Europe at War

[Que]

The world is awash in F-16s. The Netherlands wants to send some of theirs to Ukraine. After a suitably pointless delay (we have to get used to the idea, right?), it will probably happen.

     It's a good plane, and though it's a little bit ancient, it's been modernized to use a variety of most excellent air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions.

     The word is training will begin soon. The nonword is training in the US has been going on for months.

The Netherlands is one of the first countries were they were scheduled to be replaced, so they are basically superfluous anyway.

Hope to Ukranians can still get some good milage out of them. These are aircrafts that were on active duty, so fortunately no need for concerns about maintenance. Also read about these trainings in the US starting months ago. So these planes could over Ukraine pretty soon!

[71 dB]

If Hungary keeps its word it will ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO memberships next month. That leaves Turkey. The relationship between Sweden and Turkey is really cold at the moment (just one example of the insanity of the World today) and Turkey is saying they won't accept Sweden into NATO. The problems between Turkey and Finland are much smaller, but the plan was for Sweden and Finland to join together. That's good for both countries. Since 28 NATO countries have ratified ages ago, the situation has become very frustrating and now there are talks (in Finnish media) of the possibility for the Finland to join separately first and then Sweden later when Turkey allows it. All of this can be Turkish domestic politics and it is possible things get better after the elections. What have we Finns done to earn this crap? How is Estonia worthy of NATO membership and protection of articla 5, but Finland isn't? If being next to Russia is Finland's own problem, shouldn't it be Estonia's own problem too? Finland fulfils the 2 % NATO requirement unlike many NATO countries and like the 28 NATO countries say, Sweden and Finland will bring a lot to NATO, but we have to wait and wait and wait because two authoritarian (NATO coutries should not be authoritarian in my opinion! Isn't NATO about protecting western freedom?) countries want to milk as much as possible with the situation.

[Florestan]

If Hungary keeps its word it will ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO memberships next month. That leaves Turkey. The relationship between Sweden and Turkey is really cold at the moment (just one example of the insanity of the World today) and Turkey is saying they won't accept Sweden into NATO. The problems between Turkey and Finland are much smaller, but the plan was for Sweden and Finland to join together... What have we Finns done to earn this crap?

Finland is a collateral victim of Swedish government's idiotic behaviour: in the name of a completely foolish and misguided notion of "freedom of conscience" they granted official permit to a lunatic lawyer to burn the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm, all the while claiming that they did not approve of what he did. And what has this display of "freedom of conscience" achieved, other than enraging an already reluctant Erdogan and making him potsponing sine die any negotiations on the ratification? What idiocy! Either Sweden's most pressing national interest is to join NATO asap, in which case any anti-Turkish behavior must be not only not given official permission, but be crushed mercilessly (at least for a while) or Sweden's most pressing national interest is to safeguard the freedom of conscience no matter how foolish and damaging to Sweden's relationship with Turkey, in which case they can kiss NATO good-bye. The wisest thing for Finland right now is to negotiate a dissociation from Sweden and a separate ratification.

[71 dB]

Finland is a collateral victim of Swedish government's idiotic behaviour: in the name of a completely foolish and misguided notion of "freedom of conscience" they granted official permit to a lunatic lawyer to burn the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm, all the while claiming that they did not approve of what he did. And what has this display of "freedom of conscience" achieved, other than enraging an already reluctant Erdogan and making him potsponing sine die any negotiations on the ratification? What idiocy! Either Sweden's most pressing national interest is to join NATO asap, in which case any anti-Turkish behavior must be not only not given official permission, but be crushed mercilessly (at least for a while) or Sweden's most pressing national interest is to safeguard the freedom of conscience no matter how foolish and damaging to Sweden's relationship with Turkey, in which case they can kiss NATO good-bye. The wisest thing for Finland right now is to negotiate a dissociation from Sweden and a separate ratification.

Well, Putin has won then. He wants to kill freedom in the World. Here in the Nordic countries freedom and human rigths are taken seriously. It is a really diffucult situation for us. That's why it is so frustrating.

[Florestan]

Well, Putin has won then. He wants to kill freedom in the World.

Yeah, sure, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden did before him. They too hated our freedoms and our way of life, right?

Here in the Nordic countries freedom and human rigths are taken seriously. It is a really diffucult situation for us. That's why it is so frustrating.

