Wednesday, May 22, 2013, in broad daylight, a murderous act of jihad butchery was committed on a busy London street.  The Daily Mail published a pictorial chronology of the gruesome attack, noting, prominently:

• At 2:20 PM (London time) a British soldier (25-year-old Drummer Lee Rigby of the 2^nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers), wearing a “Help for Heroes T-Shirt” (a charity for wounded British soldiers) was deliberately rammed by a car and crushed against a road sign.
• The Muslim assailants emerged from the car, dragged the victim to a wall, slashing and stabbing him to death with cleavers and knives, while bellowing “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”).  Nearly decapitated, the soldier’s corpse was then dragged back into the road.
• For some 20 minutes afterward, the murderers paraded up and down the street, permitting their pictures to be taken, and one trumpeted his rationale for the grisly murder.

… a pleasant, quiet guy. He reverted to Islam in about 2003. He was  just a completely normal guy. He was interested in Islam, in memorizing the Koran.– Anjem Chaudary

Related:

Jihad Denial in Britain  (FrontPage Magazine)

The only thing more predictable than devout Muslims killing in the name of religion is devout politicians trying to deny the obvious. (TROP)

The two attackers were both of Nigerian descent and apparently “known” to British security services.  One assailant, whose explanatory statements were recorded on video, was later identified as Michael Adebolajo, nom de jihadist ”Mujahid,” “holy warrior.”  Adebolajo was an acquaintance of Anjem Choudary, the  prominent London jihadist ideologue, who characterized the Nigerian Christian’s conversion to Islam (some 10 years ago) in mainstream Islamic parlance as a “reversion” to the “primordial” monotheistic faith — i.e., the Muslim creed.  Choudary also emphasized Adebolajo’s devotion to Koranic memorization, along with his restrained, pleasant, “normal” demeanor.

He was a pleasant, quiet guy. He reverted to Islam in about 2003. He was  just a completely normal guy. He was interested in Islam, in memorizing the Koran.

Indeed, Adebolajo’s false grievance-laden diatribe, recorded while his bloodstained hands clutched a cleaver and a knife, featured this devout Koranic justification for the butchery he had just committed:

…[W]e are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba [the 9^th "sura," or chapter of the Koran] through many ayah [verses] in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Sura or chapter 9 of the Koran is believed by Muslims to be one of the final “revelations” (if not the final one) of Islam’s holiest guiding text, thus assuming doctrinalprecedence over others, even abrogating them outright.  Unfortunately, sura 9 consists of an almost continuous series of timeless jihad war injunctions directed at all non-Muslims, and even at Muslims deemed “hypocritical” for their inadequate piety.

With depressing predictability, and notwithstanding Adebolajo’s mainstream Koranic justification for his act of jihad butchery – designed to sow terror – British Prime Minister David Cameron negated the Islamic roots of this brutal public assassination.  Cameron pontificated:

It was an attack on Britain and it was also a betrayal of Islam. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.

Cameron’s cultural relativist dogma on Islam mirrored equally misleading and corrosive statements made by then-U.S. President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the mass 9/11/2001 jihad terrorist attacks.  The appropriate Muslim commentary on such remarks by feckless Western leaders, which resonates even more loudly (and shamefully) today, was provided by Omar Uthman Abu Omar, an alleged “al-Qaeda” ideologue and resident British Muslim cleric of Jordanian origin.  The loquacious Abu Omar, better known as “Abu Qatada,” observed (in October 2001):

I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?

