[Iran Press TV] Arson attackers in the German capital of Berlin have severely damaged some 50 vehicles on three consecutive nights, arousing concerns that the incidents could be politically motivated.
Most of the 50 vehicles damaged since Monday are luxury cars, Financial Times reported.
"The arsonists want to hit what they say are 'Fat Cats,'" Berlin police front man Michael Gassen said.
According to Gassen, a special unit is investigating the fires as political crimes following claims of responsibility by groups that protest globalization, gentrification and rising rents.
So far, no arrests have been made in the most recent string of attacks.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel ...current chancellor of Germany. She was educated in East Germany when is was still run by commies, but in 1989 got involved with the growing democracy movement when the Berlin Wall fell. Merkel is sometimes referred to by Germans as Mom... has expressed concern ...meaning the brow was mildly wrinkled, the eyebrows drawn slightly together, and a thoughtful expression assumed, not that anything was actually done or indeed that any thought was actually expended... about the incidents, saying she "hoped" and was "somewhat confident" that Germany would be "spared events like we have recently seen in London and other cities."
The unrest in Britannia broke out on August 6 in the north London suburb of Tottenham, after a few hundred people gathered outside a cop shoppe to protest against the fatal shooting and killing of a black man, Mark Duggan, by the police.
Thereafter, violent protests erupted in major cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, and Bristol, contributing to Britannia's worst unrest since the 1980s.
The German attacks come amid worsening economic data and political discontent in Europe's largest economy.
Germany's GDP almost grounded to a halt in the second quarter of 2011, growing only 0.1 percent compared with that of the first quarter.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
off hand this smells more like disaffected class envy 'youths' and/or anarchist types who are a bit annoyed that the British yobs are having all the fun. The item that perked my spider senses was the 'mostly luxury cars'. Outside of that, the above is pure speculation and i would love to see EC's take on this.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
08/20/2011 4:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Has a lot to say on this issue. In a nutshell it is the disaffected trying to piss of the man. I agree and think that the blatant corruption and looting by the elites, rent seeking rich, pols and bureaucrats, has reached a point where the communal ethic is "I'm gonna get mine!"
I think that this day is dawning across the Western world.
#4
"Inspector Kemp, if you know who they are, why have you not arrested these arsonists?"
"We are still inspecting their police issued arson licenses, but as of now, their documents appear to be in order, in triplicate, with all proper bureaucratic stamps."
Only the moronic GOP, of course.
The political discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years -- even as the scientific consensus has changed little. McCain's 2007 description remains the scientific consensus: Human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is pumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warming the planet.
But that scientific conclusion has become a lively point of debate in the GOP presidential campaign. Joining Perry on the skeptical side, for example, is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who suggested Wednesday that "manufactured science" underpins what a questioner called the "man-made climate-change myth." Let's just say a very weak correlation, shall we? Why does everything have to be black or white?
The nominal GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney, drew sharp fire from conservatives when he said in June that he accepts the scientific view that the planet is getting warmer and that humans are part of the reason. Part of the reason? Crackpot! Heretic! TEA PARTIER!!
Historically, climate change has ranked near the bottom of issues that voters care about as they evaluate presidential candidates. The major parties' nominees endorsed the media's scientific consensus and believed that the government should curb carbon emissions. Government leads the way again. More tax, more control.
But even as it appeared that the government might take sweeping action on climate change, the political opposition intensified. Frightened, perhaps, by the Obamacare time-bomb?
President Obama favored a nationwide system in which industries would have to cap their carbon dioxide emissions and trade pollution allowances with one another. The then-Democratic-controlled House passed this "cap-and-trade" system in June 2009, but the plan stalled in the Senate after Republicans and major industries criticized it as a "cap-and-tax" system that would escalate energy costs. Not to mention line the Goracle's pockets.