If you believe that the freedom to burn a holy book in front of the embassy of a nation which adheres to that religion and from which you seek ratification of your access to NATO is well worth defending and preserving, even at the risk of not joining NATO any time soon, perhaps ever, then be my guest. In my book it's called sheer lunacy. And I hasten to add that I'm not referring to you or to Finland, I'm referring to the Swedish government.

[Todd]

Yeah, sure, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden did before him. They too hated our freedoms and our way of life, right?

Oh, yes, they most certainly did.  It terrified and intimidated.  And remember, you were and are either with us or with them.  George W Bush said so.  A goodly number of posters on this board evidently adhere to that ironclad logic.

If you believe that the freedom to burn a holy book in front of the embassy of a nation which adheres to that religion and from which you seek ratification of your access to NATO is well worth defending and preserving

This freedom must be preserved.  Well, at least in America.  Europe has always been wobbly on free speech.

[Florestan]

Free speech is great. Thoughtful speech is greater. Responsible speech is the greatest.

If anyone really believes that protecting the free speech of this bloke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan

is worth jeopardizing Sweden's accession to NATO, then I'm speechless. (pun)

[Todd]

Free speech is great. Thoughtful speech is greater. Responsible speech is the greatest.

False distinctions that necessarily lead to censorship.  Censorship is worst of all when it comes to speech.

If anyone really believes that protecting the free speech of this bloke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan

is worth jeopardizing Sweden's accession to NATO, then I'm speechless. (pun)

His political speech should be protected.  Again, Europeans are wobbly on free speech.

[71 dB]

Yeah, sure, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden did before him. They too hated our freedoms and our way of life, right?

As if Putin was as easy to take out.

If you believe that the freedom to burn a holy book in front of the embassy of a nation which adheres to that religion and from which you seek ratification of your access to NATO is well worth defending and preserving, even at the risk of not joining NATO any time soon, perhaps ever, then be my guest. In my book it's called sheer lunacy. And I hasten to add that I'm not referring to you or to Finland, I'm referring to the Swedish government.

I don't defend burning holy books. It is idiotic, but isn't it funny how it takes 30 NATO countries to accept Sweden and Finland to NATO, but only one lunatic to ruin it all? We do have lunatics in Finland too, every country has them especially in these insane times of social media driven hatred. Any one of them may burn a Quran any day. I can only hope it doesn't happen. The security of whole countries has become an issue that depends on crazy individuals and sane people can do almost nothing about it.

[Florestan]

Not giving official permission to an idiot to burn the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm is not censorship. It's common sense. He would have probably done it anyway but the Swedish government could have rightly claimed that they did not assent and could have even fined him for disobeying a governmental interdiction, thus showing a modicum of good will towards a foreign government whose approval to join NATO they want to secure.

[Florestan]

I don't defend burning holy books. It is idiotic, but isn't it funny how it takes 30 NATO countries to accept Sweden and Finland to NATO, but only one lunatic to ruin it all?

Once again: blame it on a foolish and misguided notion of "freedom of speech".

The security of whole countries has become an issue that depends on crazy individuals and sane people can do almost nothing about it.

Sane governments can. The Swedish government is not a sane one.

[Todd]

Not giving official permission to an idiot to burn the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm is not censorship. It's common sense.

It absolutely is censorship.  Thankfully, in the US we enjoy all manner of goofy, irrelevant, and ineffectual forms of protest.  We can burn books.  We can burn flags.  We can burn books and flags sure to upset folks.  That's sort of the point of such political speech.  We need more of that sort of thing. 

Fortunately, SCOTUS has established useful case law regarding speech that, while it does not quite go far enough or as far as Oregon case law, ensures that I don't have to worry too much about reactionary anti-free speech zealots suppressing speech too terribly much.

Europeans are wobbly on free speech.

[71 dB]

Free speech is great. Thoughtful speech is greater. Responsible speech is the greatest.

If anyone really believes that protecting the free speech of this bloke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan

is worth jeopardizing Sweden's accession to NATO, then I'm speechless. (pun)

If you don't defend everyone's right to speak, no matter how much you disagree with them, you don't believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is very heavy principle. The US has the best freedom of speech in the World as far as I know (I give credit when credit is due), but most European countries are not far behind. Americans have the right to burn their flag. We Finns do not have that right. I could be fined if I burned the flag of Finland. Fortunately I don't even want to burn it. I love my country. So, we Europeans have some restriction here and there compared to Americans, but people in general accept those restrictions and seen them justified.

There are a lot of people in Sweden who do not want Sweden to join NATO even if majority of Swedish people want that. Even in Finland have people against NATO (20 % or so).

