I am not talking about mass data collection. I am talking about specific, targeted collection with a warrant.
As long as the subject of the targeted data collection is an American, they are still protected by the Constitution. Bush and Obama have both acted in ways that have severely undermined our Constitutional protections.
No American must consent to searches. In fact, simply stating "I do not consent to searches" is part of exercising your rights.
I'm not up to speed with the issue: so what ARE the consequences of not cooperating with a lawfully issued and served warrant in terms of a search warrant?
ETA: A quick look shows the Fourth Amendment requires a neutral process for authorization of warrant for a search and seizure, but not whether cooperation with that search authorized under a warrant is mandatory in some way, all mention is directed at compelling the police in their procedure, not compelling the individual being served.. If you reject the court issued warrant are you subject to some sort of contempt of court proceeding?
I'm not up to speed with the issue: so what ARE the consequences of not cooperating with a lawfully issued and served warrant in terms of a search warrant?
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a legally issued search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption.
If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that. This fact has been widely reported.
In the case of the criminal miscreants in Paris, apparently they didn't even have their devices locked, so the notion that they were somehow using encryption to avoid detection is utter nonsense.
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption. If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that.
That's seemingly logical based on the relevant Bill of Rights Amendments, the Fourth, search and seizure, is about constraining government power (such as searches for evidence) while the Fifth is more about establishing the individual citizen's right against self-incrimination.and behavior though that does cycle back to restraint on government intimidation and behavior.
It seems to me overall rule of law is maintained when a dully issued warrant, subject to critical review with a presentation of an argument with sworn testimony is required to be cooperated with as with any other legally issued directive. Subject, as always to the rest of the Constitution's protection of citizen's rights such as the Fifth's protection from government forcing self-incrimination.
In the case of the criminal miscreants in Paris, apparently they didn't even have their devices locked, so the notion that they were somehow using encryption to avoid detection is utter nonsense.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
It defies logic for a person or persons to "unencrypt" information as they go marching to their deaths. Far more likely that it was unprotected from the beginning.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
It defies logic for a person or persons to "unencrypt" information as they go marching to their deaths. Far more likely that it was unprotected from the beginning.
Why would it defy logic? Internet chatter is almost always intercepted just before an attack, and it's always too late to do anything about it. Almost like a big F U.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers.
The point is that there is no distinction. There is only Islam.
I don't support a system where the government cannot access communications even with a warrant.
With a warrant, they would demand the password. Refusing to give the password under warrant would be resisting... whatever. Refusing to comply with the investigation. That’s a criminal charge.
There is zero legal right to have a backdoor. There is zero legal right for them to have access at any time for any reason.
Creating such a system facilitates crime and terrorism.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
For simply the team leaders they could have sat around a modest coffee table and talked to each other, it was what, four or five people, none of whom were under any sort of surveillance? OR, ultimately on the disposable pre-paid phone; "Hey let's have some tea at five O'Clock November 15th". "tea" being code for the murders you see, which No One could "decrypt".
You either support the Constitution and Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't.
I daresay I'm more conservative as a "classical liberal" than you are.
I absolutely support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are talking about the government gaining access to communications with a legally valid search warrant. Why is that an issue for you? I doubt you're more of a classical liberal than I am, though you might be a bit more idealistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
As long as the subject of the targeted data collection is an American, they are still protected by the Constitution. Bush and Obama have both acted in ways that have severely undermined our Constitutional protections.
You only believe that because you think they initiated mass data collection. I don't believe that for a second. The government, in my opinion, has been collecting massive amounts of data for decades. Ever seen "Enemy of the State?" I think the collection methods described in the fictional movie are actually understated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a legally issued search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption.
If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that. This fact has been widely reported.
If that's been reported, I haven't seen it. And I'd argue it's an insane policy, A search warrant gives authorities the right to search for information. If what you're saying is true, I would have to unlock my Macbook if it had a thumb print scanner, but not if it needed a password. That's hardly believable.
Quote:
In the case of the criminal miscreants in Paris, apparently they didn't even have their devices locked, so the notion that they were somehow using encryption to avoid detection is utter nonsense.
