tar

Acme, If you add up republicans, and WASPS, and religious people,males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, you would get a sum larger than 150 million. I didn't cite anything because it seemed pretty straight forward. I looked at all the people I knew about and more of them fit one of those categories than fit none of them. Besides, defending myself is only because I am attacked. I did not ask for a reference to a thread I did not read nor was the thread's pertinence to the Paris attacks discussed. Just my political leanings, related to my track record. The only tie in to the Paris Attack I can see here is that there is an argument that we should not act like we know what is best for somebody else, and should let them live their own lives, without being controlled by an elite. Regards, TAR But if we are to leave other people alone, then we can not simultaneously try to help them, so if we try and help them and they do not want our help, then we are doing it, for our own reasons, or because we don't think they are smart enough to handle the job of taking care of their own business, or they are not doing in the way that they should, according to us. In all the above cases there is politics involved and authority and who it is that you are responsible to, and how you would like to see the world go. If you argue for leaving people alone, you wind up not living up to your responsibilities to fight against evil. Evil only exists when good men do nothing.

Acme, It is not everybody but it is the majority of the nation. Regards, TAR It is not logical to say that I both represent the majority of the nation, and am acting contrary to the the way a majority of us should act. Unless you are arguing that we should all do what the top 15 percent of intelligent rational people say we should do, which would be pretty much listening to authority figures without using your own judgement.

Willie71, Understood, but the argument can not be that most rational people are scientists, AND that the majority of people are rational unless it is also true that most people are scientists which is not the case. If the top 15 percent of the country in intelligence, includes high percentages of atheists and scientists, I would not be surprised, but you cannot then argue from this position that people in the top 15 percent includes the group "most of us". I am trying to associate myself with everybody, not with an elite. Regards, TAR Acme, I only responded to the quote from the thread. Regards, TAR

Acme, I did not participate in that other thread. My objection to the quote you made would have been the suggestion that following authority was done by certain people, not like the majority that would never think of following authority. Such a position makes no sense, and is not backed up in reality where, just as I am arguing, EVERYBODY goes by the rules of the group that they associate with, or some combination of the various groups that they associate with. No one is immune from this. I would have argued against this conclusion, that the majority of us do not think like that, since its so obvious that the 85 percent are led by the 15. (or whatever leader/follower breakdown you would like to make) Regards, TAR

This is why it is actually folly to think you have an objective view and understanding of what everybody wants, and a clear idea of how everybody wants to be, and how they wish to conduct their lives, if you are not them. And why you have to together fight against those people who obviously do not want to do it your way by associating with a team that is doing it the way that works for you. In the current terrorism by ISIL against the West they wish to wrong us, because we wronged them. If you are a Westerner, you are the one the terrorist is attacking. If you are an apostate or non-believer, you are the one that ISIL is attacking. If you fight against the Caliph you are the enemy of the Caliph. I fit the bill in terms of all the things that ISIL is against. I can not run from this. It is fact.

Acme, I suppose you are suggesting that it is folly to associate with republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like? Regards, TAR I am making the argument, that one cannot take a objective view that can see the situation from any vantage point other than his or her own. For instance your's sounds like the position of a female, democrat, non-WASP, atheist from the city who has never served in law-enforcement or the military. Or someone who closely associates with such an individual. I can understand the position of a Ba'athist terrorized by Maliki with American weapons as I can understand a person who does not like the business of selling baby parts. But in both cases I side with the opposition. I don't let people shoot up concerts and I don't let people shoot up clinics.

