So basically I want to see what other people think.
In my opinion this whole thing is being blown way out of proportion. No matter how disrespectful this video was, it does not justify killing people and burning embassies.
That would definitely be nice, but as I'm sure you know a government must by all means exercise policies that best serve their people. So I don't particularly see anything wrong in the way the U.S. is after oil in most of its interaction with the middle-east or oil-rich countries in general.
I disagree that there should be no return if one must do something positive, in fact this form of trade by definition does not constitute anything positive for the giver. Without return while giving you are doing nothing but losing, and that's just what it is by the laws of the physical world we live in.
Unless giving in any shape or form involves a profitable (e.g., a gain of an ally, exchange of technology, human resources, et al.) investment, then it's definitely a loss. If oil rich countries have nothing else to offer but grease (I don't believe so), well, I guess that's just too bad for them.
The only hope I could see for the MENA region is education(x100), deprecation of bronze-age ideologies, and embracing tolerance and celebration of differences.
Of course first world nations have a responsibility towards our species as they are the most advanced, so they can't just stand in complete insouciance and only care for securing their interests, and to be honest I think they are doing a terrific job. They are constantly advancing our understanding of the world, combating the most hideous forms of illness, and always on the front leading the world towards globalization. They might have dropped the ball a few times here and there, but overall we owe the United States almost most of the luxuries we enjoy today on second-to-second basis of our lives.
Moving away from fossil fuels, yes, but as fuel is only one use of petroleum. For now, almost all plastics are based on petroleum.
Manufactured outrage all in the name of religion. No one seemed outraged when the film came out several months ago. It was only on 9/11 that they started rioting.
Is it strange that a movie depicts the prophet of a religion as being a violent savage and then the followers of that religion respond with savagery and violence? More evidence that religion reflects the opinions of the people who support the faith. This reminds me again that Gods always hate the same people that their followers hate.
"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony --
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal --
"Gods don't kill people. People with gods kill people."
-- David Viaene --
"So many Gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
When just the art of being kind
Is all this sad world needs."
-- Ella Wheeler Wilcox --
There may be some people who are offended by the video. So what, some people are offended by anything. The simple truth is that there are lunatic factions that look for any excuse to blow things up and kill people. This video is just the latest excuse to vent their psychotic and hysterical savagery. I would guess that most of these psychos have never seen the video, not that it matters.
The reaction of people to the Mohammed video shows me why it is important to teach my children about atheism, it's importance & to illustrate the problems of religion.
The poeple protesting are a disgrace to mankind.
As for the video itself. It was poorly made, unentertaining and lacking of educational value. Perhaps though the over-reactions may help some moderates realise the problems with religion & religous belief.
I haven't seen the trailer, but it's my understanding that the offending dialogue was dubbed later replacing an entirely different and unoffensive script. The filmmaker is supposedly an Egyptian Coptic who has been afoul of the law in this country already. I don't know whether he is a citizen or not. The mobs were incited by clerics to avenge the insult to the Prophet and arrived by busloads--sounds a tad organized.
The fact that it is a lousy piece of film making is beside the point. It appears that it was done deliberately and meant to cause exactly what it did. But, where do we draw the line? That creepy preacher from Florida who burned the Quran is just as guilty.
I was heartened by the Libyan pro-American rally. Pictures were posted on Salon.com.
FINALLY! An anti-Islamic protest!
Anti-militia protests show frailty of Libyan state
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Residents of Libya's second-largest city warned on Saturday of a "revolution" to get rid of armed militias and Islamic extremists after protests spurred in part by the killing of the U.S. ambassador left four dead in an unprecedented eruption of public frustration.
The protests aren't "anti-Islamic." They are opposed to the anti-American Islamic instigators. Libya is one country which is both Islamic and has a largely pro-American populace.
Does the phrase, "Islamic extremists," automatically mean, "anti-American Islamic instigators"? I certainly didn't read it that way --
No, but in the case of the attack on the American embassy, I think it's safe to conclude there was a reason those extremists chose that one and not the Argentine or Icelandic embassies. The protests were not against Islam, as your leading line indicated, but against the group presumed by many Libyans to have been behind or to have instigated the attack on the American embassy.
I agree with this: "I think it's safe to conclude there was a reason those extremists chose that one and not the Argentine or Icelandic embassies."
There is no evidence to support your second contention: "The protests were not against Islam,...but against the group presumed by many Libyans to have been behind or to have instigated the attack on the American embassy." It appears to be nothing more than an assumption on your part.
Did you somehow miss the phrase, "Islamic extremists," despite the fact that I've mentioned it twice?