I here on the UK news in two weeks the protesters will be in London :down:

Check out my earlier post (Pg. 3)...they're already there.

@Skybird

What you believe about Mohamed is just that -- your beliefs. We could argue about history and justification, but that's a whole other thread. I don't want to get into a religious argument, because all religious arguments are biased. Only an absolute atheist can be objective, otherwise you inject your own beliefs/prejudices/biases into whatever argument you try and make.

Back to the thread topic --

As stated above -- thats your "truth." My interpretation of the cartoon -- all who believe in Mohamed are violent bombers. So am I wrong to be offended?

The feeling of being insulted -- I'm not goin to blame muslims for feeling that way. If I insulted Christ (I wouldn't) and you were offended, I wouldn't be surprised. If you weren't offended, that's OK too. But I wouldn't insult Christ, and then turn around and tell you to chill out if you were offended.

The violent response -- that I can't condone. The calls for violence, the burning of embassies -- that's wrong, plain and simple in my eyes.

@TteFAboB
I agree with you, the response is overblown.

I can spot the difference. Theres no reason to resort to insults, though. But then, I guess that's you exercising free speech.

@Dan D
I'm with you.

@Neal Stevens
At the height of the oil crisis in 1973, when Kissinger tried to put pressure on King Faisal to drop the price of crude, King Faisal said that if the Saudi's had to go back to living in the desert and drinking goat's milk, they would. Some conspiracy theorists think that stance is the reason he was assassinated w/ the help of the CIA.

And re the dollars -- how much of the price of a barrel of crude do you think actually gets to the man on the street? The majority goes into the coffers of Western oil companies. Of what's left, the majority goes into the pockets of the royal families. I'm speaking on my own experience in Saudi -- if it's different elsewhere, I'd be surprised.

Don't count on it. People here don't realize that what goes on in the Middle East effects our oil prices only to a degree. Its like the world thinks that we get all of our oil from overthere or soemthing. Wake up and smell the coffee because we don't even get 1/4 of our oil from there. Remove Shell Oil from the equation, and that number drops ot less than 10% I beleive.

No one really wants oil from the middle east unless its cheap - it is very hard to refine as compared to oil from any other part of the world.

-S

How can you not stereotype when it's practically worldwide the threat to kill Westerners for a cartoon? Quite frankly, I am sick of Muslims wanting to kill me for either being an infidel or for something someone else did. Its like saying that we should kill all Muslims because they want to kill all non Muslims. Since we are stereotyping, is that the route we should go?

The Mosque thing - shows you the intelligence we are dealing with - Hey! Lets blow up our people to make the Westerners feel bad! Good idea!

Freedom of speech thing - no, that is not permissable to say they are wrong for drawing a cartoon. Everything you put in print will offend someone or something, somewhere, somehow and to say that they are wrong because they ticked off Muslims is just blaten arrogance or being completely naive. That is a completely unacceptable stance to the issue.

-S

PS. I wonder if someone should tell these people that there are not 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven. Maybe we should also tell them that if there is a little angel on each shoulder writting good and bad things that you do each day, and that you will only get to heaven if the good list is longer than the bad list that that is the mark of a tyranical god, not one who is loving and caring and you shouldn't want to go to a heaven that will probably be a hell.

Canada is on its way to becoming the largest source of oil in the world. It has already overtaken Iraq in the #2 position and it is believed by some that it will overtake Saudi Arabia for #1 within a decade as more reserves are discovered. :yep:

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20664.htm

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...a_canada.shtml

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html

http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Of course, most of the oil (95%) is in oil sands in Alberta and is dificult to recover. Recently though, in an interview, an American oil development expert said that the fields off Newfoundland are of top grade quality (he specifically mentioned that it was better than Middle East oil).

None of this is to say that the oil producing nations of the Middle East hold no power - they still do hold a great percentage of the world's oil reseves.

OT:

An absolute atheism would still be biased, as he would regard atheism above the folly of religious believes.

@Skybird
I have read your essays, your open letter, and I find your believes to be very well documented. I'm hereby giving up on argueing against you, because making myself able to do so would require extensive studies and a considerable amount of time that I simply do not have. I still disagree with you, though.

I would like to point out what I think is a circle arguement on your part. You say Islam doesn't change. From your point of view, as far as I have perceived it, Islam can't possibly change, because you have researched and reached the conclusion that Islam is a static entity. This is a welldocumented conclusion on your part, no doubt.

But, you also say that those muslims that do change (i.e. are more tolerant) are leaving Islam and aren't true muslims. What you actually is saying is that they, being dynamic, are not in agreement with your view of Islam as a static religion. You say Islam is static because change isn't Islamic.

Some other considerations.

Where is the silent majority? Not demonstrating, that's why they are silent. What should they shout? By some quirk of human nature, you can get more people to shout 'Death to the infidels!', than 'Be tolerant and reasonable!'. (OTOH, check the link in my first post.)

This is, nevertheless, getting out of control, not because of the silent majority but because of the violent minority. Attacking an embassy is the closest thing to attacking the country itself. This should provoke a response. This response must in no way be violent. Let me repeat that in no way be violent. A violent response would be a prelude to war, and we do not wish that. (At least I do not wish that.) On the other hand, I don't have a suggestion as to how to respond.