You mean it's nonsense in general? We already know they are using video game networks. I may not have been the case here, but it's far from "nonsense."
The point is that there is no distinction. There is only Islam.
I not only disagree with that, but I know it to be false. I personally know Muslims who are not radical. Many of them. It's a subset of Islam that's the issue, and those who even tacitly allow it to exist.
Quote:
With a warrant, they would demand the password. Refusing to give the password under warrant would be resisting... whatever. Refusing to comply with the investigation. That’s a criminal charge.
Right. Let me know when that happens. The FBI is going to demand to see Joe Blow's iMessages, and Apple is going to tell them to piss off. Don't hold your breath for arrest warrants. Why do you think they want the backdoor to begin with?
Quote:
There is zero legal right to have a backdoor. There is zero legal right for them to have access at any time for any reason.
Wrong. There are many situations where access is legal and appropriate. The government can tap your phones with a warrant and use the contents of your calls against you. The government can wire informants and use the information against suspects. And the government can get your cell records, GPS coordinates, e-mails and a host of other data. Why would they not be allowed to access your messages if they had a warrant?
Quote:
It also prevents crime.
Bullshit. Is this the part where you play folk music and talk about privacy rights while starting at your Ron Paul 2008 poster?
I not only disagree with that, but I know it to be false.
You know wrong, then.
I personally know Muslims who are not radical. Many of them.
Your anecdotes are meaningless, and they are lying to you. It’s called taqiyya.
Right. Let me know when that happens.
Literally right now. Courts have upheld that it is not legal for them to break encryption.
The FBI is going to demand to see Joe Blow's iMessages, and Apple is going to tell them to piss off. Don't hold your breath for arrest warrants.
That’s literally the only way they can access the data. I’m confused at your confusion.
There are many situations where access is legal and appropriate.
Such as when they have a warrant, have obtained a warrant, or when they go to a judge to get a warrant.
The government can tap your phones with a warrant and use the contents of your calls against you.
See? We agree.
Why would they not be allowed to access your messages if they had a warrant?
Never said otherwise.
Bullshit.
Since it’s illegal to wiretap without a warrant and the government was caught wiretapping hundreds of millions of people without a warrant, making it impossible to wiretap without a warrant would prevent this crime. By definition.
And that’s just on an institutionalized basis. Not even discussing individuals’ actions. A backdoor means that anyone can get to anyone’s communications.
Is this the part where you play folk music...
Does pre-mussulman Cat Stevens count as folk?
...talk about privacy rights...
Kind of scary that we’re even having a discussion about whether or not people have the right to privacy...
...Ron Paul...
Libertarianism is exclusively an economic ideology. Trying to make it a full political ideology results in copy/pasting of doctrine with a ‘replace all’ function run on specific words. In short, complete disaster. A partial ideology can be as destructive as a totalitarian complete ideology.
Your anecdotes are meaningless, and they are lying to you. It’s called taqiyya.
Literally right now. Courts have upheld that it is not legal for them to break encryption.
That’s literally the only way they can access the data. I’m confused at your confusion.
Such as when they have a warrant, have obtained a warrant, or when they go to a judge to get a warrant.
See? We agree.
Never said otherwise.
Since it’s illegal to wiretap without a warrant and the government was caught wiretapping hundreds of millions of people without a warrant, making it impossible to wiretap without a warrant would prevent this crime. By definition.
And that’s just on an institutionalized basis. Not even discussing individuals’ actions. A backdoor means that anyone can get to anyone’s communications.
Does pre-mussulman Cat Stevens count as folk?
Kind of scary that we’re even having a discussion about whether or not people have the right to privacy...
Libertarianism is exclusively an economic ideology. Trying to make it a full political ideology results in copy/pasting of doctrine with a ‘replace all’ function run on specific words. In short, complete disaster. A partial ideology can be as destructive as a totalitarian complete ideology.
We're obviously just not communicating on encryption. I think warrants are necessary. So do you. What is not true is "the government warrantlessly wiretapped hundreds of millions of people."
