Explosions and Gunfire Reported At Three Locations In Paris

[Econoline]

So...I'd imagine that means an atheist, anti-Christian website would be a more "independent objective source" for information on Christian beliefs and practices than any, you know, actual Christians (like you).

[Econoline]

Can you name an "independent objective source" BTW? Certainly those "many Islamic scholars" that you mention with such approval are bound to be independent and objective... nichts wahr? I can't think why I didn't cite all those chaps to prove that I was wrong in the first place!

So...I'd imagine that means an atheist, anti-Christian website would be a more "independent objective source" for information on Christian beliefs and practices than any, you know, actual Christians (like you).

[MajGenl.Meade]

As I stated earlier, I find it very useful to read atheist material. Sometimes it helps to me to understand a particular passage of the Bible better. Sometimes it forces me to think more deeply about how I view certain things. The challenge is most welcome.

It seems impossible (for me) to imagine what an "independent objective source" would look like - is it a person or group who does not believe in God or one that does? I would suspect that I am biased toward belief and therefore any explanation that I might offer (of Christianity) is not "independent" and to some surely it cannot be "objective".

It may also be wrong. My understanding is not necessarily what "Christianity" is. If I say that IMO Job is an instructive allegory but not about a real person named Job, most non-Christians would probably not object. Some Christians would. This of course is not interpretation but opinion.

If the only source I am supposed to turn to is one that neither believes nor disbelieves a certain thing, why should I care a pinch of owl dung for that source's opinion about that certain thing? Either it will reach a conclusion (for or against) in which case it has determined a matter of belief about which it previously was ignorant - or it will reach no conclusion at all and merely present two countervailing arguments. I can find two such arguments myself merely by reading (in this case) the view of an Islam-critic and counterbalance that with the arguments of an Islamo-phile.

I say, look at the arguments - look at the facts. Either the source is right or it is not. But please do not argue that only an "independent and objective" source is of any value. Especially when no such source can be cited or even credibly postulated.

All this of course is merely to argue about the argument. The question stays on the table: is not Islam the most violent and reprehensible faith system on earth? Bear in mind that most Masons do not acknowledge the deep anti-Christian values of Masonry; that most followers of the Roman church do not understand the tenets of their own "faith"; most Christians do not have a very reliable view of their own scriptures. I feel sure that most Moslems (in the west anyway) do not really comprehend the philosophy of their faith either.

Just as one can easily find "Christian" leaders who are happy to argue that the Bible's prohibition against homosexuality is really not to be taken seriously, so too can one find Moslem clerics willing to gloss over the Q'ran.

And if I want an anti-Christian viewpoint, I merely have to ask Big RR for an opinion - and frequently do

(That really is intended as a joke)

[Lord Jim]

I have to say I'm getting a little sick and tired of Obama's constant lecturing about how people are supposed to think about and respond to the Islamic terrorist attack in Paris. He seems to think that delivering these lectures, (and making political attacks...he's shown a lot more passion and indignation when criticizing Republicans than when talking about the terrorists...) is the most important thing he has to do regarding the Islamist terrorist threat and ISIS in particular...

He is supposed to be the Commander-In-Chief; not the Lecturer-In-Chief...but apparently he'd rather scold then do his job...

We need fewer lectures and more sorties...

I heard a news report that since the bombing campaign against ISIS began, we have been averaging a pitiful 15 bombing runs a day. That would be pathetic enough, but apparently even with that paltry number about half of the planes return without releasing their bombs or firing their missiles. The reason? The moronic rules of engagement have been that if the pilot believes that there might be even one civilian killed they are not to complete their mission.

Look, obviously you want to try and minimize civilian casualties as much as you practically and reasonably can. And you certainly don't want to accidentally drop a bomb on a wedding party or an orphanage...

But the, "we must not kill even one civilian" rule of engagement is absolutely ludicrous; no war can ever be effectively conducted that way.

My understanding is that just last week this has finally changed, but the fact that the rule was in place at all is symptomatic of how absolutely resistant this President is to waging effective warfare, and how utterly clueless he is as to how to go about it....

For the very first time last week, after 14 months of an air campaign, we finally started hitting the trucks carrying the oil that represents the life blood of the financial resources of ISIS. The reason we hadn't done it previously was because we didn't want to hurt the drivers...

ETA:

US President Barack Obama on Sunday said the United States and its allies would not relent in its fight to combat Islamic State (Daesh) extremists and would hunt down their leaders and cut off the group's financing.

"Destroying (Daesh or Islamic State) is not only a realistic goal, we are going to get it done," he told a news conference after a meeting of Asian leaders in Malaysia.

"We will destroy them. We will take back land they are currently in, take out their financing, hunt down leadership, dismantle their networks, supply lines and we will destroy them."

http://www.geo.tv/article-205007-We-wil ... hip-Obama-

Obama is basically the anti-Teddy Roosevelt...

His slogan is, "Speak loudly but carry a twig"...

[RayThom]

... what is being said and what is being done are diametrically opposed when it comes to a global superpower. Otherwise, how could they become so 'super?' US covert ops have always been dark, scary, dirty... and Constitutionally illegal.

As for not being fearful and/or concerned about terrorism? How is that possible when almost every venue where the masses congregate have bag and baggage checks, hand held metal scanners, and full body x-ray scans? When did out presidents ever visit a possible "soft target" without being surrounded by people willing to take on shrapnel for them? Our POTUS can espouse safety and calm because he (to be revised to 'she' in 2016) is removed from the constant tactile reminders. Bottom line, safety and freedom are a concept. We are only as safe and free as we feel -- no more, no less.

The first causality of war is the truth.

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, I think your assertions about the current administration's lack of willingness to engage run very much contrary to the number of drone strikes, kills, etc. that this administration has racked up over the past 7 years in the war on terror - including, let's never forget, taking out Osama bin Laden.

And as for not being willing to endure the mistakes of war? I would cite the MSF/Docs w/o Borders hospital that was recently bombed, burning docs & patients alive, as this administration's evidence of tolerating 'collateral damage' casualties while carrying out strategic military objectives.