|Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 01:56 pm: |
11 September 2007
The United States has presented a new proposal for cooperation with Russia on a missile defense system in eastern Europe.
... Washington and Moscow have been at odds on the proposed system.
U.S. officials say a plan for placing 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar monitors in the Czech Republic is aimed at a possible attack by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
The missile interceptors are to intercept missiles from North Korea and Iran possibly fired at USA.
There is no point in wasting a 'missile interceptor' on a dummy missile or even a non-nuclear missile. The real benefit of a 'missile interceptor' is to stop a nuclear missile. It is natural to expect that the intercepted nuclear war head would explode in the sky at a very high altitude.
Does that cause any problem to any other nation?
A new report says a SCUD-type missile launched from a small ship 200 miles from the coast of the United States could unleash a nuclear-generated electromagnetic pulse over Washington, D.C., that would leave behind $771 billion in damage.
How would that happen? The nearest beach from Washington, DC is possibly the Slaughter Beach in Delaware at a distance of 103 miles. Let us add the 200 miles from the coast, to get 300 miles from Washington, DC to the location of the explosion by a SCUD missile.
If the intent is to cause maximum EMP damage, the nuclear warhead should be exploded as high as possible.
the good old SCUD-B, with range of 300 kilometers and potential vertical launch height of 150 kilometers, is the favorite example of basic texts on ballistic missiles.
Consider a right angled triangle with a base of 300 miles and a height of 150 kilometers. The angle of incidence of the EMP wave at Washington DC is 17.35 degrees.
What altitude does an intercontinental ballistic missile achieve? The range of an ICBM is thousands of miles and thus it could reach an altitude of at least 3000 miles. An explosion at an altitude of 3000 miles - corresponding to the interception of the nuclear warhead by the 'missile interceptor' would cover a hemisphere by its EMP wave.
Experts have predicted the EMP attack essentially would destroy any electronics within range of its impact, leaving technology comparable to that available in the 1800s.
EMP attacks are generated when a nuclear weapon is detonated anywhere from 10 miles above the Earth's surface to hundreds of miles. The explosion, of even a small nuclear warhead, would produce a set of electromagnetic pulses that interact with the Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field.
The study said the detonation would deliver a burst of energy to any metallic surface in direct line of the explosion, particularly those exceeding one meter in length.
"These metal objects act like antennae and conduct a surge of energy along their span," the study said.
"[Targets] include not only the obvious – computers and telephones – but also the electronic devices that are embedded in virtually every aspect of a productive economy," the study said, listing cars, power transmission lines, pipelines that deliver fuel, ATMs, heating and air conditioning systems and elevators.
Such a weapon would move so fast ordinary surge protectors would be useless, and the attack would leave communications, broadcast, computer, weapons, public safety and emergency response systems as well as automobiles, utilities, water lines and other essential services virtually useless.
IAN's chief executive officer, Chuck Manto, said EMP "appears to be one of the least expensive ways to disable mission critical infrastructure on a broad scale."
Are we right in concluding that any missile interception over Europe would destroy all the technology of Europe and reduce the standard of living in Europe to that of 18th century?
It looks like the shield that US desires to plant for its protection from missiles would indeed be the bullet that would kill the European society as it exists today.
Are we right?
|Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:16 am: |
Missile Y2K over Europe?
Mohideen brings up an interesting point. Would such a defense system be more damaging than the much feared Y2K? Had military strategists factored in the danger of such a weapon to modern technology, and is it an acceptable risk if true? Perhaps someone like Ed would know the answer to this.
One should consider that the inverse square law of energy would dilute such atomic power pulse over a large area rather quickly. At 10 miles over any surface of the Earth, the resulting pulse is reduced by the square of the distance, so it would only register as 100th the strength for this distance directly overhead, and less with distance from ground zero. The cone area of destruction might actually be fairly small, if so, so that only a few miles radius would be affected, not all of Europe, for example. However, not being a military strategist, I am ill qualified to judge whether or not this is a viable deterrence to war, or an adequate defense shield against any belligerent state, such as Iran for example. Would this missile shield fire over Europe, or over installations in Iran, if there is war? Strategists would know. Of course, Y2K never happened. One could hope neither will this.
Thanks for this valuable info, Mohideen.
|Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 09:39 am: |
Of course, Y2K never happened.
Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:16 am: Ivan
However the risk was real as most of the computers used 2 digits for the year and thus COBOL programs ran the risk of rejecting new transactions in year 2000 and later. The industry persuaded the government to increase the number of H1Bs and recruited large number of programmers who helped avoid that Y2K catastrophe.
The square law operates for light. Does it work for gravity? You have shown that the coefficient of gravity is not a constant. Could you check whether the square law operates using your equations?
|Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:36 pm: |
Does a tsunami obey the inverse square law?
|Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 12:19 am: |
Inverse square law is for energy only, and gravity.
Wiki's (interactive) inverse-square law
Mohideen, the inverse square law applies to all electromagnetic energy, and gravity according to Newton, which is true. Within each orbital location at a distance from the Sun, the inverse square law is the same, including gravity from the Sun's gravity for the planets. Therefore, at each orbital location the inverse square law also applies to all bodies there. My equation says only that the Newton's gravitational ratio G is different at each orbital location, but this does not invalidate the inverse square law. If the mass is the same as we calculated, though G is different, the inverse square law, which is purely geometric, still applies as before. This is why we had never been able to ascertain it not working, strange as it may seem (in a variable G universe).
The square law operates for light. Does it work for gravity? You have shown that the coefficient of gravity is not a constant. Could you check whether the square law operates using your equations?