Ten Oz, You say we shouldn't get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up a concert, but we should get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up an abortion clinic? We don't talk about addressing the reasons people are against the clinics, we don't blame the abortion rights activists for causing the problem. So our internal politics are not a good argument for why we should excuse the terrorists for being justified in their actions because we caused the problem. Overtone, One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups. My thinking is not erroneous, and misguided, it is structured by my associations and my understanding of things, from my point of view. There are ways I can improve my personality, and my actions toward people and the words I say, but those ways are not the ways you would like to improve them. I have ways that I think you should improve, and I have mentioned them. You have ways that I should improve and you have mentioned them. If we are to talk, and have political dialog and make concessions to the other person's points, there has to be a certain concern for the other person's point of view. You can't label be as wrong, when you are the one setting the standards. Obviously I don't agree with your standards when you speak from a point of view where "people like me" are defective. I am not defective. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, What I was objecting to, was not that you should not have mentioned political issues. They are obviously at the root of human relations. The parts of the brain, as iNow pointed out, are different in different people. Its all fair game for this discussion about the Paris attacks, because how we want to be, is what we are talking about. But to this end, if we are going to call muslim fundementalists justified we have to give any terrorist at least the benefit of the doubt and look to see what it is they are fighting for, what they wish to achieve, what they wish to accomplish and what they wish to destroy. What I was objecting to, was you don't "go by" a tabloid or Fox news, if you want an objective truthful take on a situation, as waitforufo did. And you don't go by the press release of a political group, which is by definition one side of the political debate the group is wishing to push forward. Politics of course you should discuss on a political sub forum. But the reason for people to hold political views is what is important, and saying a whole group is responsible for a bad actor, is as bad if you are talking about the Paris attack and distrusting Muslims because of it as it is if you are talking about mistrusting white republican males because of a situation where three white men leave a rally on the run and shots ring out. Regards, TAR The guy that shot up the Colorado clinic should have been shot dead in the shootout, as far as I am concerned. He is a crazy man, and regardless of his political affiliation he did a horrible and unacceptable thing. Whatever he objected to. He went too far and went against our desires as human beings, to live together and work out our differences in lawful ways. Thread, Against a group like ISIL you can't play nice. You can't sit down and talk. You cannot pay the ransom to save an innocent. Or is releasing 10 criminals worth saving an innocent life? I personally don't like seeing the world go in the direction that the Caliph is taking it. Overtone does not like the direction the leadership of the Republican part has taken the world in the last 50 years. The tea party does not like the direction the Democrats are taking the country in the last 7 years. But if you are to talk politics you have to separate the baby from the bathwater, and cannot flush your brothers and sisters down the drain, just because things are not going your way. What you can do is follow the law, change it where appropriate and kill the bastards that break it in heinous ways. Regards, TAR Ten Oz But my biggest point, that I go 100% by is that you have to do what is right for you. If you are somebody's enemy you have to protect yourself from them. And it is OK to try to make them powerless to hurt you, if they obviously are trying to hurt you. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nearly-1000-security-risks-denied-entry-to-france-since-paris-attacks/ar-AAfKZIZ And a personal lesson I learned is if you are wronged it is not OK to demand justice, if to be right, you have to be wrong and commit an injustice. Sometimes its OK to be not OK. (as sung by Jordan on "the voice.") Just be who you are.

Overtone, Certainly you are allowed to remind me of my track record. Regards, TAR

CharonY, I was just going by the words Overtone was using. "We are looking at Islamic justified terrorism..." If Overtone means something else he/she is free to qualify the statement. Regards, TAR if I did an unjust thing to you you have a reason to ask me to stop, or perhaps a justification to do something unjust to me. But reprisals turn out to foster more reprisals, as much as they teach the wrongdoer any lesson. Name a war were both sides didn't think they were justified. There are plenty of cultures who think they are the master race. Everyone has an automatic bias to favor their own family, state, religion, party, sect, nationality or ethnic group, or any alignment their team has fostered, over the folks that would find them in error. I am surprised you don't know this. And I am surprised Overtone is so prejudiced against people not of his/her persuasion, while acting like it is imperative to not be prejudiced. Regards, TAR In the context of Islam, there are plenty of things in the Koran that suggest one should be a good person, and plenty of things that suggest one should fight for the prophet against his detractors. Both sides of the brain are addressed. The master and the slave. The mischief makers and the bringers of justice. You and I are not any different than this. But in reference to Mohammed, he railed against the Christians for giving god associates (Jesus and the holy ghost), he railed against the Jews for being money lenders, and he railed against the idol worshipping Arabian tribes. He brought everybody together, saying the original laws of Moses were not properly being followed and these people in error should change their ways and not be in error. He at the same time says that only Allah will judge you, but you should listen to Allah's messenger (mohammed)pbuh and fight in his name against those in error, and you will be fighting for Allah and a good judgement day. Under the reality that there are a bunch of us wanting to live like Moses, and a bunch like Christ, and a bunch like Mohammed, and a bunch like Buddah or Socrates or some other wise ancient person, it is likely that we all are after similar behavior, for similar reasons. And then there is the progress the west has made in the last couple hundred years. The industrial revolution somewhat redefining the master/apprentice , the civil war, freeing the slaves, women's suffrage and other progressive happenings, that tended to counter the proscriptions of lordship and kingship, master/slave relationships, intolerance, paternal leadership and the other strong threads that run through the old testament. The New Testament is an addition to the Old Testament. The Koran goes back and suggests that anybody not following the old testament, according to Muhammed's (pbuh) take is in error. So we are left with a situation where we all want to be good people, but we use various interpretations of old legends and rules, we pick and choose and discuss and figure out who exactly it is, that we want to live like. Look back in history and try to determine who was the transgressor and who was the pious. In this regard, I have to go with Western civilization over 6th century Arabia. And I think we should shun those doing things in 6th century ways. We know better than that. In this I am not acting only on my own behalf.