As for Islam, that's just completely nuts. So the parents of my students in wealthy suburban Philadelphia are lying? LOL. I know other Muslims who are some of the most patriotic and peaceful people I've encountered. Their are plenty of jihadists and jihadist sympathizers in the world. They are not among them. By the way, I looked up "taqiyya." It does not mean Muslims deny their true beliefs in order to commit and support terrorism. Try again.
What is not true is "the government warrantlessly wiretapped hundreds of millions of people."
Stellar Wind. ADVISE. Room 641A.
As for Islam, that's just completely nuts.
See below.
So the parents of my students in wealthy suburban Philadelphia are lying? LOL.
I fail to see how that’s a refutation for what I said. Wealthy people can’t lie? People from Philadelphia can’t lie? Students can’t lie? Parents can’t lie? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your rebuttal? Here’s the truth.
They are not among them.
I didn’t say anything about them being jihadists yet. There are three stages of Islam.
It does not mean Muslims deny their true beliefs in order to commit and support terrorism.
Of course not. It means that mussulmen deny their true beliefs in order to praise Allah and fulfill his demands. It’s not terrorism in their eyes, nor is it exclusively “terrorism” (under any definition, objective or subjective) being hidden.
Try again.
No. You.
Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”
Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.
Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?
Qur’an 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
Qur’an 16:101
According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.
What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?
When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.
STAGE ONE
When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.
STAGE TWO
When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:
Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah…
Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.
STAGE THREE
When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).
Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).
Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illallah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924
Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
Sahih Muslim 30
Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.
It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”
When Muslims Reach Stage Three
Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Qur’an 5:51
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Qur’an 9:30
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.
Qur’an 98:6
Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
Sahih Muslim 4366
Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”
Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103
Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.
Muslims in the West
Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.
According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war.When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.)
Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.
Why would it defy logic? Internet chatter is almost always intercepted just before an attack, and it's always too late to do anything about it. Almost like a big F U.
I'll not debate you on what is or isn't stupid if you can unironically make such a statement.
...If that's been reported, I haven't seen it. And I'd argue it's an insane policy, A search warrant gives authorities the right to search for information. If what you're saying is true, I would have to unlock my Macbook if it had a thumb print scanner, but not if it needed a password. That's hardly believable...
It's not an insane policy, it's an affirmation of the right to not self-incriminate. It's one of the few positives ruled recently in favor of the individual versus the predatory state. Incidentally, this ruling happened over a year ago. Not surprising it disappeared quickly as most "news" is complete crap unworthy of attention.
Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Steven Frucci ruled that a criminal defendant can be compelled to give up his fingerprint and unlock his cellphone in the course of a criminal investigation — because that's just like handing in a DNA sample or a physical key, which citizens can already be legally compelled to give to police.
On the other hand, police can't force a defendant to give up his passcode, because that's considered "knowledge" — not a physical object — and knowledge is protected by the Fifth Amendment. There have been cases, however, where defendants have been asked to give up their password to decrypt their computers, so there no consensus on this issue yet, as Wired's Andy Greenberg reported recently.
None of those programs "warrantlessly wiretapped hundreds of millions of people." They gathered data and intercepted/analyzed electronic information, especially e-mail and internet activity. The only "warrantless wiretapping" that occurred related to calls in an out of the country to/from suspicious areas and/or persons. Whether that was legal and appropriate is a matter of debate.
I fail to see how that’s a refutation for what I said. Wealthy people can’t lie? People from Philadelphia can’t lie? Students can’t lie? Parents can’t lie? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your rebuttal? Here’s the truth.
I have to prove they are not terrorists? I have to prove they are lying as you describe? Wow, that sounds quite reasonable.
Quote:
I didn’t say anything about them being jihadists yet. There are three stages of Islam.
Those three stages and your view of all Muslims as potential jihadists is an interpretation. Nothing more.
Quote:
Of course not. It means that mussulmen deny their true beliefs in order to praise Allah and fulfill his demands. It’s not terrorism in their eyes, nor is it exclusively “terrorism” (under any definition, objective or subjective) being hidden.
