The very few nuts that promote killing abortion doctors are not worried about what religion they are or are not.

Here we go, demands for blasphemy laws in the west from Cairo, no doubt a call which will be taken up by sundry useful idiots in the west. Great value the U.S gets for $1 billion dollars a year aid.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/52993/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-PM-says-number-of-US-embassy-rioters-were-pa.aspx

It's interesting to see the basic misconception that the U.S government vets and controls all media produced in the U.S, but this is hardly surprising seeing as freedom of speech is central to democracy and the Arab spring is nothing to do with democracy as we know it. The current riots are a perfect illustration that we indeed have a clash of civilizations and should aim solely at coexistence with the Arab world and certainly not integration with it.

P.S Obama is preparing to jump horses again in light of his statement that he does not view Egypt as an ally, but not an enemy either.

Here we go, demands for blasphemy laws in the west from Cairo,

We already have them in the UK - mind you they're only for blasphemers against Christianity.

Here we go, demands for blasphemy laws in the west from Cairo,

We already have them in the UK - mind you they're only for blasphemers against Christianity.

And we all have appendixes, which are redundant, but grumble occasionally.

Here we go, demands for blasphemy laws in the west from Cairo,

We already have them in the UK - mind you they're only for blasphemers against Christianity.

Not any more, repealed in 2008.

Here we go, demands for blasphemy laws in the west from Cairo,

We already have them in the UK - mind you they're only for blasphemers against Christianity.

Not any more, repealed in 2008.

Thank God for that

The protesters are not only uneducated; they're also pretty stupid. From all accounts this is an appalling film..... yet because of the protests, people on my local forum are asking where they can see it. Protests popularise it, as they did with the Mohammed cartoons.

If the Muslim fundamentalists had just ignored it, it would have faded away into a well-deserved oblivion.

From all accounts this is an appalling film.....

Do you mean the production quality?

I do video rendering for collage/uni students (FOC). This because they can't always do it at 'school' because everyone is using it and few have the money for the software (or PC) to have it at home. This is all automatic, needs only a number cruncher (dam_n fast PC) and the software so often I don't even see the project. If I see what the subject is I may have a look and I can tell you that I have never (that I have seen) rendered anything close to the quality of the film which is causing such uproar. Perhaps it is this which is offending so many?

Appeasment never wins the day. Just ask Neville Chamberlin & Jimmy Carter...

This guy criticises the muslim world for not using the Internet enough.

With guys like this on the Internet, are they really wrong?

Art imitating life

Report: Never an Anti-American Protest in Benghazi, Only a Planned Attack

CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was

never

an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

"What's clear," the CBS reporter concludes, "is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-benghazi-only-planned-attack_652761.html

I agree, Islam can shove it.

I agree, Islam can shove it.

As can Pat Condell. He speaks for himself not 'we'.

I LOVE Pat Condell and I am not an atheist.

I agree, Islam can shove it.

As can Pat Condell. He speaks for himself not 'we'.

I agree, Islam can shove it.

As can Pat Condell. He speaks for himself not 'we'.

Well I can tell you I have had enough (personal testimony) and everyone I konw (also not valid) too many people who have had enough, a skin full. I don't care if someone is offended by my right of freedom of expresion, I really don't. To be honest I find that people who object cannot even formulate a modicum of why they object, they just object.

I say make an offer, become part of the civilized world or goodbye. No you can't treat women like chattel, no you can't treat children like chattel either, Not going to happen and why? Because half the world object PER SE

Well I can tell you I have had enough (personal testimony) and everyone I konw (also not valid) too many people who have had enough, a skin full. I don't care if someone is offended by my right of freedom of expresion, I really don't. To be honest I find that people who object cannot even formulate a modicum of why they object, they just object.

I say make an offer, become part of the civilized world or goodbye. No you can't treat women like chattel, no you can't treat children like chattel either, Not going to happen and why? Because half the world object PER SE

I know loads of Muslims who ARE part of the civilised world. The only problem is they don't make good newsfodder.

I know loads of Muslims who ARE part of the civilised world. The only problem is they don't make good newsfodder.

Agreed. It is not Islam that is the problem, it is the interpretation of Islam by many of the 'leaders', Imams, mullahs, whatever they are called.

In Indonesia I did not come across many hard-line fundamentalists, although in Aceh the leaders are extremist, and there have been the anti-Chinese riots (ethnic rather than religious). Similarly in Malaysia (peninsular) there is usually reasonably good cohabiting, although the Borneo states are more extreme.