About nuclear blasts releasing powerful electromagnetic waves, the inverse square law fully applies, which is why I suspect the authors of the articles you mentioned may be 'blowing smoke'. I wouldn't worry too much about the 'end of civilization' if one of these detonates over Iran's nuclear facilities, rather the other way around!
About tsunamis, the destructive wave spreads out per inverse square with distance, but the force of the wave's volume of water upon arrival determines its impact. Some tsunamis raise the local water level and then recede, others break into a massive wave on the topography of the shore, so they rear up with intense destructive force. A lot has to do with the continental shelf or reef and volume of water involved.
|Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 01:22 pm: |
About nuclear blasts releasing powerful electromagnetic waves, the inverse square law fully applies, which is why I suspect the authors of the articles you mentioned may be 'blowing smoke'.
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 12:19 am: Ivan/inverse square
With a slight modification of the existing cruise missiles, it is possible that interception of such a missile over Europe could destroy all civilization in about 5 countries the size of Germany. Thus Missile Defense might cause more damage than the missile itself.
Because the destruction of such a missile causes damage to them the Europeans would not attempt to intercept such a missile over their land. Details follow.
How high can a Tomahawk missile cruise?
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range: Block II TLAM-A - 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Warhead: Block II TLAM-N - W80 nuclear warhead
The altitude is not given in the above web page. We get that information from the following:
It was designed by MKB Raduga, partially in response to U.S. cruise missiles in the same class (particularly the BGM-109 Tomahawk and AGM-86 missiles).
• Length: 6.04 m (19 ft 7 in)
• Width: 0.77 m
• Diameter: 514 mm (20.24 in)
• Wingspan: 3.10 m (10 ft 1 in)
• Launch weight: 1185 kg
• Warhead: 200 kt nuclear
• Guidance: inertial with Doppler radar/terrain map updates
• Maximum speed: 720..830 km/h, approximately Mach 0.77
• Range: 3,000 km (1,860 mi) (Kh-55: 2500 km)
• Accuracy (CEP): unknown
• Launch altitude: 200 m .. 10 km
We assume that the Tomahawk also has the altitude of 200m to 10 km. The wing span of the Tomahawk at 2.67 meters supports the weight of 3,500 pounds at an altitude of 10 km.
What happens if the wing span is increased to 5.34 meters? Assuming the longer wing has the same shape, the wing area is 4 times now. This wing of 4 times size of the original wing could support 14,000 pounds at an altitude of 10 km. Could we increase the altitude by keeping the weight constant?
Altitude and weather systems can change the air's pressure. As you go higher, the air's pressure decreases from around 1,000 millibars at sea level to 500 millibars at around 18,000 feet. At 100,000 feet above sea level the air's pressure is only about 10 millibars. Weather systems that bring higher or lower air pressure also affect the air's density, but not nearly as much as altitude.
From the above values we get the following equation:
P = 0.21802 x 10-6 x H**2 – 0.0317 H + 1000 where P is in millibars and H is in feet. For a height of 10 km the pressure is 194.6554 millibars.
From the lift equation, we see that the lift of a wing is directly proportional to the air density.
Since the lift is directly proportional to the area of the wing also, a Tomahawk with a wing span of 5.34 meters would maintain its altitude at a pressure of 48.66385 mb. From the quadratic equation, we find the corresponding height to be 170,928 feet or 52.1 km.
What happens if a modified Tomahawk with a nuclear warhead cruising at an altitude of 52.1 km is intercepted over Europe?
The peak electric field at ground level for different explosions at different altitudes are given in the first figure in http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html There is a curve for an altitude of 60 km with a field strength of about 40,000 volts/ meter for a 100 kiloton device.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electromagnetic_pulse we find that the EMP area for a burst at an altitude of 30 miles has a radius of 480 miles corresponding to an area of 723,823 square miles.
From https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html we get the total area of Germany is 357,021 square km or 137,846 square miles. In other words, a slight modification of existing Tomahawk missiles would cause the destruction of civilization in about 5 European nations as large as Germany.
Do we really feel it is safe to install Missile Defense Systems to shoot down missiles while they fly over Europe but aimed at USA?
|Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 02:01 pm: |
Scare-mongering on EMP?
This article claims the EMP threat is exaggerated to promote a missile defense system.
The members of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (EMP Commission) have impressive credentials, yet they are also deeply tangled up with pro-missile defense organizations and the defense industry. Given their conflicts of interest and the controversial assumptions behind their report, questions about their credibility arise. Is the EMP Commission's scenario realistic or is it scare mongering to rally support for a pro-missile defense agenda?
I do not doubt EMP can cause serious electrical disruptions over a given area, but the idea all of a nation, or several nations, would be incapacitated and rendered inoperative for long periods of time is unproven. Tests show there is serious damage locally, but not widespread as some 'scare mongers' would have us believe. The article also states:
But don't believe every thing posted on the net.
Perhaps the most controversial of the EMP Commission's claims is their insistence that a Hiroshima-sized nuclear detonation (10-20 kilotons) could produce enough EMP to fry circuits across a continent. The EMP Commission points to one of the few case studies available -- the Starfish Prime atmospheric nuclear test of 1962. A 1.4 megaton thermonuclear weapon detonated 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific affected street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations in Hawaiian, 800 miles to the north. Still, even there the effect was far from comprehensive. Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist Michael P. Bernardin said that "the 30 strings of failed streetlights [from Starfish Prime's EMP] represented only about one percent of the streetlamps on Oahu at the time." And noted physicist Richard Garwin said the Starfish detonation "had barely noticeable effects on military systems."
