Europe at War

[71 dB]

I'm saying that you don't own Star Wars. Which would be equivalent to what you said about owning holy scriptures.

If you burn a book, you burn one copy of book which hopefully is your property you have paid for. It is not burning the content. The "content" (intellectual property) is in possession of the copyright owner, safe and sound.. I don't own Star Wars, but I am allowed to destroy the Blu-rays I have bought and paid for if I want (I don't). I am also allowed to burn the books I own. Then again, I don't own any "holy books."

I haven't talked about owning holy scriptures. Who "owns" the rights to holy books anyway? Who has the right to print copies of them and sell them? This is all about BURNING BOOKS YOU OWN.

[LKB]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I just made Todd reply anything other than "Incorrect."

Let's party!

Accidents happen, I'm sure he'll recover soon enough.

[LKB]

Your hypotheticals are detached from reality.

The diplomatic fuss between Turkey and Sweden is not really about Koran burning.  That is a convenient public pretext.  The most substantive public issue involves Turkey's claims of Sweden harboring political enemies of Turkey (eg, Gülenists).  Another obvious motive of Erdoğan is to leverage anti-Western sentiment in his country to deflect from domestic issues, such as obscene inflation and botched economic policies across the board.  There is also a strong possibility that Erdoğan sees Sweden as a threat to the Turkish arms industry.  Sweden has one of the most advanced arms industries in Europe, and full integration into NATO would mean that Swedish arms would be more widely sold, potentially eating into Turkey's market share before it could grow its non-NATO market sufficiently.   

Canada and Romania do not have similar issues to work through.

First sentence: Incorrect.

The rest of the post is accurate.

[LKB]

I wasn't talking about whether it was legal. There are plenty of things that are legal that can get you into a lot of trouble with people, rather than the law.

Here you've struck upon the greatest flaw of our species:

Emotion trump's everything.

[Todd]

First sentence: Incorrect.

Nope.

[Madiel]

If you burn a book, you burn one copy of book which hopefully is your property you have paid for. It is not burning the content. The "content" (intellectual property) is in possession of the copyright owner, safe and sound.. I don't own Star Wars, but I am allowed to destroy the Blu-rays I have bought and paid for if I want (I don't). I am also allowed to burn the books I own. Then again, I don't own any "holy books."

I haven't talked about owning holy scriptures. Who "owns" the rights to holy books anyway? Who has the right to print copies of them and sell them? This is all about BURNING BOOKS YOU OWN.

Oh please. You know as well as I do that burning a copy of the Quran in public is not about disposing of one personal copy. And you didn't say he burnt a book. Maybe you should go back and look at the actual phrasing you used, because neither you nor anyone else who was the audience for the stunt interpreted it as being about burning the pages of that one physical object.

If you want to trash your Star Wars DVD at home, fine. But don't try to tell me that's no different to taking your DVD that you own to the car park in front of Lucasfilm headquarters and driving over it with a tractor, just because the physical result is the same. Such a claim is technically correct and yet also completely disingenuous.

[71 dB]

I'm done with the book burning thing.

[Madiel]

I'm done with the book burning thing.

Just so long as you grasp that when and where you perform an action makes a difference.

As a gay man I'm grateful I have the legal right to have sex with another man. But I understand that, like everyone else who is allowed to have sex, this does not mean there are no restrictions about when and where I have sex.

Feel free to burn books that you own in the privacy of your own home.

[Que]

I'm done with the book burning thing.

And so are we.... 

That's a lot of digression over a convenient pretext for Erdoğan. As soon as any dicussion veers off to the US constitution and jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court, that's a huge red flag. 

[Que]

Meanwhile on the battle field.... A stalemate that neither side is able to break. Both sides are digged in, with the ground too soft due to the mild winter to move heavy equipment. The Russians have a large amount of conscripts as canon fodder at their disposal, but the Ukrainians have sufficient precision artillery to stop them.

Who is going to move first with an attempted offensive? Hopefully and probably the Russians... They are the ones with an political agenda and have to prove their invincibility. Sounds like a perfect recipe for disaster - for the Russians....

