The fundamental problem is this: There is an asymmetry between the good that many moderate Muslims can do for Britain and the harm that a few fanatics can do to it. The 1-in-1,000 chance that a man is a murderous fanatic is more important to me than the 999-in-1,000 chance that he is not a murderous fanatic: If, that is, he is not especially valuable or indispensable to me in some way. -- from this article by Theodore Dalrymple
The figures Dalrymple uses, however, are not the right ones. He uses the figure of "one in a thousand" Muslims who may be a danger. He does not go on to add that "all the evidence suggests that the percentage of the Muslim population that represents a physical danger to non-Muslims" is far higher than "one in a thousand." He does not remind us that a great many Muslims support terrorist acts, or acts of violence, against Infidels and their institutions, as all the polls suggest.
And keep in mind that in such cases, the misreported opinions will only go one way, for no one would claim to be murderously hostile who was not, while some of those who are murderously hostile, recognizing the wisdom of not admitting to that -- in order to protect Muslim interests and to keep Infidels unwary -- will claim not to be.
This matter of the continuum of Muslim support for acts against the physical wellbeing of Infidels begins with active participation, then passive collusion (knowing what is up, doing nothing to stop it, not reporting it), and then support for such acts. That support takes the form of "understanding" them and claiming victimization at the hands of Infidels. Or it may manifest itself in the offering of a defense, of one kind or another, of terrorist acts. This support may be demonstrated by evidence that this or that “moderate” shares the same hostility toward Infidels that jihadists manifest -- the same sense that Infidel attempts to maintain their own legal and political institutions are in themselves a provocation. Infidel refusal to change these institutions, and their refusal to change their social arrangements, and their refusal to yield on the matter of free speech (Jyllands-Posten, the movie "Submission"), are seen by many Muslims as acts of aggression toward Islam -- when in fact they are merely the way Infidels choose to live, the rights they choose to maintain. But those Muslims believe that the mere continuance of the ways of the Infidels constitutes an "obstacle" to the spread of Islam, that is an act of aggression that justifies Muslim Jihad against them -- for the Infidels might have gracefully yielded, and did not.
We already know that every 100 Muslim migrants has a number larger than 0 who will be perfectly willing to participate in acts of terror. We already know that many more will support those acts; that still more will express approval of such acts; that virtually all will support, as Believers they must, the concept of Holy War or Jihad, as defined in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. We already know that Believers accept the doctrine, central to Islam, that a permanent state of warfare -- but not necessarily violent war -- must exist between Islam and Unbelief, between Believers and Infidels, and that Dar al-Islam, the Abode of Islam, must inexorably expand until it finally swallows up Dar al-Harb, the Abode of War, until the entire world is subject, as by right it should be, to Islam, and Muslims dominate everywhere.
The mere swelling of Muslim ranks in the Western world will make it harder to properly monitor Muslim populations. It will make it much more expensive to do so. It will make politicians grow willing to curry Muslim votes and, to do so, willing to set up obstacles to the most sensible and straightforward of security measures.
Infidels did nothing to deserve this except to naively accept these populations into their countries. They gave no thought at all to the ideological content of Islam, nor to the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subsequent subjugation of Infidels -- a history remarkably similar, from Spain to the East Indies. They do not deserve as a consequence of that act of naive generosity to now be forced to endure the large-scale presence of people who, to the extent that they remain true Believers, will create and have already created in much of Western Europe if not yet North America a situation that for the indigenous Infidels, and for other, non-Muslim, immigrants, is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without this large-scale Muslim presence.
There is not an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, a Dutchman, a Belgian, a Swede, an Italian, a Spaniard, who -- no matter what he may think of remedial action -- can truthfully deny the truth of that last assertion.
The majority of Muslims might not be slitting the throats of infidels, planting bombs, or raping young Christian girls. But, like white Americans of the pre-civil rights days, everyday Muslims benefit from belonging to the majority, without justice for minorities that live among them. The main problem is that there is not a Muslim Martin Luther King figure in their world, willing to challenge the Muslim masses to change from oppression and hatred into acceptance and true equality for non-Muslims.
The only thing Islam has ever "contributed" to the world is Islam, which is only a "contribution" if you're a Muslim male. Every contribution to world history claimed by Muslims is either marginal (calligraphy) or the claim is false (algebra).
I did like the way Dalrymple made it clear that his prejudice against Muslims is based on current events, not childhood socialization. I had the same evolution in my own thinking.
Hugh, he might believe exactly what you say about the numbers and might be using the 1 in a 1,000 figure as a sop to those who actually do believe it's that low, to show that even if it is that low, the West still runs a "deficit" in the tally of the costs vs. benefits of Muslim immigration. Unfortunately, he (and those of us who would like to remove Muslims from our lands) faces an uphill battle in proving that Muslims don't add more value than they subtract. Our main consideration is not the actual value-added by Muslims, it's the amount of moral self-congratulations on the part of those who do not support prohibiting Muslim immigration into our countries. Waking up every day feeling morally superior to the troglodytes who want to stop poor Muslims from emigrating to the West is worth the obvious hassle Muslims cause us to these types.
That moral superiority "benefit", although completely specious from any objective standpoint, seems to drive the opposition to the cessation of Muslim immigration and I don't think anyone has a solid plan for eliminating the perspective that gives rise to this self-delusion. It is as if each individual has to consciously come to the conclusion that Muslim immigration is a bad thing for the West, but the bar for coming to this conclusion is so high as to be nearly insurmountable for a significant portion of the population. It would help if the news media actually were reporting on Islam's integral connection with terror from day one of its existence, of course, but they are some of the most heavily invested in this perspective that limiting Muslim immigration is tantamount to racism, etc. Of course, they are also heavily invested in other ideologies that conflict with this (e.g., heavily pro-gay rights without considering the mainstream Islamic position on that issue), so there is a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance in that institution. But, without the media participating is a campaign to educate people about the real essence of Islam, the masses will never catch on.
"It is as if each individual has to consciously come to the conclusion that Muslim immigration is a bad thing for the West, but the bar for coming to this conclusion is so high as to be nearly insurmountable for a significant portion of the population."
-- from a posting above
Knowledge of recent and not-so-recent history, and of the occasions on which tolerant, liberal states (the other kind have always moved populations around) have chosen to seal their borders to immigrants, or to expel populations of those deemed to be permanent security risks, posing an unacceptable danger, would help.
Many times here the Benes Decree, and the tolerant and advanced state of Czechoslovakia and tolerant and advanced European statesmen, Benes and Jan Masaryk, who were behind it, and the lack of any protest then or since by any Czechs or indeed anyone of moral or historical sense, has been invoked here.
A little more knowledge of such things would go a long way. Literature, that helps in the right use of language and in the exercise of the muscle of imagination, has ceased to be studied -- in the right way. History, that helps to grasp large movements, long continuities, and what happens to people, and to peoples, when they fail to apprehend a threat in time, has ceased to be studied -- in the right way.
It's a whole lot of chickens coming home to a whole lot of roosts.
@venividivici "The only thing Islam has ever "contributed" to the world is Islam, which is only a "contribution" if you're a Muslim male. Every contribution to world history claimed by Muslims is either marginal (calligraphy) or the claim is false (algebra)."
If you want a laugh, pick up a copy of the current issue of Discover magazine. The cover story is entitled "Science and Islam."
In the article a fellow from Cairo named Zahioul El-Naggar explains in the typical supremacist manner that "What people call the scientific method ... is really the Islamic method." There is more in the article about how all the technology the West has developed is based on an Islamic foundation, and therefore all credit, of course, is really due to them.
This is like a wolf pissing on a tree to mark his territory and then bragging to all the other wolves about what a beautiful tree he created.
There is in the Discover article a somewhat informative discussion about how Islamic "scientists" limit themselves by what is found in the Koran, but the article fails to mention the hidden, understood purpose of those Islamic scientists--not to benefit humanity generally, but rather to scientifically support jihad--the spreading Islam over the globe.
This immutable Koranic agenda leads to another metaphor, one used here before. One can say that Islam is like the "Borg civilization" from Star Trek. Creating nothing on its own, Islam has only one purpose--serving its own collective self. It subjugates the populations of advanced, thriving civilizations, expunging their individual identities and demolishing their cultures, and then it applies any pilfered sience and technology to one and only one purpose--the further spread of Islam.
This is the meaning of jihad--total war against the "other." This is the perpetual promise of Islam. Positively demonic.
venividivici,
"the West still runs a "deficit" in the tally of the costs vs. benefits of Muslim immigration"
As Prof. George Borjas points out in his book Heaven's Door, the economic benefits of recent immigration are at best very slight and the costs probably exceed the benefits. With Muslim immigration, of course, it is a lot worse and there can be no question of the immense costs dwarfing whatever economic benefits result.
"Every contribution to world history claimed by Muslims is either marginal (calligraphy) or the claim is false (algebra)."
Quite true. The alleged Muslim achievements were a result of the parasitic exploitation of the intellectual and economic resources left over from the preceding vanquished civilizations. When these were exhausted intellectual achievement went into a rapid decline. For a historical perspective and quantitative analysis see:
http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-11-parasitic-civilization.html
Old liberal saying: "It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man."
new liberal saying: "It is better to let in 1 muslim terrorist than to bar the entry of 99 peaceful muslims."
I don't see the numbers game that Dalrymple plays as a particularly effective argument when trying to persuade liberals that permitting muslim immigration is insanity. I think the most effective argument -- and the one that must be made ad infinitum until the general population accepts it as a truism -- is that islam is a religion+ideology that is fundamentally incompatible not just with every other religion, but with the must fundamental tenets of Western Civilization itself.
I only see one possibly viable solution to this conundrum of hostile enemy Muslims being allowed to migrate into our lands. Their ill will is well disguised behind deceits, since they do not value the truth, so their words are meaningless, unlike their actions that speak volumes of truth, that they are against us and our ways of life, and are willing to do harm to change that way of life from freedom to sharia. Our constitutional rights stand in the way of their jihad conquest for world control for their primitive god allah, so they will do all in their power to either quietly deceive us or physically threaten us into subjugation to their will. Our freedoms are very much at risk.
The only solution I can see to combat this insidious war against our freedoms is to separately classify Muslim immigration from all other immigrations. Theirs is tantamount to restricting Nazi immigration before the last world war, or Marxist immigration during the cold war, where applicants were asked certain questions upon entry, and the wrong answers sent them back. If Muslims are found to be sympathetic to hate speech from imams, or supportive of jihad, or believe there can be no separation of 'mosque and state' in their religion, or that sharia is superior to our constitutional man made laws, or that women are not fully equal with men, or that gays have no right of existence and equal protection under the law, or that allegiance to their chosen country cannot abrogate their allegiance to their religion and ummah, or that suicide bombings are sometimes justified, or the elected government not suitably inclined to support Islamic ideals is somehow illegitimate in their view, or that female circumcision is acceptable, same with amputation or stonings for certain crimes, or they support death for religious apostasy, etc., then they should not be allowed into the country. Also, like in some countries now, unless they can prove they have viable professional skills which will add value to our economy and culture, they should not be allowed entry. The big test should be whether or not they can support our right of self defense and bear arms to fight for their new country, or do they choose support for their Islamic ummah. The burden of proof on these potentially, and obviously actively, hostiles who wish to enter our countries must fall on them, not on some assumed innocence until proven guilty. Same as with Nazi and Marxist sympathizers in the last century, this new century post 911 must re-classify Muslims under a separate heading, that they are ALL potentially hostiles when entering our lands. Before a Muslim can enter, he or she must prove their loyalty to our constitutional way of life rather than to a 14 century old Arab imperative of Allah's demand for World Conquest, as their prophet told them. Any illegally entered Muslims, or who lied on their entry application, must be summarily detained and expelled without trial.
It is regrettable from our cultural perspective that we must treat them as a separate class in their requests for immigration to our countries, but they have done this to themselves with their support of mosques, madrassas, and imams who support violent actions, who teach hate, and most damning of all, by their silence over issues where Islam threatens our ways of life. Muslims have not proven themselves to be friends, nor supportive of our freedoms, but to the contrary have shown their hand that they prefer sharia law to constitutional laws. This alone is sufficient to treat them as hostiles in our lands. Their other actions of suicide bombings, violent demonstrations, no-go areas reserved for Muslims where police and firefighters fear entry, demands for sharia based laws, all these merely add to their guilt before proven innocent. Islam has shown its hand, and now we must act in accordance with the natural law of self-preservation, and restrict them from doing further harm to our way of life. This is fact, and the truth if not immediately understood will be in time, and there is no way around this, because it is truth. If our elected officials fail to understand the threat Islam poses to our free way of life, not that personal faith in allah but their politicized faith in sharia and jihad, then our freedoms must be preserved with new elections. Our laws were not written to shelter a religious cult that would do us harm. Islam has not proven itself a 'religion of peace' by any definition, and thus it must be restrained from operating freely in our lands.
LONDON: VIGIL TOMORROW FOR KIDNAPPED ISRAELI SOLDIERS -- PLEASE JOIN US!
Zombies ,everyone of them is a zombie and will act like out at the drop of a Quran.
The only solution to this mess- and we know it will take a massive conflagration to make people aware of the problem, if that- is to continue to emphasize that Muslim in-migration to non-Muslim societies is not so much the importation of workers or co-citizens but importation of a hostile political system with a small, vestigial religious component. Good luck on this
What the Hell is going on at C-SPAN!?
Sorry this is so off the topic, but today at 2:00 PM eastern,C-SPAN was scheduled to have Brigitte Garbrielle discuss her book "Why They Hate." I know this because I the schedule presented on the C-SPAN channel around noon. Norman Mailer and Gunther Grasse were on at noon (just as scheduled). I didn't care to listen to those jerks, so I turned off the TV. When I turned it on again at 2:00 they were showing a baseball game! Could this just be some kind of technical glitch, or did some dhimmi jerk pull the show at the last minute? Is there any way to find out what happened?
If you want a laugh, pick up a copy of the current issue of Discover magazine. The cover story is entitled "Science and Islam."
... about how all the technology the West has developed is based on an Islamic foundation, and therefore all credit, of course, is really due to them.
Posted by: Stendec
This is another example of the moslems copying
from the Black Power types. Remember the "Afro-centrism" of 10 or 15 years ago, about how the ancient Greeks copied or stole from the Egyptians all that they knew of philosophy, science, and mathematics, and then claimed to have invented it all themselves. And of course the ancient Egyptians were Africans, which meant they were black.
How long before the Black Power types claim that the moslems stole all their "science" from the black Eygptians too.
From above:
"The big test should be whether or not they can support our right of self defense and bear arms to fight for their new country, or do they choose support for their Islamic ummah."
Great idea. It is the ultimate test of alligiance to country.
How about 2 years compulsory service for every immigrant under 45 years of age at the 3rd year aniversary of their grant of citizenship status. And all into the Army and all into infantry. No sensitive positions or officer commissions. Just your basic grunt assignments. Male AND Female.
The critical mass of Islamic arrogance will occur sooner than the majority vote for Sharia.
The shit will hit the fan and the people in the street will as they have always done defend the country.
This will happen eveywhere. So don't lay on this we are Europeans and all doomed crap because it is just that, crap. I'm not saying that it will be a picnic in the park. WW2 wasn't a picnic in the park.
But if Elric66 chirps in with his/her/it's British doom scenario again I swear I'll report him to the CIA for being a terrorist. Shit, smells like a jihadi, talks like a jihadi, must be a jihadi.
Far too many Americans are sat in their ivory towers passing judgement on the Brits. I'm not just talking about this single thread, i'm talking about a trend.
One in a thousand? Well, according to this article at USA Today, "only 5% of American Muslims" say they have a favorable view of Al Queda. Gee, since the U.S. has perhaps three million Muslims, 5% of that means we "only" have 150,000 Muslims with a favorable view of Al Queda. Oh, and the USA Today article goes on to mention so to speak under its breath that another 27% of American Muslims chose not to express an opinion on Al Queda either way. Lovely. Dalyrymple's brain must be awefully rumpled when it comes to numbers> And USA Today, which puts the word "only" in front of the report that 5% of Muslims look favorably on Al Queda, must "only" be a stupid newspaper more than 5% of the time, don't you think?
Worth noting, too, that American Muslims are generally considered among the most moderate Muslims in the world. If 5% sympathy for Al Queda is a moderate population, then what's the nasty norm outside the U.S.?
Americans are fools if they don't find some way to stop Muslim immigration to the U.S. It should be done indirectly, to get around the First Amendment. In other words, exclude them not on the basis of their religion. Exclude those who hail from terrorist nations. If those nations happen to be Muslim, tough noogies. We could still let in religious refugees from those countries even under such a prohibition. But a direct prohibition of Muslim immigration would prove more difficult, if not necessarily impossible. More likely a direct prohibition would only become poltically feasible in the event of a major WMD attack on the U.S.
"This is like the wolf pissing on the tree to mark his territory,than bragging to all the other wolves about what a beautiful tree he created."
-Stendec,
Thank you, that certainly captures the tone and "spirit" of such arguments. So all discoveries via the scientific/opps I mean the "islamic method" before the 7th century AD, are to be credited to Arab/Muslims,huh? No Hindu,Chinese,Egyptian,Assyrian,Greek advances. Hell, even the Minoanians and Mycenaeaians would be laughing their collective heads off. This concept of zero nonsense should have been squashed a long time ago (Hindu breakthrough) This needs to be the way to present rebuttals-by shaming they like spoiled brat children who have forsaken their studdies for proproganda and dreams of islamic inspired supremism. Just have a "big stick" handy for the inevitable islamic version of a rebuttal.
The main problem is that there is not a Muslim Martin Luther King figure in their world, willing to challenge the Muslim masses to change from oppression and hatred into acceptance and true equality for non-Muslims. (from Maryrose)
How will this Superman change the supremist character of the Koran that clearly divides the world in Muslim and non-Muslim with the latter to be subjucated or killed? MLK often quoted from the bible and the example of Jesus and had a theological foundation for his vision of love and the Communion of Man.
The Jiahdists, in my eyes, are proposing the proper theological basis of Islam, that is, world domination and division between Muslim and non-Muslim. The only answer, in my eyes, are for Muslims to abandon their so called religion or to move to areas that are all Muslim. Islam is incompatible with the foundations of western society. Any reformation for Islam can only resemble what took place in Iran, a return to the barbaric, archaic principles of 7th Century Mohammedism. Islamic transformation, if it comes, will be in the form of abandoning Islam.
That moral superiority "benefit", although completely specious from any objective standpoint, seems to drive the opposition to the cessation of Muslim immigration and I don't think anyone has a solid plan for eliminating the perspective that gives rise to this self-delusion.
That was really well put.
At the risk of sounding like a negative guy, I don’t think we need a plan. The self-delusion that has caused the Islam problem has also put us in a economic bind that a civil democracy will not be able to work its way out of. Our social safety net will fail in the not-too-distant future and the luxury of feel-good politics will go away.
Some datapoints:
* Estimates of unfunded social liabilities range from $50 trillion to $70 trillion.
* The total home equity of all Americans is ~$10 trillion.
* The total value of all of the world’s stock markets is ~$50 trillion.
* The United States Government has made promises that has hung nearly a million dollars around the average family of four’s neck.
* The number goes up by $3 trillion per year and is accelerating.
* The debate for 2008 is turning out to be ‘free’ health care for all.
When things go pop, one of the casualties will be the dreams of instituting Sharia in the United States. History has shown that hungry Infidels can be pretty intolerant.
Completely off topic - but I don't think anyone will mind in the least.
Heh
Heh heh
Heheheheheh ....
...only another 29 years and six months to survive.
Hehehehehehehe
"" On June 15 this year, Barot's seven accomplices were given jail sentences for their part in assisting Barot. They comprised his "cell" and would have carried out his bomb attacks. Two of these had accompanied Barot to America in April 2001, to reconnoiter US targets, including the World Trade Center towers.
News from Focus news agency reveals that Barot's lawyer, Mudassar Arani has told Channel 4 News that Barot has been attacked with hot oil and water and is "scarred for life". Barot was scalded on his head and back, and has lost all the "hair on his head and he's got scarring all over his face up to his neck."
Miss Arani said: "He should have, and other Muslim prisoners should be, given differential treatment because they are subjected to differential treatment within the prison system." ""
Read it all:
http://www.westernresistance.com/
Don't see what she's complaining about. He got his differential treatment. No doubt he'll get more before he's finished his thirty years.
And as for those three that tortured and murdered young Kriss Donald ... well, the guards only have to make one mistake, and they'll look like beauty queens next to Barot.
And everyone makes mistakes.
@maryrose: "The main problem is that there is not a Muslim Martin Luther King figure in their world, willing to challenge the Muslim masses to change from oppression and hatred into acceptance and true equality for non-Muslims."
Such a person would be killed immediately after he was found out. There probably have been a few of these guys over the centuries, and they paid for their "blasphemy," I am sure.
I saw Walid Shoebat, himself a Christian convert being interviewed the other day on TV. He basically thought it was more practical to get the Muslims to convert to Chrisitanity rather than to secularism (or atheism), since Muslims are deeply religious. The first way would be a mental adjustment, whereas the second would be emotionally shattering. Maybe a twist on that idea would work better.
I have floated this idea before, but I think the West, in a low key global counter-dawa campaign, should pitch to the subjugated Muslim world that the New Testament--that is, the teachings of the "Muslim prophet" Jesus--is really their "Koran"; that centuries ago Mohammed the Arab Deceiver hijacked their religion to feed his personal lust for power, sex, and piracy; that the Muslims need to dump the Sira, the ahadith, and the Mohammedan Koran, which were all created by/for this evil, selfish man; that Mohammed fooled them all into fighting and dying for an Arab-dominated worldly empire and for a ludicrously phony carnal afterlife, instead of living justly and humbly with good will toward fellow men; that the Muslims need to return to the teachings of Jesus of the New Testament--the "true Islam."
So, in this approach, we don't "convert them to Christianity." We permit them to "piously return to their fundamental Islamic roots." We don't shame Islam or Muslims. We shame the pirate Mohammed, who victimized billions of well-meaning people into following him instead of following the legitimate prophet.
That little story, I think, is way closer to the truth of things than what the imams spew every day across the globe in the Islamic mosques and madrassas. Muslims want to "do good by the Koran." The particular Koran they are using insures they will never do good, but only evil. Mohammed, in his deception, made sure that one of the "rules of behavior" for Muslims was never to question a single word or syllable of his Koran. That is the first sign that it is false.
From the UK:
Muslim plotter attacked in jail
Ummah News Links
new liberal saying: "It is better to let in 1 muslim terrorist than to bar the entry of 99 peaceful muslims."
On one hand, some critics of our efforts in Iraq claim that islam and democracy are incompatible. (And to be fair, both left and right have made this assertion.) On the other hand, Western democracies let in all these muslim immigrants, as if islam presents no problem for democracy.
On the other hand, if the West were to bar muslim immigration, the left would be apoplectic.
So this is what we're dealing with. It was wrong (some say) for the U.S. and U.K. to bring democracy to the muslim country of Iraq, but it's OK for muslims to bring islam into Western democracies.
Yes, I'm confused.
The US has, to a lesser degree, a similar problem to that of Eurabia, where behind-the-scenes actors, unelected and acting out of their own self interests, have undue influence in facilitating muslim immigration. For starters, we need to expose and neutralize the nefarious efforts of paid arab agents, the bakers, the scowcrofts, and those within the State Dept who bring hordes of young saudis to our shores. There should be absolutely no muslims vetting applicants for immigration from muslim nations. And please, now that there is a big movement underway to allow tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees into the US, tell your congressmen that the Iraqi Christians, who have no place else to go, should absolutely get first priority. If Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the other arab countries refuse to allow safe haven for their fellow muslims, tough. We know for a fact that Christians are not safe to practice their religion in any of these places.
Miss Arani said: "He should have, and other Muslim prisoners should be, given differential treatment because they are subjected to differential treatment within the prison system."
This moslem lawyer tipped her true mindset via the Freudian slip. I am sure that she had "deferential" treatment on her mind as how these inamtes - and all moslems - should be handled in her poibnt of view.
If one in 1,000 tires were defective, one in every 250 cars would crash every day.
That would be tens of thousands, daily.
Not a reassuring statistic, this 1 in 1,000.
Especially since Islam is 1.2 billion people one day, and 1.3 billion the next (depending on the aim of the speaker).
A mere 19 Islamofascist maniacs killed 3,000 in a few hours and caused hundreds of billions of dollars in direct losses and the new costs added to protect ourselves.
Millions of jihadis, by this percentage, could bankrupt us by their slow jihad (harassment lawsuits, nuisance sabotage, more security costs, encouraging military trouble by their foreign brothers around the world to over-extend our armed forces, et al) without any further direct attacks like 9/11.
Assalamau Laikum all,
1 in 1000, 1 in 800 etc...these are statistcics that can be massaged to changed the message.
The important thing here is how the future is shaped ...the reality.
The reality is that corruption has to be minimised, and peace between the nations maintained.
The horror is that the West is becoming increasing more corrupt, and increasingly are becoming bereft of faith, young kids have nothing to live for...no discipline.
Over time to arrest this situation from becoming critical, Allah T'allah SWT should become part of our lives.
Many JW citizens here say that Islam does not belong to the modern world....well is this statement is true...then the modern world has to change.
You will see for youselves...read the shahada and you WILL start to think differently...a new set of values to live by, a wonderful transformation.
Consider the bottomline....if we are all wuslims ...these statistics become meaningless...and that would be a wonderful thing...as there would only be one (same) message.
Salam
From the article:
We all know this, but no politician from the LibLabCon trick would dare say it.
Sir Henry Morgan:
And as for those three that tortured and murdered young Kriss Donald ... well, the guards only have to make one mistake, and they'll look like beauty queens next to Barot.
I think you meant to say "Barot will look like a beauty queen next to them".
Anyone not familiar with the brutal murder of Kriss Donald can read about it below. The story did not appear on Jihad Watch (at least, I don't remember seeing it) because there was no evidence of jihadist intent. i.e. as far as we know, the murderers didn't do it for Allah.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1942990,00.html
"THE racist killer of Kriss Donald is begging prison hardmen to protect him from other cons":
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=baldy-s-minders-&method=full&objectid=18532539&siteid=66633-name_page.html
' young kids have nothing to live for..."
Posted by: Naseem
......thIS is really true in Muslim Countries where children are attacked by Armed gunmen, mutilated by bogus doctors, trained to be suicide bombers by crazed , bearded, finger pointing Islamic clerics, traded to sexual perverts for goats, married off to old men and killed in the name Of Islamic honor....
.....I agree with you today....
Islam is for losers...
“Ice Cream Makers Frozen out” (ice cream is off-topic)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/united_states/article2080599.ece
This may be a bigger story than people are giving it credit for. The taxpayer pays farmers to not plant their fields because, historically, if all land was in production, supply and demand would push prices to a point where farmers didn’t make money. We have always had an excess of land.
Ethanol has made corn (farmland) a valuable commodity. If a limited introduction of ethanol has made corn prices double, what happens when the world adds the next billion people? I argue that the ethanol price spike marks the beginning of the two new hot commodities: fresh water and farmland.
Advantage: Infidel.
The horror is that the West is becoming increasing more corrupt, and increasingly are becoming bereft of faith, young kids have nothing to live for...no discipline. (naseeem)
Agreed. the thirst for spiritualiy is about to be quenched by a waterfall of enlightenmnet for western youth. Combined with their interest in miltary action this will not benefit Muslims but will launch a new Crusade against those who seek to impose fake religious restraints on their freedom. The pendulemm of history is circular and it is only a matter of time before western youth find within themselves the real ideals of their forefathers and the enemy of their forefathers, Islam.
Watling
Thank you yes, your correction is correct, and that is indeed what I meant to say.
What I find amusing in a disturbing way is that those Muslims that "understand" Muslim terrorism, or "sympathize" with Muslim terrorists or that flatly support Muslim terrorism are dubbed as "Moderates" by everyone that isn't familiar with Islam. Because they physically do not pick up guns or rpgs and suicide bomb belts, they are considered "Moderates".
Even those Muslims that do not support terrorism, do not "understand" or "sympathize" or flatly support terrorism, but who want to see Shariah law implemented are called "Moderates" when in fact they are still enemies to the constitution, to the wests way of life and our future generation.
If you're a believer, there is no way you can be "Moderate". There is no way a good Muslim can be a good person. Osama Bin-Laden is probably or Mugniyah (presently in Iran) are probably the best Muslims on the planet, and we all know what kind of human beings they are.
The main point Dalrymple was making (you can find the entire article at City Journal, amoung other places) is that his fear and suspicion of Muslims is not some musty predjudice--it is based on the growing threat of terror jihad over the last several decades. He wasn't scared of Muslims as a child, but he is now--and more so all the time.
This aspect has been noted here before in JW, but it is important to hear it from another source, as well. For the most part, Theodore Dalrymple has had very astute things to say about the growing radicalism of Muslims in Britain and his adopted country of France.
“Miss Arani said: "He [Barot] should have, and other Muslim prisoners should be, given differential treatment because they are subjected to differential treatment within the prison system." ""”
He fantasized about being a martyr, now he’s getting martyrdom of a sort he ought to be happy. Ms Arani, as a muslim, shouldn't be trying to deny him that satisfaction.