Heritage Foundation Panelist on Radical Islam.. She really makes some historical points !

I have to say the woman was very well spoken in the video and she made her case like a hot knife through butter. Follow the links for the video or just read the transcript.

"There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15-25% according to all intelligence services around the world.

"That leaves 75% of [Muslims being] peaceful people. But when you look at 15-25% of the world's Muslim population, you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States," said Gabriel.

"So why should we worry about the radical 15-25%? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre," Gabriel said.

"When you look throughout history, at the lessons of history, most Germans were peaceful. Yet the Nazis drove the agenda. And as a result, 60 million people died, almost 40 million in concentration camps. 6 million were Jews. The peaceful majority were irrelevant," Gabriel said.

cnsnews.com...

www.mrctv.org...

a reply to: 727Sky

The media needs to stop concentrating on ''but most are nice'' and calling anything that strays from that as ''racist''.

How many ''nice'' became ''radical', how many ''nice'' are potential fodder for ''radical'' and how many will turn that way.

Governments should call them out on it. Those of the ''nice'' persuasion should identify themselves and those that don't should be held under suspicion.

What is the criteria they used to determine if a Muslim is radical or not?

Seriously, I don't think that the population of radical Muslims is really that high.

Sure there are certainly those that want to destroy America. Hell, there's a lot of Americans that want to destroy America for the exact same reasons.

The adage 'One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel" comes to mind.
Society allows radical extremists to operate and grow in numbers. They have just as much right to spread hate and violence as others have to spread love and peace.
I think we all know which side is increasing the fastest.....

originally posted by: HauntWok
What is the criteria they used to determine if a Muslim is radical or not?

Seriously, I don't think that the population of radical Muslims is really that high.

Sure there are certainly those that want to destroy America. Hell, there's a lot of Americans that want to destroy America for the exact same reasons.

As in the text and the video she stated by the best guess of several security agencies the number is somewhere between 15 and 25%.. With 1.2 billion who profess to be Muslim if the actual number is only 10% (pick a number) that is still a number to consider. Like she said it is not the peaceful who stand by and do nothing that is the concern.

Anyway for me it was one of the best replies I have seen/read/ heard/ or even considered.

a reply to: HauntWok

The criteria for "radical" is believing that the death penalty for heresy and apostasy is morally just.

I bet that % is a lot higher than 15%.

So that makes the religion of peace, a direct threat to me. The measure of "good" is the extent that a person will confront and violate the rules of the "evil" meme. I's measured in actions, not words.

I see a lot of passives, but that isn't "good".

a reply to: 727Sky

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

This is a very long overdue declaration of facts and issues greatly needing more respect and appreciation of their reality and implications.

Most of the blather about this topic is off the wall irrelevant. Many of the blatherers will realize that--far too late--when the blade comes for their own necks.

Which part of 'the assumed meek and mild majority' are not driving the train' is so hard to understand?

And, in some countries, the percentage supporting violent jihad has been reliably surveyed to be 70%. In many countries, it was determined to be 20%.

The intel organizations may know the truth. I'm not convinced the globalists would have them tell the truth.

Stupidity and willful ignorance are not good survival habits.

"There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15-25% according to all intelligence services around the world.

Which "intelligence services" came up with that figure, MI6, CIA and MOSSAD?

ETA:

This figure appears to be extremely exaggerated IMO...

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: 727Sky

The media needs to stop concentrating on ''but most are nice'' and calling anything that strays from that as ''racist''.

How many ''nice'' became ''radical', how many ''nice'' are potential fodder for ''radical'' and how many will turn that way.

Governments should call them out on it. Those of the ''nice'' persuasion should identify themselves and those that don't should be held under suspicion.

How exactly lmao! Raise there hands and say "I'm a nice one" ?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: HauntWok

The criteria for "radical" is believing that the death penalty for heresy and apostasy is morally just.

I bet that % is a lot higher than 15%.

So that makes the religion of peace, a direct threat to me. The measure of "good" is the extent that a person will confront and violate the rules of the "evil" meme. I's measured in actions, not words.

I see a lot of passives, but that isn't "good".

Just for the record Christians are waiting on a jihad as well. Remember Armageddon and fighting (and killing) all the unbelievers at Jesus's side?

That 'innocent girl' was also not who she portends to be. Many were fooled by her 'soft voice', as the WAPO first wrote an article on this, the author proclaiming the girl was 'attacked'.

Obviously, no one at the WAPO fact checked Dana's article, and no Dana did not identify the poor, innocent, soft voiced muslim girl that he proclaimed was 'attacked' by the wicked GOP panel, either.

The truth, however, outs.

legalinsurrection.com...

www.politico.com...

www.aim.org...

And the best one of all:

www.frontpagemag.com...

And yes, Bridgette made excellent points.

Brigitte Gabriel is a known demagogue.



She is literally talking out of her aśś...

a reply to: HauntWok

I haven't tracked down the C2C show from years past but I remember it very clearly. There was an expert on Islam on.