Consider, however, that the hippies attacking American embassies in various countries during the Vietnam war were not met with a violent response.

This got messy at times. As said, I have a complex view on matters and when I start writing my thoughts, I often argue for both sides. Please bear over with me.

Why are we even paying attention to these morons? Anyone with a brain knows what's satire, comic books, etc, and what's serious. I really can't believe this is all happening and AGAIN all we do is appologise to the muslim radials. We don't get offended to South Park and Jesus, why do they care about a bloody cartoon? Fekin eh! I think we all should boycott all arab countries, and never go there as tourists ever again. let's see how they do with their tourism. More, we should not buy their oil. This middle east is out of control.



Ought to read the book called "The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris"

Let us hope that Bush follows through on his State of the Union promise to aggressively persue alternatives to petrolium. Then, we can leave the Middle East be. With us (US, GB, Germany, the rest of Europe) out of the picture, they can go back to sending their suicide bombers after each other.

True but in two weeks London will be a war zone :nope:

Caspofungin,

I have plenty of material and personal expierence that enables me to give you facts from historical research and analysis wherever you find me guilty of having just my "subjective opinion". You just believe, and differently so. You may do so (as long as you do not want to change us). So who is "subjective" here? I can't see islam beeing able to proove it's claims. I find the Western tradition of analysis, research, reason and logic beeing able to proove that it cannot have been like Islam says. Islam is in the same situation like the Christian churches were - many centuries ago. That much it lacks behind. i prefer the western way. It has risks, that can only be countered by a strong sense of responsebility, but all in all it has prooven to work good - and far superior to any culture there ever was. Islam'S societies still live in medieval conditions (and according knowledge levels in most places). How can that ideolgy claim to be en par with the West...???

BTW, I AM that kind of atheist you describe. No deities and no superstitious supercreatures in my universe, please. Theism leads to mysticism and false idols, atheism leads to true mystic. I am in good company with that attitude. Jesus was like that. Buddha was like that. Muhammad was not. Don't get trapped by different words and symbolic language. Both focussed on immediate, direct experience. Simply that. "Free yourself from everything". Also, the first two men were men of peace and did not raise their hands against someone, even not agsainst nthose who did them harm. Muhammad's hands are dripping in blood. And this historical FACT is the bruning sting inside Islam's body, source of constant bad consciousness and the attempt to deny and rationalize it, it is the cause of the need to reject that part of it's identity, and telling lies about it. Muhammad was no Saint. By far not. Historical fact - not my subjective opinion.

You are not muhammad. how you can be offended if muhammad gets "offended" is mystery to me - you are not him, no matter how hard you try to immitate him. You tell a joke about, for example the German president. Or the pope. Or some Zen monk. So what??? Leaves me cold, and unimpressed. and certainly I have no "right" to feel offeended. But maybe I am just too coldblooded to understand your attitude.

More than 1/3 of all people mankind You call minority ?

In fact I was very surprised to learn about that detail in his speech. I think Europe needs to push America in this, and America needs to push Europe. There are diferrences in both player's positions with regard to the energy question, but together they could see this thing through. I support this part of Bush'S initiative. If it turns out to be a lasting initiative.

Which is not necessarily bad, I don't trust a man without any prejudice, because for such men anything is possible, acceptable, there is no limit. I have my prejudices, I have a prejudice against the burqa, whoever wears it, voluntarily or not, must do so far away from me, in their traditional place of origin.

It's good to see you have your prejudices too, and you're right indeed, if you believe I insulted you send me a PM and if I understand I insulted you afterall I'll apologize. If I don't think I actually insulted you but you feel insulted anyway I'll see if I can explain myself better. If you don't accept my apologies or disagree, send a PM to the moderators or to Neal and they'll solve the problem the way they see fit. This type of interaction beats living in the desert drinking goat milk to me.

I have no idea what you are referring to, but yes, it's a minority unless it's more than 50%.

I was talking about the violent minority within the muslim population, in case that was what needed clarification.

They are all one whole family, and think very similar. They are 1/3 of all people been on this world. Another parts are1/3 christians and 1/3 believe in Budda. The point is that We cant treat them as violent minority of all muslim population, because tere is no minority. Even muslim gays will go with transparents KILL THOSE WHO INSULT MAHOMED, or whatever. We have XXI century and looks like new religion war is on its way.

Please, do not come with such uninformed arguements, Grom.

Muslims are not one big happy family. There are considerable differences and opposing views within Islam, as it is within Christianity. Very often, these differences have sparked wars. Iran-Iraq war 1980-88, Iraq invading Kuwait 1990 (Gulf war) and Pakistan aidng the western coalition against Afghanistan are some recent examples.

It seems like the Muslims have learned to use "victimization" against the States and Europe. It's been a successful tactic in our law system for about a decade, so they're certainly learning how to work it.

I'm just wondering if the Danish are prepared to fight for that freedom of speech? Like, with planes and bombs and soldiers. It's one thing to print the comics and declare a great victory for freedom, and it's something else entirely to wage actual war for said freedom...

Denmark will do just fine.