. What you should do is look at the evidence and then make an informed decision about what the evidence should be, not the other way around. The 2C target came first in the mid-90's. Then later came all these 'scientific justifications'. That's dogma. Really? Because you have referenced articles in the past that do exactly that. I'm not confused about the time frame. You are. Antarctic deglaciation started 34 million years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

Do various violent Islamists use perceptions of 'foreign aggression' plus verses in the Islamic texts to justify their jihad? Absolutely. Does that mean foreign aggression is the root cause for the development of ISIS and other anti-western Jihadists? No. It's a contributing factor sure, but not the root cause, not even the main cause. The violent Islamists believe that they are destined to take over the world and that it is their duty to bring Islam to everyone. The fact that they can use foreign aggression to help justify their actions is not the same thing as foreign aggression being the primary cause of their actions. Offensive jihad has existed for 1400 years, ever since Mohammed decided to 'pre-emptively' invade Syria and start a war with the Byzantine empire that lasted centuries until the Byzantine empire collapsed and Constantinople was sacked and renamed Istanbul. How do you think North Africa, Persia, Turkey, Pakistan, the Balkans and Iberia became part of various Caliphates? It was offensive jihad. That isn't my position. Strawman. There are many contributing factors, religion is just a major one. And western politicians that continuously ignore this like Cameron, Obama and Harper don't help by ignoring it. I never said it wasn't. Just that it isn't very useful at explaining western foreign policy in the past 1.5 decades compared to other explanations.

Who is 'we' here? Are you talking about the West? The west has been intervening since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW2. The initial 'intervening' was primarily due to colonialism and imperialism by the French and British. Though I guess you could go back a bit earlier and point to attempts by the French to colonize North Africa since Napoleonic times. US oil based intervention only started after 1938 when oil was discovered (1941 was when development of the oil fields actually started). Of course during that time you had WW2, so it was really only after WW2 that oil became a significant factor in Western middle-eastern foreign policy. But that was also the beginning of the cold war, in which case the Christian Americans thought that the God-loving Arabs would make good allies against the evil godless communists, which is when a strong alliance really started between the West and the gulf states. Of course during the cold war you had various proxy wars between the US and the USSR. Look, I admitted that 20-30 years ago, oil was a significant explanation of Western Foreign policy towards the middle east. So bringing up the Gulf war as a counter example doesn't make much sense since that occurs 20-30 years ago. There are far more reasons than this, and oil isn't the main one. Jihadists target pretty much all parts of the world, not just the West. They target Hindus and Sheiks in India, Buddhists in Burma, Christians and Hindus in Indonesia, Christians and Animists in Africa, etc. They do it because they believe jihad is central to their religion and that it is their duty to ensure that Islam takes over the world. Now why might the west be targeting more frequently in the past few decades? Simply because it isn't Islamic and has been successful over the past few decades. The Islamists can't stand the idea that the world super power is non-Islamic, since according to them, Islam is destined to take over the world. If the super power were China or Russia, then they would be the targets. There is a reason why the 911 hijackers chose to attack the US rather than Canada, Britain or Germany. That is because the US was the world super power and the hijackers wanted to show the world that they were more powerful than the world super power.

ISIL considers the majority of the population of Iraq to be apostates that should be killed. How do you not learn after having been shown to have a very poor understanding of the situation time after time? The thing is, if ISIS grows too large then these countries will be under threat, especially Saudi Arabia. ISIS will spread to Saudi Arabia and Jordan before it will spread to more distant parts of the world. Also, why are you considering Egypt to be along the same lines as the UAE and Saudi Arabia? If Mohammed Morsi was still in power, maybe. But the current government in Egypt are the nationalists and military, who are opposed to Islamist groups like ISIS and Mohammed Morsi. Did you forget about all that fighting in Sinai last year between the Egyptian military and the Islamists? How does a particular would side 'win'? There isn't going to be any 'winning' from either side. No. Russia's interest is seeing that Assad stays in power, since Assad is an ally of Russia, let's Russia have a military base in the Mediterranean, and buys Russian military equipment. BS. The Shia Iranians aren't gravitating towards ISIS. The alawites and people in Assad's regime aren't gravitating to join ISIS. The anti-Islamist Egyptians that feel betrayed by the US for siding with the Islamist Muslim brotherhood aren't gravitating towards ISIS.