So that means all Muslims follow this interpretation?
Quote:
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Quote:
Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war.When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.)
Yes, that is one interpretation. It's an interpretation to which some Muslims (or even "many" Muslims) subscribe.
Quote:
Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance.
That's not what you claimed earlier. You claimed the people I know are lying. So they can be peaceful now?
Quote:
But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values.
Why they have the values they do is debatable. Some of it is very likely Western influence. Some of it is simply a more peaceful interpretation. There are interpretations of every faith, some which vary widely. Now, I would agree that Islam is a religion that seems to lend itself more easily to violent/radical interpretations than other major faiths (Christianity first among them).
Quote:
For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.
Dedicated Muslims who subscribe to that interpretation, yes.
Those three stages and your view of all Muslims as potential jihadists is an interpretation. Nothing more.
Sorry, no. It’s explicitly what the Quran says.
So that means all Muslims follow this interpretation?
Yep.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Definitionally fact, as written in the book and practiced by the followers.
That's not what you claimed earlier. You claimed the people I know are lying. So they can be peaceful now?
Why is it hard to comprehend that the statements are not mutually exclusive? Taqiyya.
Some of it is simply a more peaceful interpretation.
Once again, there’s one Islam with stages. They all believe it.
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, 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–0.6%
Australia–1.5%
Canada–1.9%
China–1.8%
Italy–1.5%
Norway–1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark–2%
Germany–3.7%
United Kingdom–2.7%
Spain–4%
Thailand–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–8%
Philippines–5%
Sweden–5%
Switzerland–4.3%
The Netherlands–5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago–5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah 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 Is1am 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–10%
India–13.4%
Israel–16%
Kenya–10%
Russia–15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia–32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia–40%
Chad–53.1%
Lebanon–59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shari’ah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, as in:
Albania–70%
Malaysia–60.4%
Qatar–77.5%
Sudan–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, as has been experienced–and in some ways is ongoing–in:
Bangladesh–83%
Egypt–90%
Gaza–98.7%
Indonesia–86.1 %
Iran–98%
Iraq–97%
Jordan–92%
Morocco–98.7%
Pakistan–97%
Palestine–99%
Syria–90%
Tajikistan–90%
Turkey–90%
United Arab Emirates–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 Quran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan–100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia–100% Muslim
Somalia–100% Muslim
Yemen–100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons. Quote:
“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.”
It is important to understand that even in 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 Shari’ah Law. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Quran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime. 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 groups.
It's not an insane policy, it's an affirmation of the right to not self-incriminate. It's one of the few positives ruled recently in favor of the individual versus the predatory state. Incidentally, this ruling happened over a year ago. Not surprising it disappeared quickly as most "news" is complete crap unworthy of attention.
We disagree. Once you have a warrant to search a location, device or other item, law enforcement should have access to search that item. The distinction between knowledge and a physical key is one without a difference with today's technology.
According to you. Just like I think the Bible doesn't actually and completely condemn homosexuality.
Yep.
Definitionally fact, as written in the book and practiced by the followers.
Why is it hard to comprehend that the statements are not mutually exclusive? Taqiyya.
Once again, there’s one Islam with stages. They all believe it
Where do you get off stating what "all" Muslims believe? Do all Christians condemn gays because the Bible explicitly states homosexuality is a sin in some places? And you just stated above that many Muslims love peace and tolerance, because they live in the West. You can't claim "all" Muslims believe something and then say some don't because of Western values.
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, 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–0.6%
Australia–1.5%
Canada–1.9%
China–1.8%
Italy–1.5%
Norway–1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark–2%
Germany–3.7%
United Kingdom–2.7%
Spain–4%
Thailand–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–8%
Philippines–5%
Sweden–5%
Switzerland–4.3%
The Netherlands–5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago–5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah 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 Is1am 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–10%
India–13.4%
Israel–16%
Kenya–10%
Russia–15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia–32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia–40%
Chad–53.1%
Lebanon–59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shari’ah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, as in:
Albania–70%
Malaysia–60.4%
Qatar–77.5%
Sudan–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, as has been experienced–and in some ways is ongoing–in:
Bangladesh–83%
Egypt–90%
Gaza–98.7%
Indonesia–86.1 %
Iran–98%
Iraq–97%
Jordan–92%
Morocco–98.7%
Pakistan–97%
Palestine–99%
Syria–90%
Tajikistan–90%
Turkey–90%
United Arab Emirates–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 Quran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan–100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia–100% Muslim
Somalia–100% Muslim
Yemen–100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons. Quote:
“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.”