The battleground shifted to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in December 2009 determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. That "endangerment finding" paved the way for regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. GOP lawmakers and industry groups fought the plan, calling it a job-killing tax and an example of government overreach. Don't worry, dear readers; I'm sure the WaPo will rebut that silliness!
During this period, Americans -- particularly conservative Republicans -- became less convinced about global-warming science. See?
Some in the tea party seized on the issue as a rallying cry in last year's election, which brought dozens of new members to Congress who reject a connection between human activity and climate change.
Missteps by scientists have given critics ammunition. Most notorious were "Climate-gate" e-mails hacked from computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2009. Embarrassing errors were also found in a seminal 2007 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was supposed to establish, beyond question, the scientific consensus. The science is settled, just like gravity!
One passage in the 3,000-page report, for example, stated that massive glaciers in the Himalayas would vanish by 2035 -- which isn't true. First of all, it's a 1991 report on the hydrology of glacier runoff, not AGW. Second, it presumed the current (whatever that was - 1980's? 1990-1991?) trends continued, - a mighty big if, since the trend has already been busted. Third, it said (in that case) some glaciers would be greatly reduced, not disappear. Fourth, the timeline for this potential change was 2350, not 2035. So the IPCC took three giant leaps of faith and a simple typo to manufacture their conclusion. Since everyone believed it, it instantly became more proof.
One of the twists in the debate is that the data that show the planet warming over the past century -- data that skeptics often deride as untrustworthy -- also show that the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade or so. "The warming has slowed since 1998," said Tom Peterson, chief scientist for NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. But no one sees a possible conflict between that statement and the next one?
The most recent decade is still the warmest on record -- warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s. And NOAA and NASA rate 2010 as tied with 2005 as the warmest year ever measured.
A 2010 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 to 98 percent agreed that humans are contributing to global warming. So the science is settled?
Influential conservatives have pushed climate science to the fore of Republican politics. When Romney endorsed the consensus scientific view, talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh immediately declared: "Bye-bye, nomination. Another one down." Thus concludes the case for AGW - if Rush is against it, it must be true!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/20/2011 10:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thepolitical discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years -- even as the scientific consensus has changed little.
ahhh, invoking "consensus" in the first sentence? Smells like Teen spirit desperation. Perry and others, are now pushing back against the hoaxsters and frauds in the MMGW charade. Even T-Paw has recanted
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/20/2011 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What cracks me up is the data they point to only goes back a few decades. In order to get the big picture, you have to go back a few hundred thousand years at least. Once you go back that far, the little warm blip that is the past few decades disappears as statistical noise.
It is called climate, and it changes with, or without us. I swear these people so want to believe that this has become their religion and god.
#4
The Himalayan glacier claim wasn't so much the glaciers would shrink, but would cause x million/billion people to experience water shortages.
This was based on simple ignorance of the fact himalayan rivers flood in late summer with the monsoon. The peak of agricultural demand for water.
The people who wrote the report assumed late summer was low water in rivers as it is in temperate zones. And smaller glaciers = less summer river flow.
The reality is less summer flow from melt is the proverbial drop in the ocean when summer rainfall is 100+ inches.
But then the people who wrote the IPCC report weren't scientists.
#5
I figure the only way MMGW advocates will ever shut up is when those who engaged and continue to engage in scientific fraud are brought up on criminal charges.
#6
Of course climate change is real. And the change has been Global Warming since wooly mammoths roamed the countryside.
SOME component of that change is man-made (particulate pollution causes shade, & cooling; CO2 & methane releases cause some warming; burning methane that would otherwise naturally be released causes cooling); the real question is How big is the man-made effect? We dont know.
Then even if we did know, and it was big, the question remains What can we DO about it? We could cut the US carbon footprint to zero and all it would do is delay that CO2 emission a few years. In fact, more efficient combustion here means less CO2 emission per unit of economic output than in, say, China, and theres no way China is going to sacrifice its development to save the planet.