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JANUARY 28, 2023

• Russian forces are attempting to prevent Ukraine from regaining the initiative possibly ahead of a planned decisive Russian offensive in Donbas.
• Russian forces likely lack the combat power necessary to sustain more than one major offensive operation while fixing Ukrainian forces in western Donetsk and eastern Zaporizhia oblasts.
• The Russian military leadership may once again be planning an offensive operation based on erroneous assumptions about the Russian military's capabilities

Kyiv warns of Russian anniversary offensive

There are reports that Putin is dragging military equipment to Ukraine from all over Russia. He is going to try before the new weapons for Ukraine arrive... and hopefully fail miserably...

[Fëanor]

...
The burning of a religious text is a clear, obvious and incontrovertible indication that one not only hates that particular religion, but that they do want to publicly show their hate. And if they burn it in front of an embassy of a nation whose vast majority profess that religion, then it is a clear, obvious and incontrovertible indication that one hates that nation, too.

That any nation calling themselves civilized should allow such hateful behavior to go unchecked in the name of free speech leaves me truly speechless.

I think we should be free to hate religion -- even selectively, though I personally hate all religions about equally.

Religious text burning here in Canada is less likely -- we're too polite.

[Fëanor]

The diplomatic fuss between Turkey and Sweden is not really about Koran burning.  That is a convenient public pretext.  The most substantive public issue involves Turkey's claims of Sweden harboring political enemies of Turkey (eg, Gülenists).  Another obvious motive of Erdoğan is to leverage anti-Western sentiment in his country to deflect from domestic issues, such as obscene inflation and botched economic policies across the board.  There is also a strong possibility that Erdoğan sees Sweden as a threat to the Turkish arms industry.  Sweden has one of the most advanced arms industries in Europe, and full integration into NATO would mean that Swedish arms would be more widely sold, potentially eating into Turkey's market share before it could grow its non-NATO market sufficiently.   

Canada and Romania do not have similar issues to work through.

Seems I'm constrained to agree with you again.

Though I don't know enough about Sweden's and Turkey's arms industries to comment on the last point -- other than I know that they are significant in both case.)

[Que]

I think we should be free to hate religion -- even selectively, though I personally hate all religions about equally.

Religious text burning here in Canada is less likely -- we're too polite.

Just in case my previous message got lost in translation: let's get back on topic.

[Que]

Reuters:

DUBAI, Jan 29 (Reuters) - A loud explosion struck a military industry factory near the central Iranian city of Isfahan overnight in what Tehran said on Sunday was a drone strike by unidentified attackers.There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast, which came amid tension with the West over Tehran's nuclear activity and supply of arms for Russia's war in Ukraine, as well as months of anti-government demonstrations at home.

Iran's foreign minister said the "cowardly" attack was aimed at creating "insecurity" in Iran. The Defence Ministry said the explosion caused only minor damage and no casualties. The extent of the damage could not be independently confirmed.
[...]
Separately, IRNA reported early on Sunday a massive fire at a motor oil factory in an industrial zone near the northwestern city of Tabriz. It gave no information about the cause of that blaze.

The Islamic Republic has in the past accused arch-enemy Israel of planning attacks using agents inside Iranian territory. In July, Tehran said it had arrested a sabotage team made up of Kurdish militants working for Israel who planned to blow up a "sensitive" defence industry centre in Isfahan.
[...]
In Ukraine, which accuses Iran of supplying hundreds of drones to Russia to attack civilian targets in Ukrainian cities far from the front, a senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy linked the incident directly to the war there. "War logic is inexorable & murderous. It bills the authors & accomplices strictly," Mykhailo Podolyak tweeted. "Explosive night in Iran - drone & missile production, oil refineries. Did warn you."