This EMP weapon is as of yet not perfected enough to be used by our military, nor likely to be of threat from any 'terrorist' organizations. Can it happen in the future? Of course, all things are possible in the future. But it is not a likely threat to civilization at this time. More pressing issues abound, like containing and eliminating Extremist threats to our way of life. Scare mongering, or EMP alarmist paranoia, is not that productive unless it is proven to be a real threat. A well targeted EMP placed over a threatening enemy installation is a good deterrent, if it can be done.
(BTW, the above "Do we really feel it is safe to install Missile Defense Systems to shoot down missiles while they fly over Europe but aimed at USA?" assumes a nuclear response. That may not be the case, however, since conventional warheads can do the trick.)
|Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 08:46 pm: |
Would a Faraday cage prevent most damage from E-bombs, except direct hits?
Faraday cage (interactive)
In Wiki's Electromagnetic bomb it says:
The Faraday cage is described as:
To protect sensitive electronics, a Faraday cage must be placed around the item. Some makeshift Faraday cages have been suggested, such as aluminium or aluminum foil.
A Faraday cage or Faraday shield is an enclosure formed by conducting material, or by a mesh of such material. Such an enclosure blocks out external static electrical fields. ... An external static electrical field will cause the electrical charges within the conducting material to redistribute themselves so as to cancel the field's effects in the cage's interior. This effect is used, for example, to protect electronic equipment from lightning strikes and other electrostatic discharges.
Could this simple 'screening' device be sufficient for most areas in danger of experiencing EMP within the battlefield area? Faraday cages already exist, such as when your cell phone loses its signal inside an elevator (which happens a lot in my building! ... hello, hello?... I lost him). Such a device is about as easy to install as a lightening rod over a building, so all sensitive equipment is screened in. Should this weapon become a serious real threat in the future, the response is fairly straightforward, except in its highest intensity, and even then. Note in the illustration below how 'pre-ionisation' can in some cases 'short out' part of the final EMP, which in effect creates its own Compton current electron 'Faraday cage' if true. (This illustration graph is for Ground Zero only)
How the peak EMP on the ground varies with the weapon yield and burst altitude. Note that the yield here is the prompt gamma ray output measured in kilotons. This varies from 0.115–0.5% of the total weapon yield, depending on weapon design. The 1.4 Mt total yield 1962 Starfish Prime test had an output of 0.1%, hence 1.4 kt of prompt gamma rays. (The blue 'pre-ionisation' curve applies to certain types of thermonuclear weapon, where gamma and x-rays from the primary fission stage ionise the atmosphere and make it electrically conductive before the main pulse from the thermonuclear stage. The pre-ionisation in some situations can literally short out part of the final EMP, by allowing a conduction current to immediately oppose the Compton current of electrons.)
The electric field strength, per EMP, does not fall off per inverse square law, but is a simple 'inverse linear' relationship for the circle area affected. However, I do not believe this is true for any one point of reception within that circle, but merely how the whole circle area registers this pulse in toto. In effect, each one point of the target area would still receive per inverse square law a very small charge, though summating these into a large area acts 'as if' it were linear. Perhaps I'm wrong in how I read this, but this is what makes sense. Further testing of such a weapon would need to be done, preferably away from populated areas. Could such a smaller non-nuclear EMP weapon be used on 'terrorists' when they are making or transporting improvised bombs? It could be an effective weapon to stop such bombings, except it would automatically detonate the bombers about to hurt others. Could that be a deterrence?
Thanks, Mohideen, for educating us about this possible future threat. I don't think I'll lose sleep over this for now, though I appreciate learning about it just the same.
|Posted on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 06:19 pm: |
In effect, each one point of the target area would still receive per inverse square law a very small charge, though summating these into a large area acts 'as if' it were linear.
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 08:46 pm: Ivan/ pulse
The inverse square law applies for power. Voltage squared gives power. Thus the field expressed as voltage/meter varies inverse linear. The actual power depends on the current induced by the electric field.
|Posted on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 12:08 am: |
This article claims the EMP threat is exaggerated to promote a missile defense system.
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 02:01 pm: Ivan
Let me quote from the article first.
A congressionally-mandated commission last summer went public with their unclassified executive summary that envisions terrorists detonating a nuclear warhead above the continental United States, unleashing an EMP of catastrophic proportions and thrusting our 21st century information society into darkness. Their report's main recommendation is to spend anywhere from $20-200 billion in the next twenty years to "harden" America's critical infrastructure (e.g. the power industry, telecommunications) from EMP.
Another one of their recommendations is that the United States should "have vigorous interdiction and interception efforts to thwart delivery." Acting Commission Chairman physicist Lowell Wood confirmed that the recommendation included a national missile defense. As the Commission argues, one missile could shut-down the entire United States, which is a powerful argument for missile defense.
We have no problem with spending 20 - 200 billion dollars in hardening the infrastructure inside USA. The protection considered needs to absorb substantial amounts of energy due to an EMP attack. It is our conjecture that the protection would be degraded just after an EMP attack. If the enemy is capable of mounting an EMP attack, he/ she is equally capable of mounting two EMP attacks in quick succession. There would be insufficient defense against the second attack. So an EMP attack is asymmetric the benefit going to the enemy.
Any missile defense should overcome conceivable future weapons and not just existing weapons. The modified Tomahawk missile discussed in my post at 1:22 pm on September 15, 2007 clearly establishes that the interception causes an EMP attack. Thus the contemplated missile defense makes the matters worse.
The saner course of action is to eliminate conflicts. If conflicts could not be eliminated, then we should use diplomacy alone and thus there would be no opportunity for weapon based violence.
|Posted on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 01:23 am: |
What if the enemy is 'religiously' insane?
