Sorceror to be beheaded

[kandrathe]

I wish we'd crack down on human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia, in just a fraction of what we've done with China. This is the true duplicity in US foreign policy.

If anyone feels compelled, as I do, to write a letter to Saudi Arabia to save this mans life... (Story) (take action)

[eppie]

I wish we'd crack down on human rights abuses by Saudi Arabia, in just a fraction of what we've done with China. This is the true duplicity in US foreign policy.

If anyone feels compelled, as I do, to write a letter to Saudi Arabia to save this mans life... (Story) (take action)

As I always say in discussions like these. Attack them where they will really feel it. Stop using petrol.
The day that we are not dependent on oil anymore will be the day that the middle east will start to try to modernize and get rid of muslim extremism.

[kandrathe]

As I always say in discussions like these. Attack them where they will really feel it. Stop using petrol. The day that we are not dependent on oil anymore will be the day that the middle east will start to try to modernize and get rid of muslim extremism.

That would be one way. The way that would be most painful to the most number of people. I haven't seen any diplomatic effort in this area, at all. We could stop giving them weapons. They are a pretty defenseless nation, and the House of Saud exists in power because the western powers desire it that way.

[eppie]

That would be one way. The way that would be most painful to the most number of people. I haven't seen any diplomatic effort in this area, at all. We could stop giving them weapons. They are a pretty defenseless nation, and the House of Saud exists in power because the western powers desire it that way.

Yes indeed. And that is because they keep the country stable. So that we can use their oil without trouble.
It is hypocritical but that is how it goes.

[Concillian]

As I always say in discussions like these. Attack them where they will really feel it. Stop using petrol.

Gogo E85.

I switched my car over. Really the environmental / oil consumption aspect played no role in my switching compared to the octane advantage it holds over CA 91 octane "premium". This stuff is amazing to tune the car on. Already I'm about +20HP and +20 torque at the wheels based on my datalogs, and I'm just working on a nice safe daily base map right now... and not done Haven't even turned up the boost yet. I expect to end up about +30-35 HP and +40-50 ft-lbs. torque compared to gasoline when I'm done.

Performs like leaded race gas, but not leaded, and only $2.70 a gallon (mileage is worse, the price is on par with 91 octane at $3.25ish a gallon when you factor the worse mileage).


Right now ethanol is not a sustainable industry. Corn is not a very efficient way to produce ethanol.
But if you want to create jobs in the US and keep that cash at home instead of going to the middle east? invest in technology to improve efficiency of ethanol synthesis via algae farms, which have in real world manufacturing efficiency predictions that place it on-par with gasoline even at today's prices, and have a much smaller land footprint to gallon ratio than corn. These look like promising options in terms of efficiency, and if crazies like me who tune their own cars can reliably get 15+% more output out of an engine built for gasoline, imagine what could be done on a consumer ready purpose-built engine that can drop a bunch of emissions equipment that isn't necessary with a cleaner burning fuel.

E85 is quickly gaining a foothold in the aftermarket performance car segment. The people who have been illegally removing emissions equipment for decades in order to squeeze extra performance from their vehicles are the same people who WANT to migrate to a clean burning, renewable fuel that can be manufactured here instead of imported. These aren't people migrating because it's a renewable or clean burning fuel... as mentioned, they're the same people who purposefully remove equipment that made their cars burn clean. In some cases they were running leaded fuel before switching to ethanol. This demand for clean, renewable fuel for reasons other than it being a clean, renewable fuel is something to capitalize on before the demand outstrips the amount of government subsidized corn available.

I just fear that the inertia of the auto industry & government regulations are too large, and that people are too thick to see past the generic chemical energy content. Regulations are in place for mileage mandates for gasoline vehicles. Due to checmical energy content per unit volume, if you put ethanol into a gasoline engine or flex-fuel engine, then it will get ~20% worse mileage. Auto manufacturers may be backed into a corner and regulations may make it impossible for them to adequately experiment if they're afraid of not meeting their mileage targets.

However ethanol has a butt-ton (the exact and technically correct term, I assure you) more octane. A flex fuel engine must be able to operate with normal pump gasoline at 87 or 91 octane, so cannot really take full advantage of ethanol in low load conditions, like cruising on the highway. The primary advantage of the E85 (the additional octane) gets wasted. Right now it's just used by auto manufacturers as a renewable alternative you can throw in the tank if you want to.

However, a purpose built ethanol engine should be able to increase efficiency by taking advantage of the additional octane. If performance tinkerers like me can get ~15% more output from an engine that's built specifically for gasoline, a team of engineers should be able to purpose-build a smaller, more fuel efficient ethanol engine that has similar output & 15-20% better fuel economy, which should put it right back in line with the mileage of gasoline engines, despite the lower chemical energy content. Gasoline engines are not particularly efficient, there is room for improvement with higher octane fuel.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The day that we are not dependent on oil anymore will be the day that the middle east will start to try to modernize and get rid of muslim extremism.

