What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

Really sad to hear that the big Champs Elysées fireworks display in Paris was called off (along with its Brussels counterpart) due to heightened terror alerts in both cities. If we are not carefull we will do much of the terrorists work for them.

[sgt.null]

Really sad to hear that the big Champs Elysées fireworks display in Paris was called off (along with its Brussels counterpart) due to heightened terror alerts in both cities. If we are not carefull we will do much of the terrorists work for them.

how much was a question of security and how much was a question of wanting to celebrate so soon after attack?

they may also have other concerns we don't know about.

[peter]

Undoubtedly Sarge. Such a decision would not have been taken lightly. The Paris New Years Eve fireworks are a long-standing tradition.

[sgt.null]

lots of changes to our traditions and life styles coming I fear.

[peter]

Good to see Mr Obama getting in touch with his emotional side in the UK press today [pictures of his tear-stained cheeks on a number of high-circulation front pages today]. Wonder if Mr Putin will respond in kind anytime soon.

[Avatar]

Crocodile tears Peter.

--A

[sgt.null]

Crocodile tears Peter.

--A

you impugn crocodiles.

a Constitutional scholar claims to love the document while attempting to hurdle it. sort of like being in Rev. Wright's church, but never actually listening to the message.

[peter]

I nearly said 'his feminine side' but then I thought "Cripes - I'll have the anti-mysogenist league down on me like a ton of bricks if I'm not carefull!"

[Avatar]

Meh...I've never much held with the constitutional justification for firearms.

However, Obama didn't really do anything. He mostly effectively just said that they will follow the existing laws and hinted that they would be followed more assiduously.

As far as I understand it, most everything he mentioned was just the already existing laws that are in place anyway.

This was just a bit of theatre to prove to liberals that he's serious about it. Nothing is really going to change as far as I can tell.

--A

[sgt.null]

Avatar - it is a small step to the end run, a ban on guns. if Obama cared about existing law, he would have his people prosecuting criminals under the existing laws. Obama would ask for harsher penalties for criminals who used guns during their crimes.

Hilary has said on camera she admires the Australian model, that involved confiscation. others on the left have said they want confiscation.

so why should we on the right not believe they on the left want confiscation?

[Avatar]

Because power is too finely balanced. This was an opportunity for Obama to actually do something concrete, and he didn't. (Surprise.) It's a show, that's all. The dems will continue to vote dem, and the reps will vote rep.

If your government ever confiscates your gun, I will eat mine.

--A

[peter]

Daesh once again commits an act of war outside the territories it considers its own - this time with a bomb blast occurring in the very heart of Sultanhamet - old town Istanbul. Killing some 12 German tourists and a Norwegian I believe, the atrocity which occurred between the huge tourist attractions of the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia has revulsed me in a particularly personal way as not long ago I myself wandered this very area - indeed qued in this very spot for my chance to visit the underground Roman cisterns of the city. Istanbul is a treasure that people must continue to see.

I understand that Daesh is considered a term of insult, translating as 'one who seeks to divide (or crush)', and punishable in areas where the group holds sway by flogging and toung excision. It will henceforth be the only term I use in referal to the group.

[ussusimiel]

I agree with you, peter. Istanbul is a place that needs to be visited. I was there last June/July and, of course, was in that square before visiting Hagia Sofia. Although the bomb was aimed to kill tourists, its real aim is at Turkey and their tourist industry. Daesh's aim is to separate the West from Muslims, so that their enemies are weakened. As soon as moderate Muslims and the West stand together groups like Al-Queda and Daesh are in real trouble.

u.

[Avatar]

I understand that Daesh is considered a term of insult...

According to their magazine, Dabiq, it doesn't bother them.

--A

[peter]

It would if they heard the way I say it!

[peter]

It would if they heard the way I say it!

[ussusimiel]

I started using the term, Daesh, about a year ago when someone in the 'Tank used it (Soulbiter, I think). It removes the 'Islamic' from Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL etc., which I think is a good idea, as it linguistically separates the terrorist organisation from the religion. I am not trying to deny the reality of the connection between the form of terrorism and the manner in which it uses Islam, but rather to insist on the distinction between a form of terrorism and a religion.

That Daesh has other meanings in Arabic is simply a bonus.

u.

[Avatar]

Good rationale, from our point of view anyway.

--A

[peter]

It all raises an interesting question as to what degree is an institution sullied by the acts purportedly carried out in its name by its autonomously acting adherents? (Badly put but you get the gist. ) Christianity has its share of atrocity enacted as a result of misguided interpretation of its message ......... Crimes for which Dawkins for one holds it fully responsible.

[Avatar]

It's a difficult one. In general, I would say not much, unless we're talking about active incitement, in which case plenty.

Of course, that raises other questions about the legitimacy of institutions, their right to determine or enforce doctrine, their ownership of a particular ideal or philosophy or whatever, etc. etc.

--A