Is America at war with radical Islam?

[CMNightRider]

"Even if that figure was 3,000 and even if that represented only a tenth of all the Muslims in Europe "dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization," that would put the figure at 0.01 percent of Europe's Muslims, not between 15 and 25 percent as Gabriel claims."

% as being radical, the total is

Using your link, and the figures you have quoted, that means that 0.01% of Europe's Muslims are as Gabriel claims.

There are an estimated 28.92 million Muslims residing in Europe...not counting the 27.27 million in Russia.

We find that in Europe, using the figure of 0.01% of the total you arrive at 289,200 terrorists in Europe alone.

Looking at my earlier guesstimate that there could be a potential 6,670 terrorists out of the total US Muslim population of 6.67 Million.

With your new found proof, that would mean my guesstimate was under estimated by 60,030 potential terrorists in the US.

The total number becomes 66,700 potential suicide bombers in the US alone.

I assumed 1 in 1,000. Your link shows the true estimate to be 1 in 100.

That's a ten fold increase over my assumption.

Thank you for your contribution pointing out an even greater danger to the US than I imagined.

http://www.muslimpopulation.com/World/

There seems to be a new offensive from the right here tonight.

You're regardless going to have to cite your figures because I don't trust your all Muslims are bad and evil people calculator.

The anti-Muslim campaigner Ms Gabriel claimed 180 million to 300 million Muslim radicals in Europe which is debunked by Western European intelligence agencies.

The 3000 Muslim radicals figure of European intelligence agencies represents a tenth of all Muslims in Europe so your calculator needs recalibrating.

Check the news article again that I cite in my post then get back to me without any wild figures in the eyes.

Your welcome.

I know you want this to go away, but it just won't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your post made at 19:02 today, you make this ridiculous claim:

"The right winger Brigitte Gabriel did a video resurrected by the far right after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in which she said 15 to 25 percent of Muslims in Europe are "radicals." Ms extreme Gabriel said completely erroneously that Western intelligence agencies said so. Which, according to Ms Gabriel, would mean that in Europe alone, "You're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization..."

Why do I call it ridiculous? For one reason you state there would be 180 million to 300 million terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. There are only 56.19 million Muslims in all of Europe, including Russia, so how could there possibly be 180 million to 300 million Muslims of any sort?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you make the following claim in your post made at 20:34 today:

"The 3000 Muslim radicals figure of European intelligence agencies represents a tenth of all Muslims in Europe so your calculator needs recalibrating."

The problem you have with this post is comparing apples to oranges. The magical 3,000 number you seem so proud of are only those who have gone to Syria to engage in the war...not people who are potentially dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

Then you go on to claim this 3,000 represents a tenth of all Muslims in Europe. If there were only 30,000 Muslims in all of Europe your statement would be correct. However since there are some 28.92 million (not counting Russia) your "tenth" of that total quickly becomes 2.892 million...not 3,000.

You now have three choices.

1. You can accept the "tenth of all Muslims" you earlier quoted as being terrorists. If you do that you are left with 2,892,000 terrorists in Europe alone.

2. You can stick with your figure of 3,000 terrorists in all of Europe, which would then represent 0.0001% of the 28.92 million Muslims in Europe.

3. Or you can go with another figure you threw out which is 0.01%. That means the Europeans are only facing some 289,200 terrorists.

Which is it?

These posts are getting rather lengthy and unwieldy, not to mention convoluted so this post will be made in the interests of brevity and clarity.

I am quoting the news article I cited which has concrete data from the European intelligence agencies. I was prompted to do this because you gave guesstimate numbers pulled out of somewhere I won't mention specifically in public. My first reply to your out of the blue post was met by your response that asked me for my own guesstimate, which I categorically declined to do.

I posted specific data, not guesswork. Your posts mix, mangle and mingle your guesswork and guesstimates with my data from the intelligence agencies that are presented in the news story.

That is where the matter stands and will remain.

Talk about "mangle and mingle" posts, you may want to re-read many of yours, OMG! Chuckd posted a very conservative estimate of the Muslims dedicating their lives to the destruction of western civilisation. To make matters worst, those numbers are increasing by the day. Unfortunately, this is where "the matter stands and will remain" until American voters wake up and elect a person with leadership skills. Apparently, the leftist social experiment of electing a person (Obama) totally void of any leadership skills, and unable to be truthful didn't work out so well.