@ waldo - finding the origins of the 2 degree target is not difficult. Just go to google and type '2 degree target origins'. Here is the result: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html It's a political target with origins in the 90's when the understanding of anthropogenic global warming was a lot weaker than it is today. Now since then, various groups have tried to dogmatically give the 2 degree target a 'scientific basis'. The closest thing to a 'scientific justification' is that if the 2 degree target is exceeded, then this will cause Antarctic Deglaciation. Often paleoclimate data will be used to show that Antarctic glaciation started when the Earth was approximately 2 degrees warmer. But there are a number of issues with this claim: very different ocean currents existed 23 or 34 million years ago than today due to different positions of continents, rarely people take into account the fact that the temperature required to start glaciation should be lower than the temperature required to start deglaciation since a glaciated planet has a higher albedo, the direction of causality between CO2 and temperature is different today than in the past since today it is primarily changes in CO2 levels due to human activity causing climate change rather than changes in Ocean currents, the Earth's orbit/tilt, etc. causing climate change, the 2 degree number is only obtained by arbitrarily rounding down to the nearest degree, etc. I could go into more detail, but that would take time. I am still planning to make a thread on this topic but it's a matter of finding time since I want to do some interesting things for it. I've looked extensively for a scientific basis for the 2 degree target and have found none. How is it not reasonable to conclude that this scientific basis does not exist?

No, they want the entire world. Iraq and Syria is just the first step. Of course it is unlikely they will achieve that goal.

To speed up negotiations and make them easier to do. Would you rather waste tax payer money on never ending negotiations? To guarantee that Chinese companies that invest in Canada have property rights. Foreign investors are less likely to invest if they think their is a good chance that their investments will be expropriated by the government. Probably to increase confidence in FIPA. Investors are less likely to invest if they think the agreement will suddenly end in 5 years. Also, this is an investment agreement rather than a trade agreement like NAFTA. So the role of property rights is more important.

Yeah, cause it's not like beheading of apostates, stoning of rape victims, criminalization of adultery, death penalty for apostasy, and amputation of thieves has any theological basis in Islam or anything. *sarcasm* We aren't in the the Dark Ages. It is the 21st century. And the problem isn't Muslims not following the words of Mohammed. Rather, it is the Muslims FOLLOWING the words of Mohammed. I also don't care what Jesus said.

See, foreign investment helps to create jobs and increases the physical capital in the country, thereby increasing Canada's GDP and making us better off. Foreign investment is good, and I'd rather live in a country with good employment prospects than a country with poor employment prospects. Not everyone agrees with protectionist BS and wants to implement protectionist policies that will make us poorer. Fortunately, protectionists are not in power (well sort of, we still have the supply management BS in eggs, chicken, milk and other areas which is supported by all 3 political parties; too bad Martha Hall Findley didn't win the liberal leadership). I do. Vulnerable to risk? Risk of what? Being better off due to more foreign investment? Your understanding of the effects of NAFTA is not based on reality. NAFTA has been mutually beneficial for all 3 countries involved.

There are many reasons and the issue is complex. But the primary reason is religious ideology. But recognizing the role of religion is simply taboo in western politics, which is why I doubt things will get any better over the next few years. Exactly.

That's difficult to do due to the origins of Islam. It is far easier to say that 'religious texts that were written over a century after Jesus, contain various parables, were written by a variety of authors, and were put together and rearranged for political reasons' should not be taken literally than it is to say that 'religious texts that were written immediately after Mohammed's death, the last an final prophet of Allah who was visited by the Angel Gabriel, which contain the exact words and phrases spoken by Mohammed as observed by numerous of his followers and contains the exact words of God as spoken through the prophet Mohammed" should not be taken literally. Islam doesn't have the same flexibility of interpretation as other religions do.