Overtone, "No, "we" don't. We are looking at Islamic justified terrorism financed and organized from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so forth, as much as from Iraq or Syria.​" If we are looking at justified terrorism, and we are the targets of the terrorism, then we are the unjust. You are feeding the same kind of endless reprisal for unjust acts by lumping all Repubicans in as the responsible parties for all our problems. I would remind you that "our" interests in this country and in the world are the interests of both democrats and republicans. The different parts of the brain, the different aspects of our collective personality belong to us all. We often project our own thoughts onto others and punish others for our own failings. If we are a little bit prejudice and don't like that about ourselves we make a scapegoat and sacrifice that animal to cleanse our own conscience. You are so against America and so against Repubicans, that I can not figure who and what it is that you are for. If you are for careful intellectual judgement of all situations, weighing all the components, all the good and bad actors and actions, and finding the best route forward, fine. But you don't do that. You have already decided that if it is Republican it Stinks, if it is CIA it stinks, if it is power and oil and money it stinks. But you still put gas in your car and drive to the mall. Who is being short sited here? Give me the ability to judge each situation according to the way it is presented to me. And give me the ability, and give the rest of the country the ability to make the right choice. To figure out our tough problems, and break the cycles of violence that are created when fighting injustice creates other injustices. You say the terrrorists are justified. I disagree. We all have to curb our desires to scapegoat and our natural defense mechanisms of responding defensively to people that attack us, and to label whole groups as enemy when just certain actors should be the target of our shuns. Terrorism is NEVER justified. Except when Overtone says its ok, right? If we are together to defend each other and make a good country. If we are together to defend each other and make a good world, we CANNOT do it by removing any one group of people from the planet, or by eliminating a certain sex or hormone or brain part, from out collective soul. It all belongs to us. Individually we have to monitor ourselves and use good judgement and be capable and able to meet the threats of the place that threaten our survival. But probably very important to this discussion is that you can't kill everybody that you think is wrong. You have to target your anger toward the perpetrators of heinous acts, and open your hearts and minds to your brothers and sisters, no matter what their political affiliation or company, or state or religion or ethnicity. Terrorism is not allowed. Regards, TAR Up at the lake when I was young and evening was coming on, my mother would tell us to "put a jacket on, I am getting cold." So overtone, if you are cold put a jacket on. Don't tell me I am an idiot for not putting a jacket on. And let me decide who is my enemy and who deserves my shunning.