[Fëanor]

If you believe that the freedom to burn a holy book in front of the embassy of a nation which adheres to that religion and from which you seek ratification of your access to NATO is well worth defending and preserving, even at the risk of not joining NATO any time soon, perhaps ever, then be my guest. In my book it's called sheer lunacy. ...

If Turkey refuses Swedish admission NATO to  on account of this incidence, then it is merely spin to obscure other motives.

I'm favor of virtually unlimited free speech even, (or maybe especially), when it offends religious sensibilities.  Apologies in advance ...

I regard religion, (at least the formal/organized variety), as an "opiate of the proletariat", (to borrow phrase from Marx).  Burning religious text or mocking prophets/messiahs is fundamentally a good thing if often not the practical/expedient thing to do.

[Todd]

If Turkey refuses Swedish admission NATO to  on account of this incidence, then it is merely excuse to obscure other motives.

Whatever works.  Go Recep!

[Florestan]

If you don't defend everyone's right to speak, no matter how much you disagree with them, you don't believe in freedom of speech

I defend everyone's right to free speech as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of other people and doesn't impact their life, liberty and property. I do not defend anyone's right to say or print that "Jews are a danger to this country and must be eliminated" or "Blacks are inferior to Whites and must be put to inferior work". I do not defend anyone's right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I do not defend anyone's right to burn the Quran in front of a Muslim-nation embassy. There are limits to freedom of speech which are dictated by reason and common sense and if an individual is unable or unwilling to keep their "speech" within those limits then it's government's duty to intervene, especially when said freedom of speech goes directly contrary to the nation's strategic goals.

Of course, all the above applies strictly to democratically-elected governments in a rule-of-law state.

[Florestan]

If Turkey refuses Swedish admission NATO to  on account of this incidence, then it is merely spin to obscure other motives.

There are other motives too, but this incident has certainly not helped Sweden's cause in the least, on the contrary, it worsened it considerably. Erdogan is right to be enraged: if in the middle of some very difficult negotiations the Swedish government is unable or unwilling to show even a modicum of goodwill towards Turkey's concerns, then what guarantees can he have that they have any goodwill towards Turkey at all?

[Todd]

There are limits to freedom of speech which are dictated

Dictated is an interesting verb choice.

Perhaps you can detail how burning a Koran (or Bible, or whatever) in any way infringes on the rights of others.

[71 dB]

I defend everyone's right to free speech as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of other people and doesn't impact their life, liberty and property.

That can be challenging. That's why freedom of speech varies a little bit from country to country.

I do not defend anyone's right to say or print that "Jews are a danger to this country and must be eliminated" or "Blacks are inferior to Whites and must be put to inferior work".

In Finland we don't have the right to say those things. In Finland people have been convicted in court to pay fines for saying things like that. The crime is "Agitation against a group of people." If I say those things on the street loudly so that other people hear it, I don't think I go to court for it, because I am a "nobody". People will just look at me condemning me for saying disgusting things, but if a well-known person/person of high stature uses his/her influence writing these things online for thousands of people to see, the police/prosecutor will react. Some far-right politicians in Finland have gone to the court for saying questionable things about refugees from islamic countries for example.  Most Finns think these restrictions to the freedom of speech are important part of a good functioning society and removing them could reduce freedom, because certain groups of people couldn't live free of fear.

I do not defend anyone's right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

That's actually illegal in the US as far as I know.

I do not defend anyone's right to burn the Quran in front of a Muslim-nation embassy. There are limits to freedom of speech which are dictated by reason and common sense and if an individual is unable or unwilling to keep their "speech" within those limits then it's government's duty to intervene, especially when said freedom of speech goes directly contrary to the nation's strategic goals.

Sweden is a secular Christian country. Why would they ban burning the Quran? Should they ban burning any book, because it might be the holy book for a group of people in Argentina? Holy books are burned BECAUSE it causes outrage. If Turkish people didn't care what books are burned in Sweden, nobody in Sweden would bother burning them. How much are people entitled to not be offended?

Entering NATO has been the strategic goal of Sweden for less than a year. The laws, culture, convention, practises, moral views etc. don't change just like that. Turkey greenlighted the NATO memberships at first, but suddenly started to milk with it. 2022, the year of dramatic surprises...

[Karl Henning]

Holy books are burned BECAUSE it causes outrage.

As he burned the book specifically to outrage Turkey, how can Sweden complain that Turkey was outraged? They got what they asked for.