It is important to understand that even in 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 Shari’ah Law. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Quran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime. 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 groups.
All you are saying is that as the Muslim population rises, certain events follow. That says nothing of what "all Muslims" believe. Nor does it provide anything useful in terms of what our foreign policy should be.
Comments
I am not talking about mass data collection. I am talking about specific, targeted collection with a warrant.
As long as the subject of the targeted data collection is an American, they are still protected by the Constitution. Bush and Obama have both acted in ways that have severely undermined our Constitutional protections.
Um... That's absurd.
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption
https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
No American must consent to searches. In fact, simply stating "I do not consent to searches" is part of exercising your rights.
I'm not up to speed with the issue: so what ARE the consequences of not cooperating with a lawfully issued and served warrant in terms of a search warrant?
ETA: A quick look shows the Fourth Amendment requires a neutral process for authorization of warrant for a search and seizure, but not whether cooperation with that search authorized under a warrant is mandatory in some way, all mention is directed at compelling the police in their procedure, not compelling the individual being served.. If you reject the court issued warrant are you subject to some sort of contempt of court proceeding?
I'm not up to speed with the issue: so what ARE the consequences of not cooperating with a lawfully issued and served warrant in terms of a search warrant?
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a legally issued search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption.
If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that. This fact has been widely reported.
In the case of the criminal miscreants in Paris, apparently they didn't even have their devices locked, so the notion that they were somehow using encryption to avoid detection is utter nonsense.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-find-phone-with-unencrypted-sms-saying-lets-go-were-starting/
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption. If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that.
That's seemingly logical based on the relevant Bill of Rights Amendments, the Fourth, search and seizure, is about constraining government power (such as searches for evidence) while the Fifth is more about establishing the individual citizen's right against self-incrimination.and behavior though that does cycle back to restraint on government intimidation and behavior.
It seems to me overall rule of law is maintained when a dully issued warrant, subject to critical review with a presentation of an argument with sworn testimony is required to be cooperated with as with any other legally issued directive. Subject, as always to the rest of the Constitution's protection of citizen's rights such as the Fifth's protection from government forcing self-incrimination.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
It defies logic for a person or persons to "unencrypt" information as they go marching to their deaths. Far more likely that it was unprotected from the beginning.
Why would it defy logic? Internet chatter is almost always intercepted just before an attack, and it's always too late to do anything about it. Almost like a big F U.
We're not at war with Islam. We're at war with radical Islam and it's sympathizers.
The point is that there is no distinction. There is only Islam.
With a warrant, they would demand the password. Refusing to give the password under warrant would be resisting... whatever. Refusing to comply with the investigation. That’s a criminal charge.
There is zero legal right to have a backdoor. There is zero legal right for them to have access at any time for any reason.
It also prevents crime.
What means of communications did they use to plan the attacks? Once everything is set and ready to go there's no reason to stay encrypted because it's too late to be stopped.
For simply the team leaders they could have sat around a modest coffee table and talked to each other, it was what, four or five people, none of whom were under any sort of surveillance? OR, ultimately on the disposable pre-paid phone; "Hey let's have some tea at five O'Clock November 15th". "tea" being code for the murders you see, which No One could "decrypt".
You either support the Constitution and Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't.
I daresay I'm more conservative as a "classical liberal" than you are.
I absolutely support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are talking about the government gaining access to communications with a legally valid search warrant. Why is that an issue for you? I doubt you're more of a classical liberal than I am, though you might be a bit more idealistic.