Except it is a pyramid scheme. The high status folk reap the reward, the rest serve...and die. Nobody likes to be played the fool

Perhaps fostering an Arab spring within the ranks of ISIS is the way to go. Prove the Baathists are behind the thing, show their deception and their depravity and prove that if you are a fighter you will be asked to martyr yourself, and if you are a woman you will be asked to be the private sexual reward for the fighter and will lose your husband soon, as soon as he is ordered to martyr himself. And have the young people, drawn to the cause, question themselves as to whether they intend to die for a lie so someone can sit somewhere in opulence pulling their strings and getting their jollys manipulating people's emotions and lives. And find out the complete recruitment package, what is promised, and prove unquestionably that those promises cannot and will not be kept. From the earlier article I think its obvious that the recruitment promises are not going to materialize. And if you are a fighter, and the best possible outcome is death....?????? And I wonder if drugs are involved. I still cannot see the draw, considering the cost. There has to be some other aspect. Find that out, cut that off and perhaps that, along with showing the leadership knows their promises are lies might make an intelligent young man or woman that is being recruited, decide to forget about those bastards.

iNow Thank you. Excellent video. I am not so sure just declaring war on ISIS is the right way to go. I was thinking Sunnis were the problem. Looks like the cycle of violence between Sunni and Shiite is the problem. As in the Israel and Palestinian problem, massacres are hard to forget. Everyone wants blood. Everyone wants revenge. Everybody is right. Everybody is dead wrong. It is impossible to manage and impossible to ignore. I think you are right though in telling us not to hate the Sunni or be afraid of ISIL. Rhetoric against Muslims is misplaced and will only swell the ranks of ISIS. We need I think to not side with the Shia or side with the Sunni, but foster a common desire to disban Da'esh. I don't know how to do that, but I think, after watching that video, that bombs are not going work. Boots on the ground are not going work , except perhaps if they are a force sent in by a coalition of Arab and Muslim states in the area. Turkey is in a tough spot. NATO ally with their ethnic brothers being bombed by Russia, fighting against Assad....geez...its really bad. Somehow we have to help, without managing (since we have made such bad choices of who to support in the past). But I am not so sure we can make everybody happy and I am not so sure there is anyway out without proud people having to swallow their pride, and wronged people having to forgive, and tough people having to open themselves up for hurt again, by trusting their sworn enemies. I guess its not going happen...that I can let Sept 11th go. So maybe we will just have to fight it out, but the voices on this thread are right, that we should not look to violence to solve this thing. It is way beyond that. Only love and understanding and the courage to trust the judgement of good people of every faith and ethnicity in the area is going to work. The bad guys are there, but there are more good guys than bad guys. We have to find a way to help the good guys restore order in their countries and eliminate the fear they have of the good guys of the next sect. And somehow scrub this evil from our collective souls. Beats me though, how we are going to get through this new type of war against such a group so intoxicated by death, without spilling some more blood. Regards, TAR But I guess I can start by not harboring ill will toward Muslims. And reserve my ill will for people operating outside the bounds of human decency and international law. Somehow perhaps we can all get sane again. With each other's help.