Maybe 20-30 years ago, oil-dependence was a good way of explaining the West's behaviour with respect to middle eastern foreign policy. Before that desire to defeat the communists and waging proxy wars against the USSR was a good explanation. And it is very clear that the decade's long alliance between the US and gulf states has origins strongly rooted in oil. But trying to explain the West's behaviour today as a result of 'desire for oil' is so overly simplistic and wrong it is ridiculous. If it was all about the oil, then why hasn't the US built the keystone XL pipeline? Then they would be far less oil dependent on the middle east then. The reason we have the current situation is primarily because of stupidity, ignorance and BS political philosophy. In most western countries, on the right you have the religious apologists and on the left you have the cultural-relativists. As a result, according to most western politicians the actions of ISIS and other Islamist groups have 'nothing to do with religion'. Basically all political parties in the west do NOT understand the problem so their actions will always be suboptimal. I'm not a big fan on quoting old famous people, but I think Sun Tzu might have been on to something when he wrote: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The Islamic State rejects the concept of nations. They are a new Caliphate that is destined to rule the entire world under Sharia (or at least that's what many of its members think). I didn't think David Cameron could sink to a new low after claiming that jihadist attacks have nothing to do with Islam but apparently he has. Now people that believe 'there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the final prophet of Allah', pray 5 times a day towards Mecca, go to Mosque every Friday, fast during Ramadan, and perform Zakat are apparently not Muslim according to David Cameron. ISIS is not an entity that can be destroyed by military force alone. You might be able to go in, invade Northern Iraq & Eastern Syria, and remove ISIS from power, but ISIS or a new Islamist entity will just pop up again a few years later stronger than ever. Maybe, but does it really make sense for Western countries to go into Iraq & Syria and fight ISIS in Sunni lands? Arming the Kurds and assisting the Iraqi government is one thing, but what Obama and Cameron want to do is something else completely. If western countries go in, it will become an expensive and never ending conflict that will help ISIS get more recruits because they can use the fact that 'Non-Muslim' countries are invading 'Muslim Lands' and use parts of the Quran to claim that Muslims have a duty everywhere to help ISIS. And what exactly is the 'end goal' here? What western countries should do is the following: 1. Provide some limited assistance to the Kurds and Iraqi government to make sure Kurdish and Shia lands do not fall to ISIS. Western countries are doing this already, we should not do more. Also, stop funding Islamist rebels in Syria and Iraq. Even the so called 'moderate' ones. 2. Let 'allied' regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan deal with ISIS in Sunni Territories militarily. ISIS is Sunni, therefore Sunni countries are the only ones capable of invading Iraq & Syria and dealing with ISIS without enabling ISIS to obtain more recruits by claiming non-muslims are invading muslim lands. And if these Sunni regional powers are not willing of dealing with ISIS, then maybe the West should rethink it's 'alliance' with these countries. Though if the West & Sunni regional powers do not intervene then it will only spread & will become a major problem for these Sunni regional powers before it becomes a problem for the West (simply due to geography and the fact that certain countries like Mecca hold significance in Islam). Therefore, the Sunni regional powers would have to deal with ISIS eventually, whether they want to or not. 3. Make peace with Assad. The whole narrative of Assad 'being an evil dictator and the protestors being moderate freedom fighters cause they use twitter' that the Western media has tried to brainwash into people the past few years is simply wrong. There are no 'good guys' in this conflict and distinguishing between 'moderate' and 'extremist' rebel groups is difficult at best. Like it or not, the Syrian government is supported by a significant fraction of the Syrian population and even if Syria were to magically become a democracy, a significant percentage of the population would still vote for Assad. It is sort of similar to how Canada has monarchists; I don't understand it, but I accept that they exist and the right of those people to have political representation. The requirement that 'Assad needs to step down' in order for peace that various western governments insisted upon was naive. The best option is to try to pressure 'moderate' rebel factions and the Syrian government (through Russia) to agree to a peace where Assad will remain president until the next election and rebel groups are allowed to form political parties to compete for power. That is far more preferable than having Islamists in power and/or trying to wage a proxy war against Russia to overthrow Assad. 4. Address the problem of funding of Islamist groups from oil-rich gulf states. Address the fact that years of funding of Wahabbism from Saudi Arabia has significantly contributed to this problem. Rethink our 'alliance' with certain countries such as Saudi Arabia. And most importantly, recognize that Islam is a significant ingredient to this jihadist terrorism. Stop trying to pretend it has nothing to do with theology, as the cultural relativists and religious apologists would have you believe. Unfortunately, Obama, Harper, Cameron and Hollande are all idiots that would rather wage a proxy war against Russia than take the issue of 'Islamists who want to take over the world and establish a global caliphate' seriously. They already chose this 'path' years ago in their reaction to the Arab Spring and their decision to side with Islamists such as Mohammed Morsi. Changing path now would cause too much ego loss, so expect more stupid decisions from these guys over the next 1-2 years. There will probably be another failure of an invasion into Iraq within a year by Western countries, and in 4-5 years the problem of violent Islamists will be worse than ever.

Uh, no. If you listen to what ISIS is saying in their videos, they are telling Western Countries to NOT intervene. ISIS want's a power vacuum so they can solidify their control over their territories and ensure the establishment of their Caliphate. Of course, if the West intervenes then 'the evil crusaders will be invading muslims lands' which will help them get more foreign recruits.

Aren't most of the 'cuts' from 1.4% to 1% due to less combat expenses since we aren't as involved in Afganistan? In that case, our 1% GDP military is just as capable as the former 1.4% GDP military.