Quote:
As long as the subject of the targeted data collection is an American, they are still protected by the Constitution. Bush and Obama have both acted in ways that have severely undermined our Constitutional protections.
You only believe that because you think they initiated mass data collection. I don't believe that for a second. The government, in my opinion, has been collecting massive amounts of data for decades. Ever seen "Enemy of the State?" I think the collection methods described in the fictional movie are actually understated.
No, I believe one may be compelled to abide by a legally issued search warrant, but one cannot be compelled to provide the means of decryption.
If your security measures consist solely of your thumbprint (or other finger), under current law you may be forced to use your finger/thumb to unlock your device. If a code protects the information or device, you cannot be compelled to provide that. This fact has been widely reported.
If that's been reported, I haven't seen it. And I'd argue it's an insane policy, A search warrant gives authorities the right to search for information. If what you're saying is true, I would have to unlock my Macbook if it had a thumb print scanner, but not if it needed a password. That's hardly believable.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-find-phone-with-unencrypted-sms-saying-lets-go-were-starting/
You mean it's nonsense in general? We already know they are using video game networks. I may not have been the case here, but it's far from "nonsense."
The point is that there is no distinction. There is only Islam.
I not only disagree with that, but I know it to be false. I personally know Muslims who are not radical. Many of them. It's a subset of Islam that's the issue, and those who even tacitly allow it to exist.
With a warrant, they would demand the password. Refusing to give the password under warrant would be resisting... whatever. Refusing to comply with the investigation. That’s a criminal charge.
Right. Let me know when that happens. The FBI is going to demand to see Joe Blow's iMessages, and Apple is going to tell them to piss off. Don't hold your breath for arrest warrants. Why do you think they want the backdoor to begin with?
There is zero legal right to have a backdoor. There is zero legal right for them to have access at any time for any reason.
Wrong. There are many situations where access is legal and appropriate. The government can tap your phones with a warrant and use the contents of your calls against you. The government can wire informants and use the information against suspects. And the government can get your cell records, GPS coordinates, e-mails and a host of other data. Why would they not be allowed to access your messages if they had a warrant?
Bullshit. Is this the part where you play folk music and talk about privacy rights while starting at your Ron Paul 2008 poster?
I not only disagree with that, but I know it to be false.
You know wrong, then.
Your anecdotes are meaningless, and they are lying to you. It’s called taqiyya.
Right. Let me know when that happens.
Literally right now. Courts have upheld that it is not legal for them to break encryption.
The FBI is going to demand to see Joe Blow's iMessages, and Apple is going to tell them to piss off. Don't hold your breath for arrest warrants.
That’s literally the only way they can access the data. I’m confused at your confusion.
There are many situations where access is legal and appropriate.
Such as when they have a warrant, have obtained a warrant, or when they go to a judge to get a warrant.
See? We agree.
Never said otherwise.
Since it’s illegal to wiretap without a warrant and the government was caught wiretapping hundreds of millions of people without a warrant, making it impossible to wiretap without a warrant would prevent this crime. By definition.
And that’s just on an institutionalized basis. Not even discussing individuals’ actions. A backdoor means that anyone can get to anyone’s communications.
Does pre-mussulman Cat Stevens count as folk?
Kind of scary that we’re even having a discussion about whether or not people have the right to privacy...
Libertarianism is exclusively an economic ideology. Trying to make it a full political ideology results in copy/pasting of doctrine with a ‘replace all’ function run on specific words. In short, complete disaster. A partial ideology can be as destructive as a totalitarian complete ideology.
We're obviously just not communicating on encryption. I think warrants are necessary. So do you. What is not true is "the government warrantlessly wiretapped hundreds of millions of people."
As for Islam, that's just completely nuts. So the parents of my students in wealthy suburban Philadelphia are lying? LOL. I know other Muslims who are some of the most patriotic and peaceful people I've encountered. Their are plenty of jihadists and jihadist sympathizers in the world. They are not among them. By the way, I looked up "taqiyya." It does not mean Muslims deny their true beliefs in order to commit and support terrorism. Try again.