The saner course of action is to eliminate conflicts. If conflicts could not be eliminated, then we should use diplomacy alone and thus there would be no opportunity for weapon based violence.
Negotiations work if the opponent is willing to come half way in good faith. But if the enemy believes 'war is deceit' then this is deceit from the start. No negotations can work at any level then.
France warning of war with Iran
A show of force is the better deterrent in that case. France has the right idea. Such is stopping coercion, with coercion. Better to deter them with force than negotiations, when faced with an insanely extremist, deceitful enemy.
Though Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, we don't believe their 'deceitful' lies. What negotiations are possible then? Iran with its many threats to America and Israel, multiple hostage takings, and constant evasiveness, has done it to itself. There is no pity here.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.
Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".
War, or threat of war, is the better deterrent when faced with deceit, or religious extremist insanity.
|Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 07:54 pm: |
Longitudinal waves, like tsunamis.
Posted by Mohideen, September 14, 2007.
Does a tsunami obey the inverse square law?
It seems that 'pressure' waves act differently from inverse square law, which is more like a tsunami. Here are a couple of illustrations:
Plane pressure wave, propagation of longitudinal wave.
These examples are more in line with 'pressure' waves from any nuclear explosion, in how the air molecules would be effected with devastating force. However, the electromagnetic waves would still obey the inverse-square law, where they would be very weak on a point, but inverse linear over a given cone area. What makes these e.m. waves devastating to electrical systems, if unprotected, is they gather up along the surface, or length of wire, to create a wave surge.
Nevertheless, as a tsunami is a complex pressure wave, it does not have to obey the inverse square rule, since the volume of water is carried by the pressure wave, or more akin to a seismic P-wave. This would apply to EMP's blast as well, but not the devastating electrical signal received, which would be inverse squared with distance.
|Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 03:06 am: |
Pope in 'freedom' blast at Islam
Pope Benedict XVI, defending religious liberty
Here we go again... Pope rage II all over the Muslims world? Benedict said, in quotes:
Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in "defence of religious liberty", which, he said "is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right".
In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."
Let's see how this is received in that other part of the world where religious freedom is anathema. Christian suffer persecution in Egypt, Iran, Gaza, Pakistan, even Turkey and Lebanon, where their numbers are declining precipitously, especially Iraq.
|Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:32 am: |
Phrase in Arabic is “lan astaslem.” It means “I will not surrender/I will not submit.”
Never submit to terrorism! Never submit is our shield - lan astaslem.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 11:03 pm: |
Are Bin Laden and Taleban-Hamas-Hezbollah extremists losing their grip? -- the two faces of Islam.
Hamas women in Gaza
This may be asked of all 'extremism', that organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda are all losing their grip, at least in the western mind. It may still sway people in the Islamic world, gratis of the imams and mullahs who keep firing up extremism, but people of the West are catching on. It no longer works here. The religion is being disentangled from the politics, and as more and more people study the Quran and Hadiths, a better understanding of the supremacist confrontational psychology of extremist Islam is surfacing. We are catching on.
In Raymond Ibrahim's article, "The Two Faces of Al Qaeda", there is a stark revelation of the inside workings of this sinister organization dedicated to 'religious' world conquest. The internet is making much more information available to everyone, which is also used by the enemy, but works against them in understanding where they aim to deceive. The author says:
Numerous Arabic books dealing with Al Qaeda passed through my hands in this privileged position. A good number contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.
It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."
So there are two faces to Al Qaeda's propaganda, one reserved for the West, which is vitriolic, and another reserved for the Muslim world, which is theocratic. Both have a specific end, to extend their power, but neither side is able to talk to the other intelligently because they are being fed different lines. So communications become impossible. We are portrayed as devils and 'crusaders' while over there they are being quoted (violent) scripture to advance their cause. This is a clear case of deceitful propaganda, and no dialogue is possible under such circumstances.
These are far from religious debates, but in that tangled web of extremist Islam, it takes on the airs of religion while it is not religion but power politics, how to control the Hamas-Hezbollah-Al Qaeda sympathizing masses. However, cracks are beginning to form. Bin Laden was laughed at in his last video with the phony beard, and it is becoming doubtful that he can exert enough influence to effect change in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, nor in other countries. Ahmadenijad's speech at the UN was met with derision, and his speech at Columbia University became a joke. "No homosexuals in Iran?" became the laugh of the whole event. So people are beginning to get wise to this, that we are being lied to in the name of religion, but it is not religion at all, but power politics. And that war will result from this, as is likely, is indeed a terrible tragedy over which we have no real control, except to challenge the lies and ridicule them when found. Or as the Iranian threat matures, regardless of what they say, we no longer believe the "nuclear case is closed". To the contrary, this opens it up even more. We are prying more closely into all the things they say with greater skepticism than ever before. So hostile talk such as Bin Laden's:
This is how it is being telecast into the Islamic world, but not into the West. But this is being blunted by our knowing of this, so it is beginning to roll off like water off a duck's back. It has no effect. His double-talk 'kindness' is unrequited. It is not mercy or kindness to threaten us. (All that "their abode is hell" stuff is just superstitious nonsense.)
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.
The way to combat this 'double speak' threat from Extremist Islam is not to debate the Quaranic or Hadithic texts, such as Quran 33:60-61 (which may or may not be interpreted correctly by adherents to the faith, same as earlier 8:12), but rather to treat the effects of these teachings as they affect us. If we were fighting a crime syndicate, or drug cartel, we have many lawful tools to do so. But because the Extremists hide under a cloak of religious 'invisibility' we tend to tread lightly and keep off their turf. But this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. Not to debate their scriptural texts, admittedly some of which are hostile to us and surreal, but to attack them as if they were another crime syndicate, but this time it is a cult-like militant-religious syndicate that wishes us harm. The Holy Land Foundation trials is already a good start, but this must be done world wide, looking into all the texts of their internet, publications, and Friday sermons at the mosque for threats to our freedoms and human rights. Where are they breaking the law? And then use the law to chase them and close them down. That is more like fighting the 'syndicate' but these are not mafioso families but world wide extremist movement to undo our laws and freedoms. Of course, this is not allowed, by law.