Without occum's razor, there is no scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Properties_of_scientific_inquiry I could point to the origins of the 2C target being political in origin, going back to the 1990s. I could point to a 2C increase above per-industrial levels not being sufficient to cause Antarctic deglaciation (which is the main 'scientific' basis people will point to when asked to justify the 2C target). I could point to the fact that science does not tell people what to do. So the concept of there being a purely scientifically justified target is nonsense. I could also point to the complete lack of economic justification for the 2C target. But ultimately you are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible outside that which can be derived purely deductively. That is the reason why the scientific method uses principles such as Occum's Razor.

^ Doesn't understand difference between projected and expected. They aren't the same thing. Yes, it is well established that you do not understand burden of evidence, and you also reject the scientific principle of occum's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Your entire rant seems to rely on various premises that I do not agree with, such as Putin wanting to take 'back all the Warsaw pact nations', Putin being comparable to Hitler, Putin planning to invade Kiev or Baltic states, etc. Putin annexed Crimea after the overthrow of the government in Kiev because it is a majority ethic Russian & Russian-speaking oblast, it has access to the black sea, it has a Russian military base, it is relatively well off, it was part of Russia and not Ukraine for over 150 years, and there was a referendum were the majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia (the referendum was unfair and biased, but despite that it is pretty obvious that the majority of the Crimean people wanted to join Russia). The situation is very different from other Ukrainian oblasts. Specifically, Luhansk and Donesk were not historically part of Russia, have more opposition to joining Russia, are poor, and have little strategic importance to Russia. That is why Russia doesn't want those provinces to join them. It is much more useful for Russian influences to use those provinces and the rebels in those provinces as leverage to turn Ukraine into a federation that cannot join the EU or NATO. That is Putin's primary goal, to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO (though I think it is unlikely he will achieve this goal; Western Ukraine will inevitably join NATO and the EU). As for annexing or invading Baltic states, those Baltic states are part of the EU and NATO, offer little strategic importance to Russia, and do not have large sections of the population from joining Russia. I see no basis for your claims about Putin's intentions, because the intentions seem pretty obvious to me, and they don't involve trying to take control over all former Warsaw countries.

No, I said that was the order of magnitude of expected warming. Of course I did. It's pretty common knowledge that the 2C target can only be achieved if various countries agree to significant CO2 mitigation policies (like 50%-80% CO2 emission reduction). Again, you clearly do not understand burden of proof/evidence. If I claim that unicorns do not exist, the burden of proof/evidence is not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of unicorns, but rather on those that disagree to provide evidence of unicorns. Similarly, if I claim there is no scientific justification of the 2C target, the burden is not on me to show the lack of a scientific justification.

Actually, I should probably give a better answer, in case someone accuses me of giving false information. The number of square roots will depend on the Set we are talking about (Or more specifically, the Ring, since if we are talking about square roots then it is reasonable to expect there to be two binary operations on this set that satisfy the properties of a Ring). The real numbers have zero square roots, where as the quaternions have six square roots of -1. Though in most cases people will be using the complex numbers, since the complex numbers satisfy the nice property of algebraic closure, in which case there are only the two mentioned above.

2C increase is both a projection and a target. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is a projection because it is projected that under significant CO2 emission mitigation policies, it can be achieved. You are trying to present what I said as if I thought that 2C is the expected increase in temperature under a no-mitigation scenario. That was never my position. I think you misunderstand the concept of burden of proof. If my position is that 2C is not a scientifically based target and your position is that 2C is a scientifically based target, then the burden of proof/evidence is on you to demonstrate that 2C has a scientific basis, not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of a scientific basis. With respect to a distinction between a scientific target vs a political target, the difference is the justification, if the justification uses the scientific method or not, etc.

No, you are strawmaning my position (as you have done many times in the past). If you want to go way back, my claim was that the expected increase in temperatures is a few degrees C, and the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is a few hundred ppm by the end of this century. For some reason you didn't agree with this and demanded evidence. In one of my posts I used the 2C target as evidence for the expected increase in temperature to be on the order of a few degrees since the IPCC is unlikely to set an unacheivable target. My position was that expected change is on the order of a few degrees, not that expected change will be 2C. I never claimed that the 2C target wasn't a political target. In the context of various alarmists claiming that 'the earth will boil over' under a no-mitigation scenario or various alarmists thinking that the atmosphere will be unbreathable under, I hope that you can understand why establishing what the order of magnitude of expected change will be is important.

Good intentions do not imply good results. Just look as the Islamists in Iraq and Syria. They do their actions for the sake of the great creator of the universe, Allah. What could be a better cause?

Number of angels is zero. The square roots of -1 are i and -i.