[Credo]

The ME is, and always has been, a cauldron of violence and fighting. That's not unique to the ME, by the way. There is no need to even try to apportion blame. If the Ottoman's hadn't had control, and then the British, the only difference is that it would not have settled into an area with political boundaries between countries. It would have continued to be a large number of tribal groups with changing alliances, fighting amongst one another.

The entire area is a like a hornet's nest and it makes no difference what is done, the hornets just don't want anyone near their nest. They don't want another hornet near their nest and they certainly don't want any outside species near it.

The present clashes are because of too many people in an ever shrinking world. We are, and have been, getting way too close to the hornet's nest.

[Steely Dan]

If you want a reasonable estimate as to how many Muslims support the radicals, either directly, or otherwise it would be useful to determine how many are in favour of Sharia law taking precedence over the law of the land. Sharia law by the way would take an axe to the constitution and its amendments, though it would appear the advanced party in the Whitehouse has already set about amendments 1 and 2 with some gusto.

Edit: Statistics, here you go. In Europe the situation is frightening, over 50% in favour. They might not support radicals directly, but let it be remembered Sharia is the political aim of the radicals too.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/04/07/support-sharia-law-world/

People who have irrational concerns might do well to read the Q&A at the following link which discusses the following questions.....

Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?

How do American Muslims follow Sharia?

Do American Muslims want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia?

Is taking into account Muslim practices in U.S. courts an example of what some are calling “creeping Sharia” in the American legal system? How do you explain U.S. courts interpreting contracts based on Sharia law?

How would state laws barring any consideration of Sharia or other religious laws in courts affect American Muslims and other religious groups?

http://www.tolerance.org/publication/sharia

Anyone who thinks or believes President Obama is anti-American, anti Western, supports Islamic jihad, has radical Muslims advising him in the White House etc etc as some have posted here is plainly nuts.

The Obama appointments are radical loons or Islamist sympathizers or both. The clownish utterances they make are hilarious if they weren't so damn serious. The tone was set early on when James Clapper characterized the Muslim Brotherhood as 'Mostly secular', this is the same Muslim Brotherhood who are designated a terrorist organization by the UAE and Egypt. Naturally the POTUS had a closed doors meeting with members of the Brotherhood and the names of attendees was initially hushed up. All from a president absent from Paris when the civilized world showed solidarity against Jihad.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/07/the-muslim-brotherhood-comes-to-the-white-house/

Then we have to consider the Obama aid who had to resign shortly after opining that a Caliphate was inevitable. Then there's Chuck Hagel being elbowed for warning that ISIS was a great danger to the U.S.

The list is endless.

There is indeed a long list and it is the long list of the loony right.

President Obama is a natural born American who is 100% loyal to the United States and our Constitution, he is a patriot and he is a 100% American sworn to preserve, protect, defend the Constitution of the United States. He is the government's chief executive officer, the commander in chief of the armed forces, the nation's chief diplomatic officer, its chief legal officer, chief financial officer, and is the head of state.

Those are the six titles the president of the United States has and those six only and exclusively. They are his and his alone which only a small percentage of nutcases fail to recognize as his or to respect as such.

You can tell us of all the titles the president holds or indeed the colors of all the ribbons he can wear on his lapels, but it doesn't deflect from the fact that his administration seems to attract Marxist and Islamist sympathizers like flies. Even this would not be such a concern if there wasn't so much evidence that this has adversely influenced U.S policy, from Libya to Gitmo releases, from the ouster of Mubarak to the desperate attempts to get any deal from Iran.

[boomerangutang]

.....until American voters wake up and elect a person with leadership skills. Apparently, the leftist social experiment of electing a person (Obama) totally void of any leadership skills, and unable to be truthful didn't work out so well.

Apparently some folks are still steaming about Obama getting elected to two terms at the top post? Would you rather have had McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan in the power seats? A majority of Americans didn't go with that. If we had McCain or Romney in the top spot, the US military would be wasting a billion dollars more per week than they're wasting now.