Stellar Wind. ADVISE. Room 641A.
See below.
I fail to see how that’s a refutation for what I said. Wealthy people can’t lie? People from Philadelphia can’t lie? Students can’t lie? Parents can’t lie? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your rebuttal? Here’s the truth.
I didn’t say anything about them being jihadists yet. There are three stages of Islam.
Of course not. It means that mussulmen deny their true beliefs in order to praise Allah and fulfill his demands. It’s not terrorism in their eyes, nor is it exclusively “terrorism” (under any definition, objective or subjective) being hidden.
No. You.
Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”
Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.
Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?
Qur’an 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
Qur’an 16:101
According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.
What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?
When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.
STAGE ONE
When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.
STAGE TWO
When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:
Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah…
Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.
STAGE THREE
When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).
Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).
Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illallah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924
Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
Sahih Muslim 30
Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.
It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”
When Muslims Reach Stage Three
Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Qur’an 5:51
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Qur’an 9:30
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.
Qur’an 98:6
Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
Sahih Muslim 4366
Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”
Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103
Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.
Muslims in the West
Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.
According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war.When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.)
Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.
Why would it defy logic? Internet chatter is almost always intercepted just before an attack, and it's always too late to do anything about it. Almost like a big F U.
I'll not debate you on what is or isn't stupid if you can unironically make such a statement.
...If that's been reported, I haven't seen it. And I'd argue it's an insane policy, A search warrant gives authorities the right to search for information. If what you're saying is true, I would have to unlock my Macbook if it had a thumb print scanner, but not if it needed a password. That's hardly believable...
It's not an insane policy, it's an affirmation of the right to not self-incriminate. It's one of the few positives ruled recently in favor of the individual versus the predatory state. Incidentally, this ruling happened over a year ago. Not surprising it disappeared quickly as most "news" is complete crap unworthy of attention.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-can-be-required-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint/
http://tinyurl.com/owtkr3j
http://mashable.com/2014/10/30/cops-can-force-you-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint-ruling/#DgVfPynAYuqg
Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Steven Frucci ruled that a criminal defendant can be compelled to give up his fingerprint and unlock his cellphone in the course of a criminal investigation — because that's just like handing in a DNA sample or a physical key, which citizens can already be legally compelled to give to police.
On the other hand, police can't force a defendant to give up his passcode, because that's considered "knowledge" — not a physical object — and knowledge is protected by the Fifth Amendment. There have been cases, however, where defendants have been asked to give up their password to decrypt their computers, so there no consensus on this issue yet, as Wired's Andy Greenberg reported recently.
Stellar Wind. ADVISE. Room 641A.
See below.
None of those programs "warrantlessly wiretapped hundreds of millions of people." They gathered data and intercepted/analyzed electronic information, especially e-mail and internet activity. The only "warrantless wiretapping" that occurred related to calls in an out of the country to/from suspicious areas and/or persons. Whether that was legal and appropriate is a matter of debate.
I fail to see how that’s a refutation for what I said. Wealthy people can’t lie? People from Philadelphia can’t lie? Students can’t lie? Parents can’t lie? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your rebuttal? Here’s the truth.
I have to prove they are not terrorists? I have to prove they are lying as you describe? Wow, that sounds quite reasonable.
Those three stages and your view of all Muslims as potential jihadists is an interpretation. Nothing more.
So that means all Muslims follow this interpretation?
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war.When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.)
Yes, that is one interpretation. It's an interpretation to which some Muslims (or even "many" Muslims) subscribe.
Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance.
That's not what you claimed earlier. You claimed the people I know are lying. So they can be peaceful now?
Why they have the values they do is debatable. Some of it is very likely Western influence. Some of it is simply a more peaceful interpretation. There are interpretations of every faith, some which vary widely. Now, I would agree that Islam is a religion that seems to lend itself more easily to violent/radical interpretations than other major faiths (Christianity first among them).
Dedicated Muslims who subscribe to that interpretation, yes.
Those three stages and your view of all Muslims as potential jihadists is an interpretation. Nothing more.
Sorry, no. It’s explicitly what the Quran says.
