by John D. Guandolo
The latest jihadi attack in the UK that left two people dead and three others injured, reveals much about why Britain will likely not survive the Islamic onslaught.
The jihadi on the London Bridge – Usman Khan – was previously incarcerated with 8 other jihadis for plotting to bomb the London Stock Exchange. The BBC calls that plot “supremely incompetent and amateur.”
Note: These are almost identical to the words U.S. media used to describe the car-bomb used by Faisal Shahzad, the “Time Square Bomber” whose bomb was so “crude” that he was able to build it – like he was trained to do in Pakistan – without raising any suspicion from U.S. officials. Had that bomb detonated properly, the FBI assessed over 1000 people would have been killed.
London’s Guardian published stories that the London Bridge attack was in response to non-muslim racism against muslims, and that muslims are the real victims, and, of course, Khan’s muslim neighbors told the media they “don’t understand how Usman ended up like this.”
Usman attended mosque, studied Islam, and lived it out. Not too complicated.
Usman Khan was eventually released back into British society based on soft policies implemented by British leftist politicians (Marxist & Islamic Counter-States working together). British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said “Terrorists should not be forced to serve full sentence in prison.”
Khan served only 8 years of a 16 year sentence. Here is a question for America: When should jihadis, whose stated goal is to wage war against non-muslims using all means possible, be allowed back into American society once we know they are jihadis?
Khan’s early release from prison allowed him to stab to death Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones on the London Bridge, who, ironically, spent a lot of time advocating for prisoner rehabilitation.
Oddly, one of the men who stopped Khan, was a convicted murderer who brutally killed a disabled girl and was out of prison on a “day release.”
Finally, we have the issue of “deradicalization.” The UK has terrorist “deradicalization programs,” which are objectively utter failures. Khan’s attorney made public statements that Khan asked to be placed in such a program. The failure of these programs in the UK, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is evident with jihadis returning to their work in jihad as soon as they are set free. It is another tactic to get the West to find other solutions to the global “terrorism” threat without actually dealing with the root cause – Islam.
The stated objective of Islam is to wage war against the non-muslim world until “Allah’s divine law”/sharia is the law of the land on the earth. To “deradicalize” a jihadi, they need to be purged of all things Islam.
In the midst of the London attacks, a muslim jihadi in New York named Zachary Clark was arrested for plotting to attack targets in New York. Clark pledged his loyalty to the Islamic State and was communicating on Islamic State online sites.
The London attack and the New York arrest coincided with U.S. jihadis Farhana Khera (Muslim Advocates) and Ahmed Mohamed (Hamas/CAIR) calling for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize for the NYPD’s Counterterrorism (CT) programs.
As UTT has shared with all of you, the violence committed by jihadis is a tool to move their much larger agenda forward – controlling the narrative in this war.
Muslim Advocates and Hamas doing business as CAIR publicly calling for apologies for CT programs in the wake of attacks/plots in Europe and the U.S. is not random. The Islamic Counter-State does not do random.
The primary focus of effort of the Islamic Counter-State is in the non-violent realm.
It is the most difficult place for many people to push back because it feels uncomfortable to stand – often alone – in a school protesting an Imam speaking, or calling out teachers for teaching material which is objectively false about Islam, or educating local businesses, with whom your business operates, about the Muslim Brotherhood and Gulen efforts to coax them to be soft on Islam and soft on Turkey.
I (John Guandolo) recently had a Marine Corps General officer tell me he agrees with my assessments in this war, globally and domestically, but there are “complicated and conflicting interests” in speaking truth when that General officer was working with Pakistani and Saudi military officers.
And that is the point.
Our enemies win the war by getting U.S. leaders at all levels to never address the root of the problem – Islam.
Those with legal obligations to “protect and defend” the Constitution are more afraid of the repercussions of speaking truth than they are of failing to uphold their Oaths of Office.
These are the difficult places in the war and the enemy is counting on most people to sit silently by as we lose.