More on topic: Middle East countries (except perhaps Israel and Jordan) have choices for leaders which range from very bad to mafia-like thugs. More often than not, the little people don't even have a say in choosing leaders. The toughest, meanest, most calloused man is who gets the top spot (though he's got to be good at smiling). For the most part, that's the nature of leadership in Middle East. That, accompanied by a mean-spirited belief system, is a formula for wall-to-wall troubles. It's bad enough being born a male in those countries - it's even worse being female. Wild animals are out of the picture, as they were eradicated back before Biblical times. Same for forests.

Edited February 11, 2015 by boomerangutang

[simple1]

"The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians"

Ask yourself this; If you had fallen in love and married a local girl; who would have to have converted to whose religion? What would have happened if you insisted the girl converted to Christianity? If you were gay do you think the local community would tolerate you holding hands or kissing your significant other in public or even co-habitating? What would happen if one of this peace loving muslim community converted to Christianity? Have you ever tried to ask a moderate muslim about some of the less palitable passages in the koran? Have you asked them why their religion specificly forbids them to befriend Christian or Jew?

Saying they are the same as most Christians is laughable.

Muslims in the Thai South were my friends and whenever I have visited there they are still my warm friends.

While I lived there they invited me to their religious services without any proselytizing and it was an exposure I readily welcomed.

They are ordinary people. They have gay people they know to be gay and there's no problem about that to include the annual ladyboy festival there.

They live in peace but detest the southern militants. They do feel strongly about the Palestinians but they never said a word to me about Israel, either way.

I once saw a teenager in an outdoor market who wore a white t-shirt that had a Christian cross on it under a do not enter circle and diagonal line with the words "Bad Religion" on it. I gave the kid a long look but he couldn't look at me personally or look me in the eye, which I found to be telling about his personal interactions vs his ideology.

I could write a lot more but I'll simply say to live and learn cause it's a good idea and it is the only real way to do it.

Off topic, but worth a response.

After living within a Thai Muslim community for four years, I agree with Publicus on the culture of Thai Muslims. From my experience It's a common error for posters to associate strict Arab Muslim cultural conservatism with the general Thai Muslim community.

I suggest the percentile of Thai Muslims who understand Islam as presented by Arjunadawn and others is tiny.

Let us assume that small minority of Muslims are radical Islamists is 1 in 1,000.

How many radicals are there in the US with a Muslim population of 6.67 Million?

My calculator comes up with 6,670 radical Islamists presently residing in the US.

It only took 19 of them to bring down the World Trade Centers.

If America isn't at war with Islam, they better rethink their position.

To quote Astronaut James Lovell..."Houston, we've had a problem"...and the problem is growing larger.

You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many.

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

[chuckd]

You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many.

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

It takes only one. Or nineteen. I won't even allow don't want even one of those bastards in my neighborhood.

[Morch]

"Western European intelligence agencies."

Yes, it does hurt USA pride that is some areas these are much better.

Not the tech stuff, for sure, but the tech isn't everything.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

The whole question of the USA being "at war" with radical Islam is bogus.

There's not even a working definition of what radical Islam is and what falls under this term.

Some of the USA's closest allies could be said to be radical Islamic countries.

Unless this is supposed to be one of them war on terrorism, war on drugs things - better sort who's the receiving end and what are the realistic objectives prior to jumping in.

The whole argument about how many Muslims actually support radical Islam (whatever this is defined as, and what is considered "support") is bogus as well.

There aren't good enough definitions, there aren't good enough methodologies and tools to to gauge this in any meaningful way. Mostly it matters naught - it is totally irrelevant when one considers actual events. How does the 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% argument (and so on) bears on dealing with Islamic terrorism?

[chuckd]

I have always held the opinion that it is good to know your enemy and his strength. Numbers can be important.

[Morch]

I have always held the opinion that it is good to know your enemy and his strength. Numbers can be important.

Those are not the enemy numbers, though.

They are vague projections of estimates which aren't really that accurate or relevant.

Most terrorist organizations do not rely on overwhelming manpower, quite the opposite.

When they get big, it is much easier to strike at them.

[chuckd]

I have always held the opinion that it is good to know your enemy and his strength. Numbers can be important.

Those are not the enemy numbers, though.

They are vague projections of estimates which aren't really that accurate or relevant.

