Oh no! The Arabs are taking over our ports!

This is just xenophobia at its best.

Dubai Ports will just be inheriting the contracts that P&O have had. Nothing will really be changed - the security protocols remain the same. Ultimately security rests with the Coast Guard and Customs, and the corporations comply with their requests. The company is managed by a amalgamation of Americans, UAE nationals and Indians. Nobody pays 6.8 billion dollars to let a couple of terrorists in - they're more concerned with rivaling Hutchinson Whampoa as the largest port operators. The Americans consider Dubai's ports safe enough to be the most frequently visited by US Navy ships, so its not about security. Foreign Operation of the port isn't particularly unusual - 80% of LA's port is managed by foreign companies - including China.

Besides, isn't the idea to reward moderate Arab states and increase ties with them? No, lets just act like all of them are terrorists, stop them from advancing their commercial interests, and then expect them to give their full co-operation in the War on Terror. Both parties, democrats and republicans need to be shot over this reaction, as this could a larger public relations disaster for Americans in the Middle Eats than Gitmo.

And to say that "Oh 2 of the hijackers were from the UAE (Abu Dhabi not Dubai) and money was wired through there" is a poor excuse. For that matter, P&O contracts should have been canceled right after 7/7, since the UK is a much larger base of terrorism and fundamentalism in general and all German purchases should be scrutinized since a lot of the 9/11 hijackers were based in Hamburg.

I'm particularly disgusted by the media. If you were watching CNN, you'd think that Hamas was being handed control.

About this cartoon business

My take on all this: They're all hypocrites and stupid.

- Jyllands-Posten had issues with a cartoon with Jesus in it and did not publish it

- Anti-semitism is considered hate speech in France, but not Islamophobia

- Nowhere in the Quran does it say that depictions of the prophet aren't allowed. Its a tradition.

- Even if it did, this is not blasphemy, as Sharia only applies to Muslims

- The Prophet was insulted numerous times in his lifetime, but he didn't retaliate.

- The irony of it all is that the reason the prophet's depictions are not allowed by tradition is because of the fear of idolatry, but protesting so vehmently does just that.

- Peaceful protest is fair, but boycotting all Danish products is retarded. If anything they should boycott products that are advertised in that newspaper, so all the companies would then be forced to pull those ads, hurting the newspaper, not ordinary Danish citizens.

My Feelings on Religion

Firstly, I must state that I am an agnost. I must say I am disenchanted by the idea of belief and faith - I'm an empiricist by nature, so no religion can really be "true" in my eyes. Its not just that too - I have issues with Islam itself. Perhaps my thinking is highly influenced by the western individualistic model, but I can' t accept that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's, especially when the rationale supplied by clerics is that women lose their sense of judgement when they menstruate, or have psychological problems (yet we let them peform something so demanding such as surgery). Nor can I accept that a non-Muslim is worth half in terms of testimony and blood money. And lets not even get into the certain portions concerning the conduct of war - how the winners may make slaves of the women, and are even allowed to copulate with them. Such things don't fit the morality of current times, and if religion and the Quran is for all times and ages, then its not for me.

Plus there's the issue of religious doctrine superseeding actions. I have a policy when it comes to this:

A God that judges you on your beliefs rather than your action, is a God not worth believing in.