[Todd]

Another case where people just say things openly and honestly, from a couple weeks ago.  The fun bit comes from Evelyn Farkas.  For context, Ms Farkas is the Executive Director of the McCain Institute.  Part of her work focuses on human rights.  (You can't make this stuff up.)  She was an Obama Administration functionary.  The relevant bit starts around twenty-five minutes in.  The revealing bit, in response to a question about regimes fit to be changed is:

Well, obviously a good one would be Russia, but I don't think they're on the precipice there.  I think things have to get worse economically and there have to be many more body bags, and frankly, military losses before there's a change in the government in Moscow.

This illustrates a few points.  First, exactly contrary to fantastical thinking by some people, women are just as bloodthirsty as men.  Second, think tanks are filled to the brim with really rather biased folks who offer advice and analysis of questionable value.  Third, the ultimate goal held by many is no secret, escalation be damned.  Oh yes, and fourth, the war isn't going against Russia in quite the manner that triumphalists and dreamers proclaim.  That's strikingly similar to Ms Haines' recent comments.  Pro-war sorts will continue to believe otherwise.

It should also be noted that the Council on Foreign Relations prides itself on being neutral.  It really does.  It takes no stance and offers a platform for opinions.  Its most relevant outlet is Foreign Affairs.  The President of the Council is Richard Haass.  Mr Haass served in the Reagan, Bush, and Bush Administrations.  He did formulate the useful and fun minimalist/maximalist framework for assessing US foreign policy - Dubya was maximalist; Obama was minimalist.  He presents his arguments in a reasonable manner, though he also advocates for a radical policy in terms of US defense spending.  While some folks suggest increasing the budget by $25 or $50 billion per year, Mr Haass advocates for increasing it by 1% of GDP per year, or about $230 billion per year.  Even some staunch institutionalists crave nothing less than the enhanced militarization of US foreign policy, the continued aggressive and reckless expansion of NATO, and permanent war.  Because Russia!  And soon: Because China!

[drogulus]

     Russia also uses religion to support foreign policy objectives. Putin is "offended" by the atheistic West.

     The overall goals in war are no secret. It's not very bloodthirsty to know about them.

     I could be ultraPutinist and filled with peace juice and still opine that many more Russians will have to die before Putin negotiates.

[drogulus]

    Here's a bloodthirsty report, as it contains war facts and analysis. Consider this a trigger warning.

[Todd]

Since it has been determined on this forum that think tanks are good, reliable, unbiased sources of useful information, it may be time to consider some of what the RAND Corporation has published in the last several years regarding Russia.  RAND itself states it offers objective analysis and effective solutions, so it can be trusted.  In May 2019, it published a book called Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.  Below are two items of note.  First is a paragraph from the book.  Second is a brief that just goes ahead and describes overall foreign policy objectives in plain language.



Overextending and Unbalancing Russia Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options

Democracy and freedom and the welfare of Ukrainian civilians do not figure prominently.  Or at all.  Some key bullet points are useful.  See if you can recognize them.

• Expanding U.S. energy production
• Imposing deeper trade and financial sanctions
• Increasing Europe's ability to import gas from suppliers other than Russia
• Providing lethal aid to Ukraine
• Undermining Russia's image abroad
• The United States might goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime [The US pulled out of the INF Treaty in August 2019]

The RAND Corporation's ideas and motives are pure.  Same with the United States.

[JBS]

You seem to think that is a list of bad things. The only bad thing on it is increasing Azeri-Armenian tensions--and that has happened, with no help from the US that I know of, but apparently a good deal of help from Turkey.
And getting rid of Lukashenko would have been a very good thing, for Belarussians and for Ukrainians.

But what is good for the US can also be good for Ukrainians for entirely different reasons.

[Todd]

You seem to think that is a list of bad things.

It is a list of published policy options that helped create the conditions for the Russo-Ukrainian War.  More than 40,000 civilians have died in the war.  Many or most people would consider that bad.  Evidently you do not.  That's fine. 

And getting rid of Lukashenko would have been a very good thing, for Belarussians and for Ukrainians.

You also support regime change now.  So, you are an admitted cultural chauvinist, think nothing of dead civilians, and favor regime change.  You are a warmonger.