Yep.
Definitionally fact, as written in the book and practiced by the followers.
Why is it hard to comprehend that the statements are not mutually exclusive? Taqiyya.
Once again, there’s one Islam with stages. They all believe it.
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, 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–0.6%
Australia–1.5%
Canada–1.9%
China–1.8%
Italy–1.5%
Norway–1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark–2%
Germany–3.7%
United Kingdom–2.7%
Spain–4%
Thailand–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–8%
Philippines–5%
Sweden–5%
Switzerland–4.3%
The Netherlands–5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago–5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah 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 Is1am 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–10%
India–13.4%
Israel–16%
Kenya–10%
Russia–15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia–32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia–40%
Chad–53.1%
Lebanon–59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shari’ah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, as in:
Albania–70%
Malaysia–60.4%
Qatar–77.5%
Sudan–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, as has been experienced–and in some ways is ongoing–in:
Bangladesh–83%
Egypt–90%
Gaza–98.7%
Indonesia–86.1 %
Iran–98%
Iraq–97%
Jordan–92%
Morocco–98.7%
Pakistan–97%
Palestine–99%
Syria–90%
Tajikistan–90%
Turkey–90%
United Arab Emirates–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 Quran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan–100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia–100% Muslim
Somalia–100% Muslim
Yemen–100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons. Quote:
“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.”
It is important to understand that even in 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 Shari’ah Law. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Quran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime. 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 groups.
It's not an insane policy, it's an affirmation of the right to not self-incriminate. It's one of the few positives ruled recently in favor of the individual versus the predatory state. Incidentally, this ruling happened over a year ago. Not surprising it disappeared quickly as most "news" is complete crap unworthy of attention.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-can-be-required-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint/
http://tinyurl.com/owtkr3j
http://mashable.com/2014/10/30/cops-can-force-you-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint-ruling/#DgVfPynAYuqg
We disagree. Once you have a warrant to search a location, device or other item, law enforcement should have access to search that item. The distinction between knowledge and a physical key is one without a difference with today's technology.
Sorry, no. It’s explicitly what the Quran says.
According to you. Just like I think the Bible doesn't actually and completely condemn homosexuality.
Yep.
Definitionally fact, as written in the book and practiced by the followers.
Why is it hard to comprehend that the statements are not mutually exclusive? Taqiyya.
Once again, there’s one Islam with stages. They all believe it
Where do you get off stating what "all" Muslims believe? Do all Christians condemn gays because the Bible explicitly states homosexuality is a sin in some places? And you just stated above that many Muslims love peace and tolerance, because they live in the West. You can't claim "all" Muslims believe something and then say some don't because of Western values.
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, 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–0.6%
Australia–1.5%
Canada–1.9%
China–1.8%
Italy–1.5%
Norway–1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark–2%
Germany–3.7%
United Kingdom–2.7%
Spain–4%
Thailand–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–8%
Philippines–5%
Sweden–5%
Switzerland–4.3%
The Netherlands–5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago–5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah 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 Is1am 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–10%
India–13.4%
Israel–16%
Kenya–10%
Russia–15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia–32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia–40%
Chad–53.1%
Lebanon–59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shari’ah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, as in:
Albania–70%
Malaysia–60.4%
Qatar–77.5%
Sudan–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, as has been experienced–and in some ways is ongoing–in:
Bangladesh–83%
Egypt–90%
Gaza–98.7%
Indonesia–86.1 %
Iran–98%
Iraq–97%
Jordan–92%
Morocco–98.7%
Pakistan–97%
Palestine–99%
Syria–90%
Tajikistan–90%
Turkey–90%
United Arab Emirates–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 Quran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan–100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia–100% Muslim
Somalia–100% Muslim
Yemen–100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons. Quote:
“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.”
It is important to understand that even in 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 Shari’ah Law. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Quran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime. 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 groups.
All you are saying is that as the Muslim population rises, certain events follow. That says nothing of what "all Muslims" believe. Nor does it provide anything useful in terms of what our foreign policy should be.