Most terrorist organizations do not rely on overwhelming manpower, quite the opposite.

When they get big, it is much easier to strike at them.

And when they get really big, they start taking over other countries.

Their numbers seem to be increasing. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/799454-20000-foreign-fighters-flock-to-syria-iraq-us/#entry9057349

[Morch]

I have always held the opinion that it is good to know your enemy and his strength. Numbers can be important.

Those are not the enemy numbers, though.

They are vague projections of estimates which aren't really that accurate or relevant.

Most terrorist organizations do not rely on overwhelming manpower, quite the opposite.

When they get big, it is much easier to strike at them.

And when they get really big, they start taking over other countries.

Their numbers seem to be increasing. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/799454-20000-foreign-fighters-flock-to-syria-iraq-us/#entry9057349

As their numbers will increase, so will their casualties. The West is much better prepared to fight bigger outfits than smaller well embedded groups. Greater numbers also mean improved intel.

But regardless, this is of little relevance to the which-percent-of-Muslims-support-radical-Islam debate, which by itself is almost pointless.

[boomerangutang]

I have always held the opinion that it is good to know your enemy and his strength. Numbers can be important.

Those are not the enemy numbers, though.

They are vague projections of estimates which aren't really that accurate or relevant.

Most terrorist organizations do not rely on overwhelming manpower, quite the opposite.

When they get big, it is much easier to strike at them.

And when they get really big, they start taking over other countries.

Their numbers seem to be increasing. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/799454-20000-foreign-fighters-flock-to-syria-iraq-us/#entry9057349

As their numbers will increase, so will their casualties. The West is much better prepared to fight bigger outfits than smaller well embedded groups. Greater numbers also mean improved intel.

But regardless, this is of little relevance to the which-percent-of-Muslims-support-radical-Islam debate, which by itself is almost pointless.

I agree, western armies would rather fight the old-fashioned way, where armies wear uniforms, and sometimes square off on battlefields. No chance of that happening with the Muslim extremists. Whether they're small groups or large, they're going to most often blend in to communities, even though unwanted by locals. It's to their advantage to blend in (as many rag-tag armies have, historically). However, Muslim extremists take it to lower levels, sometimes intentionally harboring with or at places where innocents are (schools, mosques, markets). They even sometimes dress as women. An alarming (somewhat new) trend, particularly with Boko Haram in Nigeria, is forcing young girls to be suicide bombers.

There are no good solutions (some would say there are no solutions at all), so what we, the decent people of the west are left with, is trying to find the least awful ways of dealing with them. That's the hand we've been dealt. One place to start, is get the message to M.Eastern women to not hang with their extremist b'f's and husbands, and certainly not with their kids along. To do so, is to have a death wish.

I watched a Youtube video of Afghani Taliban sniping at US troop. It wasn't staged. At the beginning of the video, the head Mujahadeen (sp?) is playing with his young daughter and son (women were not allowed to be videoed). A few weeks later, at the conclusion of the videotaping, the headman was alive, but his son, daughter and wife had been blown away.

Edited February 11, 2015 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

I saw another Youtube video, again unstaged. It so happened, two M.Eastern reporters were interviewing some radicals in a town, in the middle of the day. The entire video was shot from the camera of a drone circling around (apparently, they're quiet, because no one on the street was looking up at the drone). The soundtrack was chatter between the munitions operator (gunner) and his superior officer. The gunner was hot to shoot some baddies. None of the Americans knew, at the time, that two of the 2 dozen men in their sights were reporters. The request to shoot was given, and the men on the ground who couldn't dive behind walls quick enough, were shot. About 4 minutes later, an unmarked van showed up, and two men jumped out to throw some wounded in to the back. This is where it particularly irked me. The American drone gunner shot and blew up the van. To me (as an observer) the van was clearly like a Red Cross/Red Crescent vehicle. It should be understood among combatants, that injured should be allowed to be evacuated from the battlefield.

It so happened, both reporters were killed, and it was found out later that there were two children in the van, both of them killed also.

[BKKBobby]

I dont think the terrorists wouldnt mind swapping their butcher-slaughter-suicidebombing arsenal with the US conventional warfare arsenal. They would be more than happy to do the trade.

[simple1]

You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many.