Ten Oz, I can't answer your question. (not because of the moderation, but because I don't know the answer) CharonY, I am considering, after your recent post about the Ba'athists that most of us, including myself are not privy to the halls of power in this country, or in Iraq, or in Syria. Religion has long been known as the opiate of the masses and opium itself is used to control people and the poppy fields in Afghanistan are a subsistence crop. That the CIA is involved with drugs and the Ba'athists use religious zeal to further its goals is I suppose a reality we face. I did not know about the Ba'athists using religion this way, but I did know the CIA has traded in guns and drugs to fund its operations. Those top people, the leaders are the ones who are jousting for power. However, not being privy to the details and motivations and not having very much power myself, it is difficult for me to say I have a better team to be on, than the U.S. regardless of how we may have failed to properly handle Saddam's Guard and regardless of how our current populace may include personages afraid of manufactured threats. So the answer seems to be to insist that our leaders operate in as a transparent way as possible, internally and in as clever and ruthless a way as possible while jousting with our enemies. Whether we are somebody's pawns or not, is not really our choice, if your posts are all accurate. We are bound to be seen as pawns of our leadership, if we go along with them, and bound to be guilty of treason if we fight against them. Whipped in the square, or killed so to speak. But when the Paris law enforcement reacted, another threat was uncovered and neutralized. I am not so sure we have the power to stop power hungry men but with force. And it is obvious to me, and has been obvious to me, that ISIS was bad news and needs to be stopped. Perhaps the U.S. needs to be stopped, or France, or the U.K. or China or Russia or North Korea or Iran. But given the large chance that nobody but the most powerful know what is going on, and why it is going on, and given the high probability that these people would act in a way that would cement or increase their own power, it is difficult to say that we should not act this way or that way, because we are playing right into somebodies hand. It seems they have all the trump and high cards, what ever card we play. So, it is probably best for Afghans to fight for whatever Mullah is winning, and the Palestinians for Hezbulah and the U.S. for Israel and the E.U. for the banks or whatever the power structure that is currently in charge of your place might be. Everybody would rather be aligned with the winning team than the losing team. Probably, by saying I stand with France against ISIL I am playing right into somebodies hand. But whoever it is, I hope they are American, or French or both. I hope we make the contract. Regards, TAR iNow, I don't think we should go by tabloid headlines as did waitforufo , nor by press releases of political groups as did Ten Oz. I think we should listen to CharonY's facts and sort this thing out. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, I only read one article on the Minnesota shooting. It said three masked men were at the siege that "were not suppose to be there." The three left the rally and a group of men followed them to a nearby corner, where shots rang out. 5 people had injuries, not life threatening, to the arms and legs and one stomach injury. I saw no mention of a white supremacy group responsible for the incident, just that the three masked men were believed to be white. It did not mention the white supremacy thing you mentioned. Blacks groups have called for the shooting of police, and some have been shot. I am not calling for blacks to be registered, you should not be calling for whites and policemen to be registered. Our internal politics have nothing to do with ISIS except in when our citizens go over there to fight, or if the ISIS recruiters are successful in turning one of our citizens into a killer. Bringing in Minnesota to this discussion is suggesting a war between the KKK and Blacks is what whites in this country want. That is not true and fostering such hatred is what iNow believes we should not do. We are not interested in refighting the crusades or the race wars of the 60s. At least I am not. Imaatfal asked us not to bring gun control into this. I would ask not to bring the racism in our country into it. We are trying to rise above that, not make it a war. If on the other hand you are equating trepidation regarding muslims in this country with blacks in this country, then we can talk about it. But folks watching out for radical muslims are not automatically white supremists. There might be a jew or a Mexican, or a black who would rather see Syria free and democratic than endure the terror of Da'ish. Regards, TAR ​CharonY, Well, so this is a party thing? I didn't know Da'ish checked on such affiliations before acting against the Great Satan. Seems my way of life is threatened either way I vote. And seems we already let ISIL grow to the rich and powerful state it is currently in. Democrats have been in power for the last two terms, and even had the majority of the congress for some of that time. Our strategy in Iraq and Syria has not worked that well in the last couple years. We screwed up, and we have to learn from our mistakes, certainly, but being republican or being democrat has little to do with it. If America screws up we should all take the blame, not point fingers at each other. Regards, TAR My question here is not so much should we be fighting the civil war again or the crusades again but whether or not we are fighting the ideology that brought down the towers and just killed people in Paris and Beirut and Egypt and Mali. I will even accept the argument that I made the mess by not letting Arabs push Israel into the sea. But a party thing? Like we should remove that part of our country that protects our interests... is like suggesting we give everybody a lobotomy so we can all be docile. Regards, TAR

Ophiolite, I have not changed since I protected the weak against the bully. I have not changed since I opened my fist to land a touch. I have two daughters and a very feminist Aunt I lived with for a few years. I believe women should be equal citizens, not slaves and sexual playthings and baby makers, with no say in the matter, as was described in the article. The Bible and the Koran both are very sexist. The female is respected, but only as a partial person. Standing with people, against the bully is still my motivation. Regards, TAR