I don't see the connection between oil and Muslim extremism.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes indeed. And that is because they keep the country stable. So that we can use their oil without trouble. It is hypocritical but that is how it goes.

I think it is deeper than merely oil. Without the oil, the Saudi's would need to encourage tourism as a source of income.

I think the west fears a Wahabist fundamentalist regime hostile to even moderate Islamic countries, which also happens to guard and provide access to the two most holy places in all Islam. Imagine if Egyptians, Jordanians, or Turks would have the Haj denied to their citizens, or have it held hostage by that regime.

Beyond Isreal, and Europe, there are plenty of Islamic countries who are just fine with the status quo.

[eppie]

Hi,
I don't see the connection between oil and Muslim extremism.

--Pete

Who do you you think sponsors Al Qaeda and other such groups?
The Bin Ladens are also old oil money if I'm correct.

[eppie]

Gogo E85. A flex fuel engine must be able to operate with normal pump gasoline at 87 or 91 octane, so cannot really take full advantage of ethanol in low load conditions, like cruising on the highway.

We have a flexifuel engine in our car. But I actually never used E85 yet.
We only use 95 octane and up here. I think the engine would work on 91.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Who do you you think sponsors Al Qaeda and other such groups?
The Bin Ladens are also old oil money if I'm correct.

I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that terrorist organizations (under many names and guises) have existed throughout history and everywhere in the world. Only a small percentage have been funded by oil, but all have been funded somehow. It is your implication that if we stop using oil, then somehow Muslim extremism will go away that I take issue with. It is illogical.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that terrorist organizations (under many names and guises) have existed throughout history and everywhere in the world. Only a small percentage have been funded by oil, but all have been funded somehow. It is your implication that if we stop using oil, then somehow Muslim extremism will go away that I take issue with. It is illogical.

It is illogical to think eliminating oil money will eliminate terrorism, but to say that this means there is therefore no connection between the two is a fallacy. It's not black and white - things can increase or support terrorism without being essential for its existence. We might be able to substantially reduce terrorism by cutting off that particular source of funding. I think you're correct in believing that this is an ineffective strategy, but it's not a logical certainty.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but to say that this means there is therefore no connection between the two is a fallacy.

Yes, but this is getting far out of context. My statement was in reply to, "The day that we are not dependent on oil anymore will be the day that the middle east will start to try to modernize and get rid of muslim extremism." That is the connection I fail to see -- that somehow cutting off oil revenue will modernize the Middle East and end Muslim extremism.

As for modernizing, if cutting off revenue leads to modernization, then sub Sahara Africa should be leading us into the twenty-second century. I believe that what modernization has taken place in the Middle East is because of oil revenues, not in spite of them. It costs money to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. And it takes social interaction to develop a more tolerant society. Without oil, both the money and the interactions would be missing. Some parts of the Middle East have done better, some have not done as well, and none probably have done all they could, but don't blame it on oil. Extremism, fundamentalism, breed best in poverty and isolation. And without oil income, most of the Middle East will revert to that condition.

And as to the funding of terrorism, yes, oil money makes it easier. It may be sufficient, but it is hardly necessary. Even an operation like 9/11 is relatively cheap -- say a million or so to fund the hijackers while they prepared (including the fees for flight schools). Compared to the billions involved in the oil trade, that's nothing. With about one and a half billion Muslims in the world, even if only one in a thousand supports terrorism, 9/11 still represents less than one US dollar per.

So, I repeat (to eppie), "I don't see <strike>the</strike> that connection between oil and Muslim extremism."

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
Yes, but this is getting far out of context. My statement was in reply to, "The day that we are not dependent on oil anymore will be the day that the middle east will start to try to modernize and get rid of muslim extremism." That is the connection I fail to see -- that somehow cutting off oil revenue will modernize the Middle East and end Muslim extremism.

--Pete

It especially doesn't make sense in-so-far as the self described main cause for violent Muslim extremism (as far as the leaders of Al Qaeda have reported) is the modernization of the Middle East. If you want to understand groups such as Al Qaeda and their motivations it's not difficult to find examples. They have repeatedly said that their main enemy is not America or the West but moderate and modernizing Muslim states. This isn't unique to Muslims either. Any fundamentalist ideology is more threatened by the "liberalization" of their own society or country than of outside factions. You don't see Christian fundamentalists in America planning attacks on Iran you see them assassinating abortion doctors and planning to kill cops here in their homeland.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Can't speak for all terrorist groups, but I'd be hard-pressed to call the Saudis a modernizing force in the Middle East. And I'm afraid that both the US support for their government, as well as the US military bases in the country was the main reason for why there were attacks on those bases in the 90s - as well as 9/11. Something about Infidel Armies in the Holy Land.

[kandrathe]

Can't speak for all terrorist groups, but I'd be hard-pressed to call the Saudis a modernizing force in the Middle East. And I'm afraid that both the US support for their government, as well as the US military bases in the country was the main reason for why there were attacks on those bases in the 90s - as well as 9/11. Something about Infidel Armies in the Holy Land.

