By my definition, there are more moderates than radicals. I am a firm believer that a true bell curve applies to all large samples of any metric applied to deviation from a standard. One also applies to everything that can be measured from a minimum of zero to a maximum of any value.
Hence there must be at least one Muslim that pays no attention whatsoever to any of the tenets of Islam and one super radical Muslim the is zealous about each and every tenet of Islam.
In between these extremes lies the bell curve. The world population of Muslims is currently somewhere near 2.3 billion. The percentage of radicals within each country will vary according to the relative population of all Muslims within each country.
The estimated percentage of radicalized Muslim in the world population is 10% to 15%. That is still a huge number, especially when it takes only one of them to wreak havoc on civilization.
Thatâs fine. I personally donât think you can apply any normal metrics to assessing this culture.
I also go further in that believing we can assess between moderate and extreme will likely bite us all on the arse.
Thereâs likely no way to measure the degree of radicalization of individual Muslims. This does not preclude the existence of the bell curve that exists for such measurements.
I agree. See above statement. It has already bit us (the US) in the ass via the recent killing of 3 naval cadets by a Saudi pilot in training at one of our naval bases. We trusted his sorry ass to come here and learn to fly the airplanes that we are selling to the Saudis. This makes me wonder why we sell them any of our aircraft. Let them build their own.
Our military aircraft manufacturers would object to this though as they make millions from sales to foreign countries.
The least we could do is install an executable bug in each aircraft that can be activated from a satellite to make the aircraft inoperable should they go to war with us or use any aircraft to attack us at all.
6% doesntâ sound like much but when as they tend to do that 6% is heavily concentrated in rapidly growing numbers in a few communities that adds up to a hell of a lot of political power.
Keep in mind that at the start of our own American Revolution only about 5-7% actually supported going to war with England. By the time the first battles took place it was only up to about 10-13%.
The biggest problem is that with most immigrants it takes about 3 generations to fully assimilate but that only happens when they are dispersed rather than living in essentially closed communities completely refusing to assimilate as Muslims usually do.
Europe is in for another major war in our lifetimes but it wonât be between countries it will be between Muslims and everyone else.
Ok in a literal sense yes but I think any statistical type data which tries to accurately reflect the situation will never be reliable.
Yes itâs a huge issue and all done under the banner of diversity. They have infiltrated many what most would could consider vital areas. The ironic part is that people like Khan here (London mayor) are known to have history with extremists and yet because he says heâs a good egg, itâs a case of âmove along nothing to see hereâ. None of them can be trusted. They will sell us any line of bullshit if it means furthering there goal of making the West an state of islam.
All I know is many citizens of many countries now suffer at the hands of immigrants & illegals. Only a fool would deny this fact. Liberals would define it as acceptable risks. The victims & their families think otherwise.
We train pilots from a lot of foreign nations here, not only from that nationâs Air Force, but also from NATO. We train commercial pilots from foreign nations if they buy our airliners. I donât know if there were restrictions on use of flight simulators before the 9-11 pilots trained here. I read in one article that they were only interested in learning take off and flying procedures, not really interested in learning how the land the planes. If true, this should have raised red flags.
It is impossible to determine which Muslims are radical and which are not unless they claim to be radical. The Imams and other leaders leave no doubt. The refugees and asylum seekers will not admit it, but you should assume that a mob of young to middle aged males traveling without children of females is likely infested with radicals. They surely donât come to GB looking for jobs.
GB needs to expedite the no-deal Brexit and tell the Muslim immigrants to denounce Islam and get a job or get the fuck off the island.
The commander in chief CANNOT turn the prosecution of the war over to the military and then stand back detached as youâd like. That would set a dangerous precedent, and is the reason why the framers kept military activity fully in the presidents control.
But people are always looking for an end around the constitution when it interferes with what they want.
It may have come down to who was doing the checks and balances. Their network is far and wide and I really believe we have no real idea of how detrimental that will likely be.
When I say we of course I mean the âLuvviesâ.
I feel we are beyond the talking stage. I think the model produced by Dr. Peter Hammond linking population numbers to behaviour should be what we work with. At the time he produced that work the UK was at 2.7% muslim. His prediction of what will happen at 5% has been very accurate.
âFrom 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population,â Dr. Hammond notes. âFor example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) foodâ and increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature such food on their shelves â along with threats for failure to comply."
âSoon they begin to apply pressure to allow Sharia law within their own communities (sometimes ghettos).â We are very much advanced in these predicted phases.
These numbers are likely to increase in the political arena too and I think show how the time for talking is probably too late.
What precedent; you mean we could win? I never said the president should not be in the loop & have power; but if the military can produce, why stifle them. The object of being involved in a conflict - war, Is to win. You must have heard that. Itâs a popular notion on the battlefield. --------------------------------------- I guess Monte believes we could over win.