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

My comment also applies to 'one in a thousand' that to my knowledge is plucked out of the air without any data to justify.

Indo has a population of around 250 million; how many actual islamic radicals reside in Indo or travel to conflict zones? At the moment an estimated 200 / 300 Indos are with ISIS; population wise a tiny number. Again my thoughts are the worldwide numbers of violent islamic extremists who have the West in mind are vastly exagerated.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[chuckd]

You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many.

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

My comment also applies to 'one in a thousand' that to my knowledge is plucked out of the air without any data to justify.

Indo has a population of around 250 million; how many actual islamic radicals reside in Indo or travel to conflict zones? At the moment an estimated 200 / 300 Indos are with ISIS; population wise a tiny number. Again my thoughts are the worldwide numbers of violent islamic extremists who have the West in mind are vastly exagerated.

If the percentages are estimated to be in the 20-30% arena, then I agree with you. They are too high.

My guesstimate that one in a thousand are candidates for suicide vests is NOT over the top. If anything it is too low.

Your reference to INDOnesia is somewhat off target. In the first place Indonesia is around 90% Islamic and operates under Sharia. It is also largely Shiite.

If Indonesia already has everything Muslims seem to want, why should they go fight an enemy they don't have?

In addition, ISIS is Sunni.

[Petchou]

Reading posts in this topic, you realize how much ignorance and hate exist amongst many participants who are not much different in certain way from Isis criminals.

Below a link to result of such spread of hate by unfortunately so many.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huge-crowd-attends-chapel-hill-vigil-muslim-shooting-victims

[simple1]

You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many.

'Radical Islamists" are not exactly quiet in their preaching of their extremist & violent agenda, yet we see comparatively very few of the assumed numbers actually taking any action. To my mind this questions the vast numbers for followers of radical Islam that are thrown around.

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

My comment also applies to 'one in a thousand' that to my knowledge is plucked out of the air without any data to justify.

Indo has a population of around 250 million; how many actual islamic radicals reside in Indo or travel to conflict zones? At the moment an estimated 200 / 300 Indos are with ISIS; population wise a tiny number. Again my thoughts are the worldwide numbers of violent islamic extremists who have the West in mind are vastly exagerated.

If the percentages are estimated to be in the 20-30% arena, then I agree with you. They are too high.

My guesstimate that one in a thousand are candidates for suicide vests is NOT over the top. If anything it is too low.

Your reference to INDOnesia is somewhat off target. In the first place Indonesia is around 90% Islamic and operates under Sharia. It is also largely Shiite.

If Indonesia already has everything Muslims seem to want, why should they go fight an enemy they don't have?

In addition, ISIS is Sunni.

You must have very different souce of info to me as I have read from different sources the Muslim population of Indonesia is approx 90+% Sunni. Unsure the relevance of Sharia Law as in Indo, with the exception of Aceh, currently not extreme interpretation & implementation

[Credo]

Reading posts in this topic, you realize how much ignorance and hate exist amongst many participants who are not much different in certain way from Isis criminals.

Below a link to result of such spread of hate by unfortunately so many.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huge-crowd-attends-chapel-hill-vigil-muslim-shooting-victims

This is from that link:

a preliminary investigation into the deaths suggested the killings may have been the result of a simmering parking dispute

Your being pretty disingenuous to suggest that people on this forum are like those in ISIS. I haven't heard of any Thaivisa members beheading or burning anyone alive lately in the name of Jesus or Buddha.

[Scott]

That topic is running here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/799988-services-prayers-for-3-fatally-shot-in-north-carolina/

[Petchou]

Reading posts in this topic, you realize how much ignorance and hate exist amongst many participants who are not much different in certain way from Isis criminals.

Below a link to result of such spread of hate by unfortunately so many.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huge-crowd-attends-chapel-hill-vigil-muslim-shooting-victims

This is from that link:

a preliminary investigation into the deaths suggested the killings may have been the result of a simmering parking dispute

Your being pretty disingenuous to suggest that people on this forum are like those in ISIS. I haven't heard of any Thaivisa members beheading or burning anyone alive lately in the name of Jesus or Buddha.

It says it all how hate propaganda can make haters kill for a parking dispute, haters are brainless finally.

I don't think these students or millions of people from their faith have ever beheaded anyone.

More than million civilians have been killed (same result of beheading) in irak by "civilized" army in name of god as bush said.

[Credo]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

[BKKBobby]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

He just stated that Bush Jr had announced it to be a holy war. He was communicating with heaven while walking in the garden trying to decide what to do. Edited February 13, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Petchou]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

It's a British independent research organization who reported these numbers, not me.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

[arjunadawn]

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

My comment also applies to 'one in a thousand' that to my knowledge is plucked out of the air without any data to justify.

Indo has a population of around 250 million; how many actual islamic radicals reside in Indo or travel to conflict zones? At the moment an estimated 200 / 300 Indos are with ISIS; population wise a tiny number. Again my thoughts are the worldwide numbers of violent islamic extremists who have the West in mind are vastly exagerated.

If the percentages are estimated to be in the 20-30% arena, then I agree with you. They are too high.

My guesstimate that one in a thousand are candidates for suicide vests is NOT over the top. If anything it is too low.

Your reference to INDOnesia is somewhat off target. In the first place Indonesia is around 90% Islamic and operates under Sharia. It is also largely Shiite.

If Indonesia already has everything Muslims seem to want, why should they go fight an enemy they don't have?

In addition, ISIS is Sunni.

In 2003 I went to work in Indo after Bali Bombings. I met a woman and became close. First week she invites me to dinner. I say yes, Her driver takes us into Bogor. In Raffles restaurant a line of tables were set up with women on one end and men on the other. Ahhhh, this is not happening I thought. It was an islamic scholar meeting. I was sat on the left with a number of muslim imans, with the chief imam of Indo in the center. Down the other end was my girlfriend sitting with the woman, occasionally smiling. We were not married of course but...

I spoke no Bahasa at the time. At one point a man asked me, "where are you from my friend?" I said America. Hrmm, he paused and thought then added "I do not think you belong here, no?" Ah, No! I also think I do not belong here, I told him but it was so absurd I nearly laughed. NO! I did not belong there- what the F was she thinking? It was frighteningly hilarious. Her dad was the number one imam in Indo and she brought a white bulle American to dinner- and every one of them was kind and gracious. Later, my team said to me "you did what?" But also, later in time, the imam accepted me with compassion and food into his own home and Madras and never once tried to convert, impress, or alienate me. The man was simply pious.

This laid the foundation for my impressions of islamic Indonesia. While there are various issues with the sunni majority nation, I never had an unkind word, or injury, or danger to my person. All Indonesians treated me/us respectfully and with kindness. Indo may be shifting further toward the Shar'ia but it is not yet sharia. I know the Aceh sharia is spreading and intolerance is growing but Jamiah Islamiya had been there for some time seeding sharia. But still, it is not yet so disagreeable. IMO

[arjunadawn]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

He just stated that Bush Jr had announced it to be a holy war. He was communicating with heaven while walking in the garden trying to decide what to do.

Not sure if I missed the earlier context, if any, but lets consider this: Did bush really announce this was a holy war? Ok, he used the world "crusade;" seems pretty clear, right? But how is that clear evidence of anything when the general perceptive today is that the crusades themselves were acts of aggression, an unprovoked holy war. Of course, the crusades were no such thing. The crusades were a final response to many hundreds of years of nonstop murder, mayhem, butchery, slaughter, raids, ambushes, rape, slavery, and conquest. From Jerusalem to Europe proper, Islam launched a HOLY WAR upon everyone on earth even while the prophet lived. So, if the jihad djinnie left the bottle again 20 years or more ago and declared a holy war/jihad upon the west, and later Bush uses the term "crusade," why is the same incorrect, broken, fallacious standard used?

IMO, the choice of crusade was poor. I am not a christian and I dont give a rat's ass for fighting for god. But this is a holy war long before Bush opened his mouth, as equally as there was a holy war before the end of the 11th century. Lastly, a man taking a walk in the garden to ponder the stupendous is hardly evidence of incompetence, it is suggestive of humanity. (PS- I dont even like Bush).

Consider this:

http://www.politicalislam.com/jihad-lead-crusades/

[i claudius]

Sorry don't know about radical Islam but from what I see and have seen in the last 30 years or so we are being taken over by Islam full stop,or at least thats how it seems,