As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
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 it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning.
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels.
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Of course, that’s not the case. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
Edited for brevity, from What Islam Isn’t; see the original for lists of percentages and countries.
But ISIS is only a symptom of the larger disease, which is the spread of fundamentalist Wahhabist Islam from Saudi Arabia all over the world. This has become such a problem that even Germany — which has precipitated the current “migrant” crisis in central and western Europe — has publicly warned the Saudis against their fifth-column work. …
Until Saudi Arabia is forcefully and directly confronted over its international financing of extremism, events like Paris and San Bernardino will continue and multiply.
Also, “The United States is not a nation-state in the sense the European countries are; it is not a country of blood relations, but of fealty to a document of western, Enlightenment principles regarding the relationship of citizen and state.” Source: End the War on ISIS Now.
It is generally thought that Christians attacked Muslims without provocation to seize their lands and forcibly convert them. The Crusaders were Europe’s lacklands and ne’er-do-wells, who marched against the infidels out of blind zealotry and a desire for booty and land. As such, the Crusades betrayed Christianity itself. They transformed “turn the other cheek” into “kill them all; God will know his own.”
Every word of this is wrong.
via Inventing the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden.
Imagine a hypothetical YouTube where the videographer burns a Koran and urinates on the ashes. We in the modern West consider this kind of thing an act of free speech.
Would that act be offensive to Muslims? Absolutely. It be offensive to Jews if it were a Torah. It would be offensive to Christians if it were a Bible. It would be offensive to United States patriots if it were the Constitution.
Do Jews, Christians, or United States patriots use that kind of speech as a pretext to riot or murder? If so, would their violence be met with sympathy from the West? No, no, and no. Burning a Koran, and reactions thereto, should be no different.
But here’s the thing: you feel *safe* when you criticize Jews, Christians, and United States patriots, because you know they don’t consider it acceptable to do violence in response to offensive speech. You *don’t* feel safe when it comes to Muslims, because you know there is a non-trivial number of them who *do* consider it acceptable, even a requirement, to do violence in response to offensive speech.
The vast majority of Muslims reading this are civilized, and recognize that violence is not a civilized response to offensive speech. But there are some Muslims, and their sympathizers, who believe that offensive speech must be answered with violence, and who will use offensive speech as a pretext for riot and murder. The behavior is uncivilized, premodern, and barbaric, and should be recognized as such.
American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So it looks like Iraq had chemical weapons after all. Via The Secret U.S. Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons – NYTimes.com.
‘You and your children will be next’: Islamic fanatics wielding meat cleavers butcher and try to behead a British soldier, taking their war on the West to a new level of horror
One of the men arrested is believed to be Michael Adebolajo
Two men repeatedly stab and tried to behead off-duty soldier in SE London
They shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ attack and told witnesses to film them
Charged at police officers with rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers
Killing took place 200 yards from barracks and close to primary school
Both men placed under arrest after being treated for gunshot wounds
PM: Killing is ‘sickening’ and Britain will ‘never buckle’ in face of terror
World War 4 is still going on, folks. Via Woolwich attack: Two men ‘hack soldier wearing Help for Heroes T-shirt to death with machetes in suspected terror attack’ | Mail Online.
In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of “the Old Testament” is “hideous” and “a monster”, and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character “in fiction”. Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: “Well, um, the God of the Koran I don’t know so much about.”
How can it be that the world’s most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran?
As the title says, criticism makes you an assassination target. I wonder if he’d be as fearless regarding the Jewish and Christian God if the Jews and Christians had a credible recent history of killing their critics. Via Facing uncomfortable truths | The Jewish Chronicle.
[T]here is a general wariness and nervousness about the return of the old dream of armed intervention. Above all because we realise that humanitarian interventionism offers us no political way to judge who it is we are helping in Libya – and thus what the real consequences of our actions might be.
Even if one’s instincts are to help those fighting Gadaffi, it is no longer enough just to see it as a struggle of goodies against baddies. For it is precisely that simplification that has led to unreal fantasies about who we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fantasies that persist today, and which our leaders still cling to – because they give the illusion that we are in control.
via BBC – Blogs – Adam Curtis – GOODIES AND BADDIES.
They condemn, but their words alone will not prevent future occurrences. I say, execute the shooter in public. That’ll be a deterrent.
Malala’s shooting is only the most public example of the Taliban’s brutality and despicable attitudes toward women and girls. There are probably thousands of similarly ugly stories that don’t make international headlines. Nevertheless, it’s heartening to see widespread anti-Taliban sentiment in Pakistan, however long it lasts. The best hope for the country is that the domestic reaction against fanatical barbarism will discredit radical ideology and shame political and military leaders into acting to defend the pillars of decency and toleration.
via Just About Everyone in Pakistan Condemns Shooting of 14-Year-Old Girl | Via Meadia.
Then they’ll pay attention. Right?
Free speech is a gift given to us in 1948 by U.N. officials? Who knew?
The only appropriate response of free-born peoples to such a statement is: **** off, ******. Free speech is not in the gift of minor Swedish timeserving hack bureaucrats, either to grant or withdraw.
Where is the “respect”, by the way, in “Behead the enemies of Islam”? Under the not so subtle evolution of “free speech” advanced by the likes of Obama and Eliasson, you’ll be shackled by “respect” and “the need to avoid provocations” but kindergartners will still be able to parade around the local park demanding “Behead all those who insult the Prophet.”
In the end, the one-way multiculturalism of craven squishes like Eliasson will destroy our world. Nuts to him and to the U.N.
via Behead All Those Who Insult Free Speech – By Mark Steyn – The Corner – National Review Online.