The poor treatment of women is more of a Middle East/Arab thing, whether muslim, christian, druze or whatever. This doesn't apply to much of Sumatra, for instance, where the property is owned by the women and passed down mother-to-daughter. The husband is allowed into the marriage home at the woman's permission, but most men spend as many nights sleeping in the shura (religious school) as in the matrimonial home.

I have lived half my life in countries where Islam is the dominant religion and I have very seldom felt the slightest discomfort. However I have avoided Pakistan and Afghanistan. Apart from those two, the worst country I was in was Nigeria - the (Christian) south of the country.

Agreed. It is not Islam that is the problem, it is the interpretation of Islam by many of the 'leaders', Imams, mullahs, whatever they are called.

No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Pejorative in error?

Agreed. It is not Islam that is the problem, it is the interpretation of Islam by many of the 'leaders', Imams, mullahs, whatever they are called.

No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Pejorative in error?

Do you actually know any Muslims? As in talk to them rather than read about them on the 'Gates of Vienna'?

Agreed. It is not Islam that is the problem, it is the interpretation of Islam by many of the 'leaders', Imams, mullahs, whatever they are called.

No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Pejorative in error?

Do you actually know any Muslims? As in talk to them rather than read about them on the 'Gates of Vienna'?

That is an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (

is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

.

Agreed. It is not Islam that is the problem, it is the interpretation of Islam by many of the 'leaders', Imams, mullahs, whatever they are called.

No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Pejorative in error?

Do you actually know any Muslims? As in talk to them rather than read about them on the 'Gates of Vienna'?

That is an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (

is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

.

So to cut out all the psycho babble I will move to the abusive phase and say why are you trying to hide your abject Racism and turn it on the non racists?

So to cut out all the psycho babble I will move to the abusive phase and say why are you trying to hide your abject Racism and turn it on the non racists?

Sounds good to me.

Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it

.

Are you sure you want to assert that followers of the cult of Mohammadian Islam are a race?

cult of Mohammadian Islam

are you feeling alright bulbous mate ¿¡¿ ?!?

Fair if it was also applied to the American Right Wing Christian zealots, please do not tell me that they don't preach hell and damnation to all not of their views?

There is no moral equivalence. Christian Holly Rollers do not preach murdering non-believers

.

they did... a few centuries ago. not only preaching but murdering them.

It is not a few centuries ago. I'm a lot more worried about right NOW.

It is not a few centuries ago. I'm a lot more worried about right NOW.

The 'right now' cults are presently small in numbers and membership.

If you look at the main body of the Christian religion around 1450, it was the whole church prepared to burn the non-believers.

Islam is around 1450 years old now, is warring among itself as to whether the Shiite side, with all the saints (imams) and high ceremonies, or the Sunni branch, with belief in one God and one prophet, and with ascetic sects developing from it (to me a complete reflection of the way Protestant and Catholic developed) is the correct path to follow.

The main difference is the speed of communication and the size of the population. Makes for instant mobs and lots more nutters.

It is not a few centuries ago. I'm a lot more worried about right NOW.

The 'right now' cults are presently small in numbers and membership.

If you look at the main body of the Christian religion around 1450, it was the whole church prepared to burn the non-believers.

Islam is around 1450 years old now, is warring among itself as to whether the Shiite side, with all the saints (imams) and high ceremonies, or the Sunni branch, with belief in one God and one prophet, and with ascetic sects developing from it (to me a complete reflection of the way Protestant and Catholic developed) is the correct path to follow.

The main difference is the speed of communication and the size of the population. Makes for instant mobs and lots more nutters.

People in 1450 still had a mediaeval mindset, which is poles apart from a modern one. Much of Islam seems to be mediaeval also with, as you say, HB, modern communications.

Anyway, the mobs, in Pakistan at least, seem to be killing each other..... we got over that stage in the 16th century on the whole, and doubtless Islam will get over it as soon as their educational systems improve. One of our problems in understanding what is going on is that we expect instant, or at least rapid, changes; they won't happen. Things may move quicker than they did four or five hundred years ago, but not as quickly as we would hope.

Here in KSA, not a single person has even mentioned it. Yes, the Saudi's are educated but there are still large numbers of Pakistani's and Afghan's etc and yet no demonstrations of any kind, as far as I am aware. In our office there are several Muttawwa (sp) whom I speak to on a social level and they haven't mentioned it either.

Maybe it's because they know we are British and they know we had nothing to do with it. I haven't asked and don't really want to bring it up.