Ophioite, I think we should consider the fact that we are human and we do have various parts of the brain that are built for both protecting our troop and for fighting the neighboring troop who is eating our bananas. When there are enough bananas we can make peace with the next troop and together scare off some other animals after the bananas. Religion and law for the most part developed so we would take care of each other and treat each other with respect and live in an orderly fashion where everybody was expected to live in a particular way. Kings often had their priests next to them. The power of the collective was embodied in the king and the power of the universe embodied in the priest. Together they made a force that you listened to, whether you listened to the bully or to your heart. Measured violence, delivered after careful consideration is exactly the principle behind the Hammurabi code, an eye for an eye. You take from the offender what he took from somebody else. In Raqqa, as described by the story of the two young women who joined the association, and later escaped (that I linked earlier) they joined the club because not joining the club would be dangerous. They enforced rules that they themselves were not happy with, to avoid being whipped or killed themselves or bring such down on family members. According to the rules, if you commit adultery you get stoned. A measured response to your transgression because there needs to be a certain number of witnesses to you transgression and they have to be witnesses of a certain standing in the community. So Ophiolite, what if I don't think the young women made a very good choice to turn in their friends for wearing a too form fitting covering? As is said in the article they lost those friends, forever as friends because the were whipped not only for the form fitting transgression, but received additional lashes because they had makeup on under their veils. If you were in Raqqa would you join the join the association and marry a fighter, escape or fight? What would your measured,intelligent response be? And if you were the rest of the world, whose side would you come down on, the association or the young women? And as the rest of the world, do you have any right to walk into Raqqa and tell the Association their rule is crap and their time is over? How do we, in a measured and intelligent way, liberate Raqqa from the association? Is it evil to want to stand against the terror? Or should we just let the Association impose its rules on everybody. Saw that Turkey shot down a Russian plane that was too close to, or in their airspace after warning them off many times. Perhaps forgetting about our other conflicts, while dealing with the threat of Da'ish as I suggested earlier is not going to work. Perhaps we have to still be upset with Putin over Crimea, and Assad over killing his citizens. I would like to not be like Da'ish, but I am realistic. In some ways I am. I have my rules. I have my guiding principles and I don't like seeing people oppressed, and I would rather people live the way I live. My way of life is better, as far as I am concerned. Even if I charge and pay interest, believe in forgiveness, allow drugs and cigarettes and alcohol, and like looking at the female form and pretty faces. There are other issue at stake here when talking about Assad and ISIL, other than greed and oil and jingoism. And there have been times before where fighting a scourge was required. And you cannot drop a bomb on somebody unless you wish to do harm to them or break their stuff. Even after measured consideration, dropping leaflets to warn civilian drivers to run, your bombs are going to tear and burn metal and road and spill oil. And once you drop the bomb, you are going to enrage the folks you dropped the bomb on. You burned down his banana tree. Regards, TAR

got it

Ophiolite, Funny you should ask. I am actually very proud of the fact that in school I was the one who stood up for the outcasts against the bully. I went to a private school where fighting would get you thrown out of school completely. A bully was picking on a friend of mine and even though he would have whipped my ass, and I would have been tossed out of school, I stood up to him. He backed down. In public highschool I had long hair when not many did, and a greaser bully type confronted me in front of the school. I fought him, unconsciously opening my hand and slapping him, as you would in a play fight, while he was punching me in the head. When the PA system called us to the office, this in a time where the paddle was legal, I could have gotten this trouble maker into hot water, but I told the disciplinarian that it was a misunderstanding. After that we said hello in the halls, and the tension between the hippies and the greasers was much less. I hope that answers your question. Regards, TAR oh sorry...just saw that question was not directed to me

Well OK Ophiolite, I am done. Strange is done with me. You are done with me. You both are calling me willfully ignorant. I have said my piece. I appreciate the talk. Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