While that is one of the convenient current excuses, I fear that by removing that one, or some of the other excuses would reveal yet another reason why radical Islamic jihadists must attack the west.

Here is the list as I understand it (and I may have forgotten a few);

1) Support for anything other than total expulsion of Jews from Palestine.
2) Western presence in any Islamic nation.
3) Western support for any apostate Islamic regime (jihad al-faasiqeen).
4) Limiting Islamic practices by Muslims in western nations.
5) Criticizing Islam, questioning Islamic practices, or portraying Islam in a negative in any way.
6) The primary tenet of Islam is to practice jihad* against the infidels until the entire world is Islamic.

* By jihad, I mean the definition of the word in the Koran as a "struggle against infidels" (jihad al-kuffaar). This is done with law, pressure, or by force when necessary.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (as reported by Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald July 4, 1998, and vehemently denied by Omar Ahmed after the story was published.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

6) The primary tenet of Islam is to practice jihad* against the infidels until the entire world is Islamic.

* By jihad, I mean the definition of the word in the Koran as a "struggle against infidels" (jihad al-kuffaar). This is done with law, pressure, or by force when necessary.

All the rest are, pretty much, trivial. This one is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, spreading Islam and Islamic law to all nations, and treating non-Muslims as second class people is so fundamental and so ingrained that it probably cannot be excised. It is that attitude that makes Islam so dangerous now, just like it made Christianity so dangerous fifteen hundred years ago.

One would think that, with time and proximity, there would come tolerance. Then one looks at the Balkans and loses hope.

Damn, I liked your other post better. It lifted my spirits.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I liked your other post better. It lifted my spirits.

It is my curse for being a socially maladjusted and blatantly introverted pedant. Just when the party gets fun. I might off handedly and honestly reflect on some social embarrassment or an imminent apocalypse and everyone gets quiet and much more sober for a moment. I'm religiously irreverent.

The good news, then is that we can educate ourselves on the threats and ensure everyone (including Muslims) get their fair share of freedoms, liberties, and justice. Or as the progressive rabidly protestant abolitionist Wendell Phillips said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

P.S. For Jester -- who may or may not also be a socially maladjusted and blatantly introverted pedant. The source of Wendell Phillips quotation was from a speech in Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852. From, "Speeches Before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society", p. 13 (1853). The entire speech in fact is reminiscent of the sentiment of my last quotation, allegedly by Ben Franklin, or Plato, or Herodotus. :D

[Swiss Mercenary]

Well, Kandrathe, any of those points have one thing in common - the only people who really care about them is a small minority of fundamentalists. While it doesn't take more then a few guys in a basement to pull off a terrorist attack, without the masses to recruit from, those attacks would, statistically, be a nuisance.

For the most part, the masses don't care enough to strap explosives to themselves - unless western actions are directly impacting them. I don't think it's a coincidence that most suicide bombers come from parts of the Middle East occupied by western powers.

[kandrathe]

For the most part, the masses don't care enough to strap explosives to themselves - unless western actions are directly impacting them.

I'm not sure any nation can exist that appeases all philosophies, particularly foreign ones that are mostly diametrically opposed to the morals and principles which characterize the majority. Whether it be bombings by the Animal Liberation Front, Anti-abortionists, Army of God, KKK, Weatherman, Neo-Nazi's, Tim McVeigh, WTC I or II... A group of disaffected radicals decided to step up their protests to a level worthy of news coverage, be they domestic or international. In many ways, terrorism and mass murder is the ultimate expression of socio-pathological narcissism. It's the ultimate expression of; "LOOK AT ME! LISTEN TO ME! I AM POWERFUL!" Add to that the exclusivity allowed for in a twisted philosophy that declares non-believers disposable, and offers rewards for their dispatch.

It's not hard to see how a small percentage (amounting to many thousands of willing martyrs) of disaffected radicalized people might arise from the large population of Muslims who truly have been wronged by western interests over the past hundred or so years. Reconciliation for past harms by western nations aside, I don't favor headlong capitulation to jihadist demands. We can't put Humpty Dumpty (Persian / Turkish empires ) together again, but we can begin to have a dialog. It can start with how we might be less hypocritical in espousing one set of values and standards for ourselves, and yet (acting and ) supporting or propping up regimes that are diametrically opposed to our values and standards.

After the holocaust was uncovered, the western powers vowed that "never again" would this type of crime be allowed. And yet, we see despots and their hallmark of mass graves filled with their "undesirables", whether they be Iraqi Kurds, Sudanese Christians, or Hazaras in Afghanistan. I'm drawn toward a non-interventionist policy in general, but this kind of crime screams for international justice. In many cases I fear the carnage is a direct result of the unintended consequences of western (or Soviet) intervention over the past 120 years.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I don't see the connection between oil and Muslim extremism.

--Pete

What, you didn't realize that John D Rockefeller and Hugo Chavesz are both Muslim extremists? :lol: