Disturbing information

Subject: Islam Explained in Layman's Terms



Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..


Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1..8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

>From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:


Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:


Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

>From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including nonconforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat


Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the hen house.. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama Appoints two devout Muslims to homeland security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make our homeland much safer, huh?

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Very enlightning article. well done.
trip8026

Seems to me to be a bunch of silliness.

I have spent a lot of time in Indonesia (86% Muslim), Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE.

Even though I am an obviously recognizable American WASP, I was a hell of a lot safer on the streets there than in Houston.

The average citizen in these Islamic countries treated me much more kindly than a typical fellow American does in this city.


The article does do a good job of promoting fear, and thus religious bigotry. This is the real agenda of the Muslim terrorist minority.
Get us so scared we destroy ourselves from within.

High-tech tools are no terrorism cure-all
Wednesday, January 6 2010 at 06:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan

Facial recognition software. Trace portal machines. The Total Information Awareness database. And now, body scanners. All these new technologies have enjoyed their day in the sun, immediately following terrorist attacks, as a potential magic bullet to keep us safe while traveling.

But repeatedly, gadget defenses have shown themselves to be costly, flawed and difficult to implement. Meanwhile, they take precious resources away from tried and true counterterrorism measures, like hiring more highly trained airline screeners or additional State Department officials.

"Our reaction has been predictably irrational," complains Bruce Schneier, author of numerous books on security, including "Beyond Fear." "We're going to spend a lot of money and it won't make us safer."

Body scanners became an immediate focus of attention the days after the failed Christmas Day plot to bring down a Northwest jetliner. There are plans to more than triple the number of scanners in U.S. airports this year. At $150,000 each, plus operations and maintenance costs, the machines represent a significant investment. David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, says U.S. officials should think long and hard before spending that kind of money on terrorism-fighting technology.

"There's never a discussion of trade-offs,” Schanzer said. “...Everyone acts as if we can do everything. We can't. Public officials are often attracted to things that are visible, that they can point to and say, 'We're taking action to make you safer,' when instead they should be looking at the types of things that might give you more bang for your buck.”

For example, he continued, “Extra staff in State Department consular offices reviewing visa applications, people going to more interagency meetings, placing more personnel in our embassies to work with the British government so when they deny a visa we know. ... These are unglamorous and can get lost in the budget. But they work."

Fighting terrorism and securing air travel involves tricky, nuanced discussions about resource allocation and risk. But reasonable choices about risk are challenging in the emotionally charged atmosphere of terrorism, he said.

“We need to asses risk and look at limited resources and figure out where to most effectively deploy them,” he said.

'Magical thinking'
Schanzer said that, because fighting terrorism is as much about perception as reality, there is some value in taking steps simply to reassure the public.

“Measures make people feel more secure, maybe that is a part of Homeland Security,” he said.

But Schneier said U.S. officials have fallen into the bad habit of encouraging “magical thinking,” suggesting that security technologies can make the world substantially safer.

“I wish Barack Obama would get up on stage and treat us all like adults and say, ‘We're doing our best but sometimes these things are going to get through, but we’re not going to change our way of life,’” he said. “But politically he can’t do that. So instead he's going to respond to movie plot threats and we'll waste money. … It's very human that we fear stories, and the way to make people feel better is to secure against the story.”

While body scanners are the technology du jour, it is unclear whether they would have stopped Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged plot. A scanner may or may not have shown a suspicious lump in his underwear, revealing the bomb-making material he allegedly secreted there. But even if it did, an airport screener may not have noticed it or deemed it a threat.

Other existing technologies, such as the trace portal or "puffer" machine, may have also detected the presence of explosives on Abdulmutallab's skin or clothes. Chemical swabbing -- more commonly used today -- might also have detected elements. But they can also be circumvented.

Regardless, the cat-and-mouse game of implementing technology and screening tactics to defeat already-used terrorist attack techniques is largely ineffective. After nearly 10 years of removing shoes while entering security lines, it is still highly doubtful another attacker will attempt a shoe bomb. Explosives hid in body cavities will not be detected by new body scanners.

"All these strategies require that we guess the plot. Security that requires us to guess the plot correctly doesn't work," Schneier said. "If we spend money on technology that protects against liquid explosives and they use solids then we've wasted our money. If we spend money to protect the Olympics and they attack the Super Bowl we wasted our money. “

The sudden focus on body scanner technology is also misplaced, Schanzer said, because the attack technique used on Christmas Day wasn't new.

"Nothing changed the other day,” he said. “We knew about the threat (of a passenger carrying an explosive combination of chemicals onto a plane). Everyone was aware this was a possibility and the potential path of attack and yet we were not devoting extraordinary new resources into full body scanners. What's changed is the perception of the threat."

List is ignored
While even expensive new technology may have been ineffective against the failed attack or similar future attacks, existing tools might produce better results, Schanzer said. Abdulmutallab had left plenty of red flags in his wake, including his father’s warning to U.S. officials. But that warning, and other intelligence, wasn't enough to place Abdulmutallab on the "no-fly" list that would have prevented him from boarding the plane to Detroit. On Tuesday, President Obama placed the blame on a "failure to connect the dots." In the future, similar suspects will not be allowed to board flights headed for the U.S., he promised.

But Abdulmutallab was on a list – a government database called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE. While there may not have been enough information to permanently ban him from entering the U.S., clearly there was enough to flag him for additional, intense screening. It's unclear why all travelers in TIDE aren't always subjected to increased scrutiny, but lack of resources is a likely explanation. Atlantic magazine reported this week that the National Counterterrorism Center, which maintains the database, was slated for budget cuts in 2010 – and workers who maintain TIDE were slated for layoffs.

It's hard to understand the lack of added screening, given how easily the list might be narrowed on a daily basis, Schanzer said.

“How many on that list have a visa? How many have international airline tickets? How many are paying in cash? There's lots of information out there," he said. "I don't think data mining is a dirty word to narrow down the people who present the greatest risk and should get far greater scrutiny. ... Doing so is far more effective them applying expensive technology to everyone."

In fact, Schneier argues, some steps taken since the Christmas attack have made U.S. travelers less safe. Profiling large groups of people -- such as travelers from the 14 nations that are now subject to additional scrutiny -- creates a dangerous two-tiered security system.

"Once you profile, you invite the bad guys to get around the profile," he said. "When you create a hard way and an easy way through security, you invite the bad buys to figure out how to take the easy way."

In the end, while the Christmas Day plot failed, terrorists may ultimately gain if substantial money is wasted on new technologies and Americans are subjected to longer airport lines and more hassles.

"Even after he failed, he succeeded,” Schneier said. “But if we didn't react with all this fear and panic, he would have failed even if he succeeded. Terrorism requires us to be accomplices. And we're really good at terrifying ourselves."

All rligions have their radicals that give the rest a bad name and that is what people cling to and the media exploits. It doent matter if it is Islam, Christianity, atheist, take your pick., all have bad apples that tend to spoil the image of the resst. The big difference is that there is only one that has people that will kill you because you are not of their faith. In addition, they dont car how many of their own they kill to do what they feel is right and just.

The saving grace is that there are those that are becoming willing to rise up against the mullahs and express that they do not believe that jihad is right or just and that living in the dark ages isnt right. They do this at risk of their own lives. Take a look at Iran and what you see there and think how much more you do not see.

As for me, I will walk most any street in houston before i would walk a street in I ran and many other bastions of this idiocy.

2Dogs
Well said.
Trip8026

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (usetacould @ Jan 5 2010, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Subject: Islam Explained in Layman&#39;s Terms

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in:

Egypt -- Muslim 90%[/b]

---

by The Associated Press
January 6, 2010

Three men in a car sprayed automatic gunfire into a crowd of churchgoers in southern Egyptian as they left a midnight Mass for Coptic Christmas, killing at least seven people in a drive-by shooting, the church bishop and security officials said.

I too have been in muslim countries, believe me dude you WERE NOT SAFER there than in Houston. I work with a bunch of programmers who are "americanized" they will tell you straight up, they know fellas who&#39;s goal it is to kill a WASP, there is coin in it for them. Muslims and the free market? I digress, seriously..you were not safer. As soon as we understand the enemy the sooner we can defete it. Now we just need some underage boys and girls to blow them selves up in a shopping mall...oh well maybe we cant beat them but we can sure make a dent in them...or dents if you will..I like semi auto.