Thread, OK, I am being Jingoistic and reactionary. I get it. War is hell. Cycles of violence are stupid...etc. But I am not Brussels. I do not house the center of NATO and the EU. The Belgians did not close their businesses to show terror and reaction and give the terrorists what they wanted. They closed their businesses because of a credible threat. They have a rabid dog in the neighborhood and they are taking their kids off the streets, and they have people with guns looking for the dog so they can kill it and let their kids back out to play. When we were hit on Sept. 11th we didn't know who did it. We found out who did it and they did not have a state that they belonged to, that we could declare war on, so we declared war on the Taliban, who was protecting him. We did not kill him for many years, because we could not find him, and we were afraid that sleeper cells would activate, if we did kill him. Finally we thought we had the sleeper cell stuff under watch and felt confident enough that we had broken the thing up enough to where we would not be hurt back if we killed him. Now, today, after Paris and the Russian Airliner and Lebanon and Bali, we don't have to wonder who has declared war on us. We know exactly the self declared state. We know exactly the town they call their capital, we know exactly the leader that calls himself Caliph, we know exactly where to find them, what their MO is and who they are trying to radicalize. It was not possible to declare war on anybody after 9/11. It was after Kuwait, it was after Pearl Harbor, it was when the Nazis rose to power, and it is now. We know who to fight. We do have to be very careful to not include civilians and Syrians and Moslems as our targets. And we should probably not try to punish Assad for his sins, or Putin for taking over Crimea from sovereign country, the Ukraine. All our other conflicts can go on hold, along with our normal peaceful lives, engaged in business and sport and politics and living. We have a common enemy. He is powerful and dangerous. We don't have to piss him off to bring down his wrath. We already have that. We have no reason to placate the dog. Petting will not work. We have to cut out the cancer, kill the rabid dog, cut off the leg to save the patient...whatever way you want to look at it. But it is not like we have a peaceful alternative. If we don't want to live under a Caliphate. If we don't want others to live under a Caliphate against their will. We have only one course of action. Take out the leaders of Da'esh and put the escaped convicts back in jail where they obviously belong. And kill whoever tries to stop us from completing that task. Hopefully by us I mean the whole world, except Da'esh . We should let Syrians in to our countries. We are not afraid of Syrians. But we should declare war on our obvious mortal enemies. Regards, TAR

Strange, I am not suggesting the entire universe just did something we wouldn't know about. If the entire universe would turn to chocolate, we would be chocolate here. What I am saying is that if its not expanding around here, why would you think that is an indication that it is expanding everywhere. If the local galaxies are gravitationally bound to each other then according to the elegant notion of learning what the universe is doing by watching the progression through time of what it was doing long ago, sort of long ago recently and real recently, and figuring that now everything is doing what things are doing real recently around here, then every galaxy should be hanging close to its neighbors, gravitationally bound to them, because that is what a 13.8 billion year universe should look like, using the elegant notion. Can't go by what you see, you have to go by what you figure should be the case based on the progression through time of how the universe looked. Regards, TAR

Strange, Well again, I am going by my insight. One that you perhaps have had and based others on, that I have not gotten to yet But I say 0 because 100% of the universe is more than a Planck's distance away from your eyeball, and your eyeball is quite a long signal path away from the areas in your brain that will process, over time the information in the photons that are hitting your eye. Any way you look at it, (pardon the accidental pun,) what you are adding to your model of the world, when you look at something, are things that have already happened. So none of what you see is what is currently going on. It just gets further removed as you go out. The larger your model, the more imaginary in nature it becomes, and the less packed with observable truths about what the universe is currently doing. Regards, TAR

CharonY, I am saying that it is OK for the French, in this case to go against their constitution and normal important human rights of its citizens, in a state of emergency and close its borders contrary to EU principles, raid homes, question Syrian nationals, and bomb a sovereign country (Syria) to eliminate a threat. Reactionary and Jingoistic as it may be. And I stand with her in her efforts and pledge my own blood and money to the removal of Da'esh from the planet. Regards, TAR We can get back to normal human dignity and respect once we no longer have to worry about getting blown up, stabbed, shot, cut-up, poisoned or otherwise "by whatever means" killed in the name of the prophet(pbuh). You're blaming me for being Jingoistic, but I am thinking, since 9/11 that it is OK to protect your way of life if it is your way of life that is being threatened. Its OK to be Brussels and shut down business to protect yourself from being killed. You don't want to live that way, in fear. So you kill the bastards that are your sworn enemy, or throw them in prison . Then, once they are in prison or dead, you go back to being the peaceful folk you want to be. Regards, TAR France declared war on ISIS. Perhaps everybody should. Including Muslims in those of us, who should declare war on ISIL. Sunni Muslims in particular. They should not join the "Association" to save their lives. They should reject Da'ish on the general principle of being civilized human beings. If there are teaching in the Koran that are barbaric, don't go by them. If there are no barbaric teachings in the Koran, don't do barbaric stuff in the name of the Prophet (pbuh). The koran specifically places mischief makers in the ranks of the mistaken. If you are a young person, looking for meaning and value in this life, do not pledge it to Da'esh. They have it absolutely wrong.