#8
The enlightened 'scientists' in the GOP think the Earth is 7000 years old and that cavemen were hunting dinosaurs for din-din. No need to worry...the Tea Baggers have a plan...pollute cuz the Commies are...just make sure you keep the curtains pulled and have shotgun in hand...what dipshits.
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/20/2011 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The science is settled, Yup like crap, it settles.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/20/2011 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Redneck Jim" thinks science is crap, so it's settled y'all. You like dim Tea Baggers, do ya?
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/20/2011 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Just trying hard to wear our your welcome, eh Shakey Steve?
#12
Shakey,
I am active in our local tea party and I resent your insulting terminology. Read my post above and explain just what you think tea partiers like me are getting wrong about climate change (we'll leave discussing the real heart of the tea party movement for another time.)
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/20/2011 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Aw yes, that old attitude "if we lower are carbon footprint and the Commies don't, it would have no effect, so keep polluting cuz it's hopeless"...is that part of the TP platform? Listen, put your big-girl panties on and stop the crying...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/20/2011 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Shakey Steve:
As a matter of warning, this is your last one.
One more ad hominem atttack, one more personal snide remark, and I will disappear your remarks from Rantburg, all of them, permanently.
You now have a choice. You can debate, or you can disappear.
#16
Shakey Steve: I second my esteemed moderating colleague Badanov. 'Tea bagger' is an insult. It was created to be one, it is one, and it's one that shall not be used at Rantburg.
As Badanov said, you have a choice.
AoS (moderator)
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2011 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"so keep polluting cuz it's hopeless"...
Not 'hopeless', just pointless. And based on relative efficiencies, downright counterproductive. Unless the real point is economic redistribution, and the climate change arguement is just a red herring.
#19
I hope the left continue to put off religious voters because if there's one thing sillier than creationism, it's the economic creationism that Marx espouses (with the state in the role of God).
#20
"I hope the left continue to put off religious voters because if there's one thing sillier than creationism"
Sorry, there is NOTHING sillier than that drivel, except for maybe belief in the Tooth Fairy...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/20/2011 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Bright Pebbles,
I find it interesting how so many of society's problems can be traced back to Judeo-Christian 'Original Sin,' aka Greek 'hubris.' The idea that Man knows more than God causes problems no matter how one defines God - or even IF there is God; when a man (woman or group of them) convince themselves and others that they are all-knowing, the one thing we can be sure of is that they are wrong.
#22
The problem is a variant of Narcissism whereby the person not only thinks they know more than other people they think they know more about the wants of the other person than the person concerned.
Where you find Narcissism you tend to find economic creationists.
#25
Sorry, there is NOTHING sillier than that drivel...
Actually, economic creationism probably qualifies. That's the belief that 'value' magically appears out of thin air or at the whim of a bureaucrat or from a printing press.
#28
The moment a scientist claims anything as an immutable fact, he's not a scientist.
Posted by: Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division ||
08/20/2011 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Most people know they are not controlling the atmosphere of this great big planet with the tail pipes of their cars.
Those "scientists" should just be out-right fired for Fraud, and those that profit from this fraud sent to prison for RICO and extortion charges. The EPA should be totally disbanded and a nationwide investigation should begin.
All e-mails and material should be public knowledge as it is a public scandal and those that made money off of it should be publically shamed at the least.
I do not like stupid people promoting non-existant problems in the face of real problems.
Shame on ALL of you that purported this FRAUD. You bear false witness and have absolutely no intestinal fortitude or honor.
Your parents failed you, and you are people that shame the human race.
More people will starve an die because of this farce, and trust me, GOD is watching.
#30
This has become public endangerment. There is NO excuse for any of it. I will hold ALL politicians responsible for every death when this happens. Someone needs to hit the reset"" button of Washington DC. The whole damnit district has become a loony bin.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Arson attackers in the German capital of Berlin have severely damaged some 50 vehicles on three consecutive nights, arousing concerns that the incidents could be politically motivated.