Somewhere along the way, he asked a very high ranking Imam what percentage of the general Muslim population supported violent jihad--5?

NO!

10%?

NO!

What then?

"70%"

The world renowned expert on Islam did not believe his famous Imam source. He immediately called 12 OTHER HIGH RANKING FAMOUS IMAM'S AROUND THE WORLD. HE ASKED THEM THE SAME QUESTION.

EVERY last one of them said:

"70%"

The definition of "support violent jihad" included:

1. actively engage in violent acts in support of Sharia law and Islam.
2. provide safe-houses for those who engaged in violent acts and for their supporters.
3. provide funds for those who engaged in violent acts and for their supporters.
4. provide support, logistics, resources for those engaged in violent acts.


A year or so ago I searched for solid research on the topic. The best surveys of the whole Muslim world found that the percentage varied a lot with the country, region involved.

Some countries and regions were in the 70% range.

Most were in the 20% range and some in the middle.

So how do we explain the difference between the surveys and the 12 famous imams?

Some of the imams might have inflated the figures. Yet, why would they ALL say 70%?

Some of the surveys may have had methodological problems in this or that region due to cultural or other factors not taken well enough into account. This could have resulted in over estimations or under estimations.

My own assumption is that the imam's probably knew more about their people than the surveys were able to ferret out reliably.

Yet, the contrasting stats from the surveys deserve some respect, understanding and appreciation.

It's hard to know, therefore, where to draw the line.

The point has been made that 20% of 1.2 billion people is a LOT of folks out for

quite likely YOUR neck.

If it's some "split-the-difference" figure between 20% and 50% or so . . . then . . . it gets even more sobering.

DENIAL is not a good survival habit--as the Jews on the trains to the camps--STILL believing they were going to new jobs and a better life--found out.

Ask not for whom the bell/blade tolls, it may well toll for thee.

Deal with it . . .

sensibly, realistically, wisely.

I don't recall seeing the following issue mentioned much at all, much less discussed intelligently.

There's a huge number of folks in Islam who . . . while personally likely to be avoidant of the violent perspective . . .

They ARE, nevertheless, shown to be moderate to energetic supporters of the violent types OUT OF FEAR of being victims themselves.

That's got to be a huge percentage--at least a very significant percentage.

And when THEY give money, transportation, safe houses etc. to the violent ones . . . THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE VIOLENCE virtually as much as if they wholeheartedly supported it.

Their purported philosophical aversion to the violence doesn't do squat to protect ANYONE'S neck . . . except, perhaps, and maybe temporarily, their own.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Not so fast, hotshot.

There's a MAJOR, HUGE, OVERWHELMING DIFFERENCE.

IF Christ is who Christians believe He is,
THEN the issue is moot--HE'S THE BOSS--REGARDLESS of what you'd like to pontificate--HE'S THE BOSS, particularly at that point.

The point is that Christians will NOT BE STANDING AT CHRIST'S SIDE FIGHTING DEMONIC FORCES OR ANYONE ELSE

UNLESS CHRIST IS WHO HE SAYS HE IS.

Since you don't believe He is, your argument is more than a lot hollow and grossly disingenuous--to put it outrageously politely.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

Just for the record Christians are waiting on a jihad as well. Remember Armageddon and fighting (and killing) all the unbelievers at Jesus's side?

Shhhh, your not suppose to mention such things. Seriously, if we had a religious controlled government that ignored crimes based on religious beliefs, we would see a big increase of hate crimes against non christian religions and atheists in the USA.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Yeah, do me a favor, hang out in Detroit for a couple days, then hang out in Dearborn and tell me the difference.

If your theory is correct I shouldn't be able to post because I'd already be decapitated.

Reality shoots your theory full of holes.

40 million people in concentration camps? (and the 6 million figure again... right)

Well there goes credibility when you dont know neither history nor math.

a reply to: HauntWok

NOPE.

Not at all . . .

HISTORICALLY . . . as in the true history . . . the real history . . . vs the propaganda . . .

HISTORICALLY

Islam has avoided most unnecessary clashes with the culture they were engulfing and eradicating

UNTIL they had sufficient numbers to INSURE a decisive win and obliteration of the offending pagans and their culture.

Co-existence occurred on occasion--for a time--to a degree . . . certainly not always. And even with co-existence, there were real COSTS as well as abuse and humiliations of the then minority culture and its people.

Sooooooooooooo

Stay tuned . . . there will be blades aplenty, in due course . . .

Whether they are at the end of a Muslim arm of a globalist's overtly satan worshiping arm.

That much is certain. No doubt. The script is clear for this era.

In the Koran, it tells Muslims when they are weak to submit until they gain strength. And once they have strength they are to strike and convert others.

This is not a religion, but rather a political movement using religion as a cover.

It's time to put a boot on their neck...once again. That is the only thing they understand. Strength. Maybe they'll learn, eventually.

I don't like what I just posted, but it's the truth. And it must be done, at least until Islam wants to join the rest of us in the 21st century, rather than the 14th.