So it appears that the movement of this world wide enslavement for their evil interpretations of the words of their Prophet, and Allah, is not gaining strength, once we uncover what they say, but is losing strength. Even that shop worn line of Islam being a "religion of peace" has worn thin, because the adherents have shown little condemnation for Islamic evil actions of violence and threats to our freedoms. So it is on this front, in addition to police actions when these threats are uncovered (which we had been doing exceptionally well recently) we also need to get inside their establishments, inside their heads, to counter act their hostile activities. I think we already are doing this, undercover, and thus neutralize much of their evil intents against the free world. Their goal is to enslave us to their misguided and coercive interpretations of their religious texts, for Sharia world conquest, and we will not allow it. If the Prophet had said "kill him", this is not our concern. But when they apply this Quranic scripture to overthrow our constitutional laws and governments, then it is our problem. Sedition, treason, the overthrow of our constitutional government, whether or not they agree, is against the law and punishable by law. Once we do this, punish them full force, they will lose their grip entirely. And that is the first step towards universal human freedom, the end of slavery, and equality for all human beings of the planet by the rule of law. We have an obligation to use their words against them, and close down the Islamic extremist jihadi syndicates, and we will use the Law to do this. This we must do if the world is to know Peace.
This Investor's Business Daily article supports this as well, and it means people are beginning to see through the lies: "The Islamist Head Fake", Sept. 28, 2007. Their deceits are showing through their burkas.
See also: False equivalence between Christianity and Islam
|Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 12:47 am: |
The power of Freedom - the truth is very simple.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.
In Habeas Mentem, Ch. 10, I wrote more than two decades ago:
A person in agreement with another is two; a third is needed to form a society. Each person in agreement with another forms a social bond that is beneficial to each party involved in this agreement. In this manner, agreements between individuals would never cause social friction, if they never had the power to affect a third that is not part of that agreement. The fact that an agreement between two persons can affect a third is the basis on which are founded nearly all laws that regulate human behavior. It is the ability of an agreement to trespass on others that can limit our right to freedom, which can then limit our right to seek agreement.
Therefore, what is the permissible level of trespass by a group against an individual? Because the group is a voluntary association formed for its own benefit and defined by that group's laws, the individual must accept the agreements as they are defined by that law provided they do not consciously force the individual from pursuing his or her identity as dictated by their conscience, by their happiness. In other words, should the resulting trespass of the group against the individual, be such that it forces the individual to willfully break the law in the face of that law's punishment for disobedience, then that individual is taking a conscious act of opposition to the social agreement.
This is the simplicity of the Law of Agreement. Each one of us has an inalienable right to freedom, provided we do not trespass on the freedom of another, as a basic principle. I also wrote, Ch. 7:
A social order can be based on a tyranny, where the society is organized for the benefit of one individual or group and where subjects of this society are ruled through coercion and fear of coercion. Or, a social order can be based on liberty, where individuals are free to seek agreement among themselves and are protected from trespass against these agreements by the social order. The former is a government of disagreement and needs force to keep its subjects in submission. The latter uses force only to enforce its social contract that, through its laws, agreements between individuals be protected. One is government by force, the other is by contract. One seeks to dominate the individual; the other is to set him or her free.
This is the crux of our freedom, that we are free to be 'Who we are' as long as we do not deny this freedom for others. This is how the universe works, and why free societies are so successful, while coercive tyrannies are such failures at every level. Look at those theocratically coercive tyrannies. Which one is successful, at any level? Then look at those societies that protect the individual from coercions, from tyranny, and which are more successful, at any level? There is the answer: Freedom is more powerful than any theocratic tyranny as a rule of human behaviors. No matter what their prophecies or prophets may say, or claim to 'speak for God', their world is a failure next to Freedom. In that same Ch. 7, I also said:
We are free to seek agreements with our minds, both with our reality and the reality of others; in disagreement, we are protected from trespass by Habeas Mentem. A society that incorporates in its laws this principle recognizes the greater universal value of the individual within his or her mind, conscious, and desirous of his or her freedom. Thus, it is a society that protects that individual from coercion. To force a person against his or her conscience, against the dictates of the mind, is to force that individual to act in a way that is contrary to that person's definition in his or her identity. In a free society, each individual is free to seek his or her consciousness as dictated by his or her conscience. Provided that seeking does not trespass on the reality of another, provided that it does not go against another's agreement, then to seek to become the self in reality is an inalienable freedom wholly safeguarded by the principle of Habeas Mentem.
That's about all that needs be said. We who are free live our definition in reality from our universe. But this can only work in a world where human beings interact in ways truthful and honorable to each other. Lies have no place in this new world of freedom, in how the universe manifests for us our reality of Who we are. This is why we America, "We the People", are so great. Our First Amendement is just this, the part Muslim society does not understand: "freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society." No theocratic power can ever undo this power of Freedom. This is Who we are.
Understand that each human being, man or woman, or child, is a sacred object in the Living Universe, connected in ways to that universe we still cannot understand, but each one is a value of a living being greater than any man-made laws, something truly marvelous in all of existence. Worship that being for what it is, because each human being who is not coercing others is truly something miraculous and wonderful. For this we must Love one another. It is how the universe is structured, in freedom. This simple truth is true for all humanity.
|Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:24 am: |
1400 years of primitive thinking must be undone to keep the 7th century out of the 21st. I wish it weren't so.
Not my words.
|Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 09:56 am: |
Police seize 'world jihad' team
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Six suspected Islamic militants were Wednesday arrested in northern Spain on suspicion of using the Internet to recruit for and plot a 'world jihad,' a Ministry of Interior statement said.
The arrests came in Burgos province, a few hours' drive north of Madrid.
The six, allegedly linked to international Islamic terrorist activity, were seized in an operation involving U.S., Danish and Swedish intelligence agencies, the statement said.
"A large part of the activity was carried out on restricted Internet 'chats' and forums, which shows that the cell arrested was the first one detected and dismantled in Spain that promoted 'world jihad' through the Internet," the statement said.
Note how the drag net is involving police action by many countries cooperating in unison. This is how Extremist Jihad will be fought, in cooperation with all law enforcement agencies world wide. Is it 'discriminatory' to catch and round up criminal groups belonging to a particular religious belief? Is it 'racist' that most come from North Africa? No. Criminals are criminals who come in all stripes. Religious criminals are no exception. The biggest crime, however, in these present times of religious danger is 'catch and release'.
And we are patient with catching those 'religious' criminals who misunderstand God's unconditional Love for all humanity equally.
As in Qur'an:
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 8:65]
[From] now, God has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is now weakness amongst you: But [ever so], if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred, and if a thousand, they will subdue two thousand, with the leave of God: for God is with those who patiently persevere.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 8:66]
|Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 06:38 pm: |
Oh, so many targets, what to hit next?
Happy turkey shoot! Go America! Let them die for their Allah.
|Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 09:49 pm: |
Islam-moh-phobia is spreading- the people had enough.
It will get worse, until Islam-extremism is put down like a sick animal.
|Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 02:42 pm: |
Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan
Who says Muslims cant be technological innovators?
I wonder if the car stops automatically when it is time for calls to prayer?
|Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 09:09 am: |
Kosovo Independence, what will it look like?
It's hard to know really, since the UN forces had been 'administrating' this sector of Serbia for 10 years, and the results are unclear as to where Kosovo wants to go. Will it become more like Taiwan, or more like Gaza? What motivates the actors on its primary stage? Here is a quick analysis by BBC correspondent who went there:
Kosovo's long-lasting legacy of war
Kosovo's independence will come up for a vote, what will they choose? What will be their policies? Who will take out the garbage?
As with so many conflicts, including the long-running one with the Palestinians in the Middle East, his comfort zone is within land and historical legends, not clearing rubbish and good governance.
He believes the UN will respond to his threat of violence by rewriting its resolutions and that his own mainstream politicians, and the US and Europe, will support his campaign for independence.
I find the encounter deeply depressing.
Albanian armed groups ready for violence.
|Posted on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 03:34 pm: |
A state within a state? This is what happens when you allow it:
Lebanon's Parliament building, with guns
Lebanon in 'emergency' confusion
A spokesman for Mr Siniora told AFP news agency: "The statement issued by the general directorate of the president of the republic is not valid and is unconstitutional. It is as if the statement was never issued."
Our correspondent says this appears to be the ultimate political limbo, with the rival parties even in disagreement over whether a state of emergency exists.
Good luck Lebanon. You let the enemy within the gates, and now what? Is the rest of the world, especially Europe, paying attention? This is what it looks like when the government issue remains unresolved. You cannot have two governments within one country, it simply cannot work. There can only be one head of state supported by a constitutional process of law, interpreted by a judiciary, checked or modified by a legislature, and enforced by the military. But to have two parties so opposed that they do not respect on another, who war on each other, and who have the duplicit involvement of a foreign government (Syria), means you have a perpetual internal state of war. It does not work. If Lebanon was smart, it would get rid of those who support Hezbollah and its Syrian masters. But they let it go too far, once again asleep as to the future they were creating themselves, and this is the pay back. Good luck Lebanon, nice country, nice people (Christians dropped from 85% to 40% in past half century), sad the 'Paris of the Mediterranean' has to go the way of Somalia.
Ivan/Man vs Jihad
|Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 10:57 am: |
Jihad and Sharia versus 'men made laws'.
National Guard told: study jihadists
From National Guard site posted on JihadWatch:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (11/20/2007) - Understanding the Jihadist challenge to the West is crucial for National Guard members who defend the homeland and wage the warfight abroad.
According to Finney:
Jihadists are a very small, fanatical Muslim minority who seek to violently overthrow the international system and replace it with an Islamic state.
In their view, the word “jihad” means fighting as in warfare; other Muslims define the term as an internal struggle to please God. Jihadists believe they must fight not only non-Muslims but also the Muslim majority, which they view as apostate, to impose their extremist vision on the world.
Among Jihadist beliefs:
- Islam is the one, true faith and will dominate the world; Muslims are in conflict with unbelievers.
- Only God can make laws, not man. Government must be by strict interpretation of Islamic law called Shari’a.
- The Quran and traditions about Mohammed’s life called the hadith contain the whole truth for determining a proper life for individuals and society at large.
This is the essence of what we all must understand, the general public right down to the grade school teacher, and up to academe intellectuals, as well as our leaders in government, that the threat facing modern free society is from a cultish belief that 'God's law' dominates over men's laws they formed through social agreements. These two diametrically opposed philosophies of human existence through cooperation must be resolved this century, because the two systems cannot coexist side by side. Men's laws start with the basic premise that each individual is a valuable entity in his or her own right, under God and how reality is structured for all existence, and that no man made ideology may abrogate this basic premise. By contrast, those who believe we must obey 'God's law' have no such premise of the individual, but work from a tribal perspective that all must obey one master, which in this case is a prophet's ideology of what 'God' allegedly told him, so all must obey collectively all he said. This idea is a supremacist one, which then instructs its cult members to either influence or physically subdue all other individuals who are not in agreement with this prophet's mandate of subduing the world for his 'God', as he allegedly was told to do. Therein lies their Quran, and therefore its mandatory Jihad against all the peoples of the world. We of the free world reject such a mandate, as we must, if we are to preserve the basic premise that each individual is born equally free before God and the universe. There is no resolution of coexistence between these two diametrically opposed philosophies, one of the 7th century beliefs steeped in various superstitions, and the other of the 21st century supported by modern societal laws, where we are innocent until proven guilty, and a scientific process of proofs, which demands we understand reality on its own terms, and not per our a priori stated beliefs. We of the West dropped this 'belief based' system in favor of a 'reality based' system from the Renaissance to the present. Therefore these two systems, one antiquated and primitive, and the other current and modern, of necessity must clash.
How are Jihadists a danger to our modern values and society?
And how do those propositions differ from traditional Muslim beliefs?
Jihadist ideologues from Sayyid Qutb to Osama Bin Laden have framed the West as Islam’s mortal enemy, call democracy a false religion and advocate expelling U.S. influence from the Arabian Peninsula and Mid East, removing secular governments, eliminating Israel, purging Jewish and Christian influence and establishing a new Caliphate or Muslim empire.
The key to countering the Jihadists lies is directly confronting and defeating their ideology, Finney said. This means understanding the basis of the Jihadist worldview and developing an effective response that demonstrates the falseness of the Jihadist message of exclusivity, hatred and violence.
A democratic form of government, culturally Islamic and built from within Islamic societies, is the most effective antidote to the Jihadist argument, he stated. Thus, Guardmembers should have at least a basic familiarity with Jihadism and a good grasp of how democratic institutions and values, adjusted to incorporate Islamic practices and beliefs, are the most effective counterpoint to Jihadist ideology, Finney indicated.
While militant Islamism isn’t new – clashes with the modernizing West date back at least to the 18th century. Jihadism is a particularly serious challenge because of its cult of suicide bombers, extensive financing, skilled manipulation of the media and the Internet and potential access to weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, "militant Islamism" dates back to much earlier than the 18th century. Finney might be surprised to discover that "militant Islamists" believing in exactly those same three point above swept out of Arabia beginning in the seventh century and conquered large swatches of Asia, Africa and Europe. Even then the distinction between them and "traditional Muslims" was hard to pinpoint.
To call the West's freedom and democracy "a false religion" is the Jihadists greatest misunderstanding of what religion means, since these are political ideas and not religious ones. We believe in religious freedom, which means every individual, man or woman equally, has the right to belief in God, or spirituality, or their church and temple, or mosque, as a community of believers who share an idea of what God is, and how that ideal applies to them personally. We, however, do not believe any person has then the right to force their personal ideal on others, since this then politicizes religion into a power structure. Our freedoms cannot be subordinated to any ideology that takes those freedoms away, whereby religious freedom of believe is supported by our ideology of freedom, provided that belief is a personal matter between the person and their God. There is no mandatory monopoly of any one person's belief to be imposed on others, if the basic premise that each individual equally is valid before God, and not to be coerced against their will by others. Therein is the most massive difference between what Jihadists believe and what we believe. Because Jihadists are inherently coercive of our rights of freedom and belief, they must be stopped, subdued, and ultimately totally discredited so they can no longer operate as a force of control in this world, and no longer able to sway minds to their cult of power over everyone else. Jihad must be subdued. The Guard is taking but one small step, by understanding it, but much more needs to be done at all levels of society to decommission this evil cult which hates and fears our freedoms.
Regardless of whether this 7th century cult is supported by a tiny minority or by a vast majority, Sharia and Jihad must never be allowed to exist further in this world. Let them fetish over their prophet in the next. But freedom must rule all of the world's humanity here. Religion is between them and God, in their hearts, and not a belief system to subdue our freedoms. Religion is a personal faith, not a political one. Freedom is universal, and it cannot be abrogated by any religious political cult. We this century have an obligation to all future generations to conquer this primitive madness, and preserve their freedoms.
|Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 11:17 pm: |
The Real history of Islam?
(interactive) It's not what it appears to be
from commentary discussions in above post: The Myth of Mecca - Jack Wheeler
Freedom Research Foundation
Monday, Sept. 24, 2001
While there may well have been a historical individual named Ubu'l Kassim who was later entitled Mohammed ("The Praised One"), who raised followers and participated in the initiation of the Arab Conquest, he likely came from northeast Arabia in what is now southern Jordan. The deity that Ubu'l Kassim chose to follow was Allah, a contraction of al-Lah, the ancient Arab God of the Moon [note: which is why the symbol of Islam to this day is the crescent moon]. Ubu'l Kassim died, however, some years before the Arab Conquest was fully under way (the traditional date is 632). Al-Rawandi summarizes what then happened:
Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer – a Prophet – whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation. Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab … an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact. An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. (p.104)
Al-Rawandi concludes that the Sira, the life of Mohammed in Mecca and Medina, is a myth, a "baseless fiction." This is the conclusion of a substantial number of serious academic historians working in Islamic studies today. They include Mohammed Ibn al-Warraq, Mohammed Ibn al-Rawandi, John Wansbrough, Kenneth Cragg, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, John Burton, Andrew Rippin, Julian Baldick, Gerald Hawting, and Suliman Bashear. Yet they and their research are virtually unknown.
Not any longer. In committing The Atrocity of September 11, Islamic terrorists did far more damage to their religion than to New York City or the Pentagon. As U.S. Special Forces teams hunt them down and put them to death, they and all the bin Ladens of the Moslem terrorism network should know that the world is soon to learn about the Myth of Mecca.
We don't know about the Myth of Mecca because we are afraid to. We, Americans and Westerners and participants of civilization, have been intimidated and frightened into examining the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death.
Well, if there is one thing that we must learn from The Atrocity is that we cannot, we dare not, be afraid any longer. The Atrocity was committed exclusively by Moslems in the name of Islam. True enough, President Bush, in his magnificent speech to Congress, said their actions blaspheme and insult Islam.
But throughout the Arab world, from cafes in Beirut and Cairo to the streets of Nablus and Gaza, people laughed and celebrated their religion's slaughter of thousands of Americans. So we should feel no need to refrain from exposing that this slaughter was committed in the name of a make-believe myth.
The Moslem terrorists who committed The Atrocity have put all of their fellow Moslems on the defensive. We see full-page ads in newspapers taken out by Moslem governments and Moslem organizations, expressing their sympathy and condolences. These are welcomed and their sincerity need not be questioned.
But words are not enough. Actions are what count. What is required of Arab-Americans is not words but for them to locate the several thousand agents of bin Laden and the Moslem Terrorist Network reputed to be in this country, and turn them in to the FBI. What is required of Moslem communities the world over is the same: Identify, locate and turn in advocates of terrorism to the appropriate authorities.
Yet much more is now required of the adherents of Islam: the reinvention of their religion. No longer can the words of the Koran be considered inerrant, infallible, those of Allah himself. The words must be read thoughtfully and critically, and the wisdom they contain extracted with reflection, not reflexively.
This is exactly what this so called 'religion of peace' must do: reexamine all of its conjured up texts, those allegedly from Allah (a pagan moon god Al-Lah, taken by the writers of Mohammed's life - Ubu'l Kassim ) and have them rewritten to conform with modern norms. Until such time they do this, Islam will be hunkered down in darkness by its own history, which appears to be mostly fiction. Time to get to work, and squeeze this world dominating Arab supremacist political ideology back into a corner, in some god-forsaken corner of Arabia from which it sprung. All academic research must now be directed to do this, and bring out the real truth about Mohammed and Islam. Jihad must be put down, along with its Sharia. The only difference between Medieval Christianity, which punished its heretics with torture and death during Europe's Dark Ages, and modern Islam was that they did not blow themselves up to kill others. Islam is far more vile in this respect than Medieval Christianity ever was.
The Dark Ages of Islam are over.
(This thread will close in a few days, we exhausted and exposed the fraud well enough, we're done with this.)
|Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 10:19 am: |
To seethe with anger and frustration, trying to understand the un-understandable, wandering in a fog of lies and deceits searching for truth.
Nothing makes sense until at last, the lies are uncovered, the lies of evil men.
The light dawns and a dark fog lifts from the eyes, and we can see, the Truth, to set you free.
TRUTH is my shield. Your bullets are lies.
|Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 02:57 pm: |
In search of "Makkah"... is it in Quran?
Coordinate 21° 25' 0" N, 39° 49' 0"
SearchTruth.com, the Quran gave 61 hits in 52 verses. But...
Indeed Animas. We search for truth, and get answered with frustration, even anger. How can that be? I was told there are 6666 verses in the Quran (though I never confirmed this figure) of which 52 mention Makkah (Mecca) in them. But something interesting turned up: nearly all the entries have Makkah in parenthesis! Only two entries had Makkah without parenthesis: Q48:24 (victory) and 5:97 (tree). Why is that? Could Wheeler be right, that Mecca was 'selected' a holy site only much later? Is this why it was inserted (in parenthesis) back into the Quran, once it was selected as the 'holiest site' of Islam? This is curious... The search for "Mecca" came up with fewer, and only in Shakir's does it show once (Q62:2) without parentheses, as the original valley of Mohammed. In other translations, with either spelling, there are none without parentheses, and in some there is no reference to this place at all. Did Allah forget to tell Mohammed about this most holy and important site in all of Islam? What is going on here?
Okay, so let's search for "Khabah", and in only one translation can I find it, Mohsin Khan's, where it appears 21 times in 18 verses. Again, it's all in parentheses, except three: Q5:95 (animal sacrifice) and 5:97 (sancturary) and 7:31 (eat and drink). Why? Did Allah not think this shrine, the most holy of Islam, important enough to tell Mohammed? Shakir's translation mentions "Kaaba" twice, both referenced above (Q5:95 & 5:97). Search for "Ka'ba" gave similar results, mostly in parentheses. I don't understand, and feel frustrated by this strange discovery.
What is the hidden truth here? I am puzzled that Mohammed would not have talked about it in great detail at length, so it was added (later) almost as if a necessary afterthought.... I am puzzled.
|Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
Undercover Mosque, UK
You-Tube 48 mins.
|Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 11:20 pm: |
Case closed - cease and disist.
I think this is a clear case of "case closed", we know where the myth Islam is coming from:
In the above 7 posts we uncovered the truth. Thank you all for contributing, we all helped uncover the truth.
Now, after watching the "Undercover Mosque", we can say "case closed."
So, what will the real Islam look like? By the end of the century we will know, or it will "cease and desist."
|Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 10:39 pm: |
This thread is now closed.
It's continuation to explore the "Future of Islam" is started here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/447/849.html?1196134134
Many thanks to all of you who contributed here, and readers alike.