Two decades ago, the late respected British scholar of Islam, Dr. Mervyn Hiskett (d. 1994), in Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, warned presciently about the immoderate mindset — by Western standards — of Britain’s Muslim elites.  Hiskett noted then (i.e., in 1993) the prevailing opinion among leaders of the British Muslim community that unless Muslim immigrants to Britain were allowed unrestrained access to Islamic law, sharia, in all aspects, Britain was to be regarded Dar-al-Harb, or the House of War — that is, the target of jihadism.  Citing what he characterized as “a more urbane but some may consider ominous statement of the Muslim intention to brook no opposition,” Hiskett quoted Zaki Badawi (d. 2006), a Muslim scholar and former director of the Islamic Cultural Center, London, who was made an honorary Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) in 2004, and also appointed by the Duke of Castro as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Francis I.  (Incidentally, Badawi, an Egyptian Muslim, never became a British subject, although he had lived in the country for more than thirty years and had received all manner of honors there.)  Badawi, as Hiskettdocumented, had opined:

A proselytizing religion cannot stand still. It can either expand or contract. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole humanity will be one Muslim community, the “Umma.”

Hiskett’s foreboding concerns have proven justified, as evidenced by disturbing survey results from British Muslims polled in January 2005 and again shortly after the July 7, 2005 London bombings.  These data revealed that 60 percent of British Muslims surveyed prior to the 7/7/05 bombings felt that those who engaged in mere criti­cism of Islam should face criminal prosecution, while one third were brazen enough to admit after July 7, 2005 that “Western society is decadent and immoral and … Muslims should seek to bring it to an end.”  Expressing their desire to replace Britain’s current liberal democracy with a bellicose, liberty-crushing, sharia-based theocratic model, these 2005 polling data from British Muslims were consistent with a worldview made plain in a statement published August 16, 2005 in the Guardian and signed by 38 prominent British Muslim organizations and individuals:

To equate “extremism” with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimize the Muslim community unnecessarily.

Additional polling data published in 2007 by the British think-tank Policy Exchange indicated that 43% of British Muslims agreed with the proposition that “Muslim conversion is forbidden and punishable by death,” while 52% concurred that “a Muslim male may have up to 4 wives and a Muslim female is allowed only 1 husband.”  Subsequently, a late 2008 poll of six hundred British Muslim college students (John Thorne and Hannah Stuart, “Islam on Campus: A survey of UK student opinions,” Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008) revealed that one third supported killing in the name of Islam, while 40 percent wanted sharia to replace British law.

And sharia indoctrination of British Muslim youth begins well before college entry.  A BBC Panorama investigation has exposed the presence in Britain of forty “weekend schools” attended by some five thousand Muslim children aged 6-18.  These schools teach the British Muslim youth who attend them, for example, traditional Islamic motifs of Jew-hatred and mutilating sharia punishments — as per the Saudi National Curriculum — under the rubric of “Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland.”

Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani sat for twenty years as a sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court (his father was the grand mufti of Pakistan).  Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the major international body of Islamic nations in the world — and serves as an adviser to several global sharia-based Islamic financial institutions.  Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence.

Mr. Usmani, who mentored Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, Director of the Leicester, U.K., Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence (Darul Iftaa, www.daruliftaa.com), is also a regular visitor to Britain.  During a 2007 visit there, Usmani was interviewed by the Times of London, which published extracts from Usmani’s writings on jihad (from “Islam and Modernism”), Saturday, September 8, 2007.  He refuted the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concern to The Times!).  Usmani argued that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.

Given this toxic British Muslim milieu, and its outward manifestations, the results of a 2010 YouGov poll of 2,152 ordinary non-Muslim adult Britons appear quite rational.  The online YouGov survey found that 58% of those questioned linked Islam with extremism, and 69% believed that it encourages the repression of women, while a mere 13% thought the creed was based upon peace, and only 6% associated Islam with justice.

Despite the continued Big Islamic Lie being enunciated by Britain’s political elites — most notably Prime Minister Cameron himself — the savage jihadist murder of Lee Rigby validates the legitimate concerns most ordinary Britons already had about normative Islam.

Ultimately, to preserve their liberties, the British people must force chronically capitulating political leaders to act decisively against sharia encroachment — violent and nonviolent alike.  Mervyn Hiskett identified the crux of the problem already in 1993:

As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative? And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?”

The cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has been secretly filmed stating that decapitation of the enemies of Islam was permitted. Today, in comments met with outrage, he told The Independent that he could understand the feeling of rage that had motivated the attackers and that what they had done could be justified under certain interpretations of Islam.

Michael Adebolajo, a British-Muslim convert of Nigerian origin who gave a video interview with a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands while the body of 25-year-old Drummer Lee Rigby lay on the street behind him, declared that he was fighting for “Almighty Allah”.

Last night the second suspect was understood to be Michael Adebowale, 22, of Greenwich.

Mr Bakri Muhammed, who now lives in Lebanon, told The Independent: “I saw the film and we could see that he [the suspect] was being very courageous.

“Under Islam this can be justified, he was not targeting civilians, he was taking on a military man in an operation. To people around here [in the Middle East] he is a hero for what he has done.”

Mr Bakri Muhammed said of the suspect: “I knew him as Michael when he came to the meetings and then he converted and he became known as Abdullah; I hear he then started calling himself Mujahid. He asked questions about religion, he was curious. He had first started coming when there was a lot of anger about the Iraq war and the war on terror. Whether I influenced him or not, I do not know. But he was a quiet boy, so something must have happened.”

In other developments, two new arrests were made: a man and a woman on suspicion of conspiracy to murder, following raids at six addresses in London and Lincoln.

Shocking footage also surfaced of the pair being shot by armed response officers from the Metropolitan Police.

A clip on the Daily Mirror’s website shows one of the men charge at police and drop one of his knives before being gunned down.

His accomplice is seen raising his arm and aiming a handgun at officers before he too is downed, as eight shots ring out in total.

It also emerged that the two suspected killers of Drummer Rigby were already known to MI5 and, almost certainly, to counter-terrorism officers in the police. One of the men was stopped from travelling to Somalia to join the Islamist militia Al-Shabaab last year.

Security officials insisted that there had been no evidence that either of the two men were planning an imminent attack. Nor was there any evidence, they say, that they were discussing beheading. They point out that there were plenty of references to it in Islamist websites.

In 2007, following the conviction of a group British Pakistanis who had plotted to kidnap and behead a British soldier, a secret recording emerged of Mr Bakri Muhammed saying: “When you meet [Westerners], slice their own necks. And when you make the blood spill all over, and the enemy becomes so tired, now start to take from them prisoners. Then free them or exchange them until the war is finished.

“Verily they remind the sunnah of removing the head of the enemy. They remind the sunnah of slaughtering the enemy. They remind the sunnah of how to strike the neck of the enemy. They removed the head of the enemy. Use the sword and remove the head of the enemy.”

In another message, Mr Bakri Muhammed had said he hoped that “British Muslims who are in the Army over there” (Afghanistan) can be captured.

Mr Bakri Muhammed, who is Syrian-born, and has named one of his sons after Osama bin Laden, stated that he and his followers were not involved in violence while residing in the UK due to what had become known as the “covenant of security” under which Islamist organisations were allowed to carry out their activities, but desisted from taking armed action in the country which had given them refuge.

“But in this case obviously the covenant of security did not apply,” he said.

“Beheading is how criminals were executed under the laws; but that must happen with a Sharia court and decision by judges with criminals. On this occasion he was taking military action, not a legal one.”

Mr Bakri Muhammed had set up the organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, where he had claimed asylum in 1986, but split with them after doctrinal disagreements and set up the Al-Muhajiroun group which attracted hundreds of followers including Adebolajo. That was also wound up but at least a dozen of its members are thought to have become or affiliated to suicide bombers.

Mr Bakri Muhammed left London soon after the 2005 bombings because, he said, of constant harassment by the authorities. When Israel carried out attacks on Lebanon during its war with Hizbullah a year later he attempted to join civilians being evacuated from Lebanon by the British military, but was refused. He protested at the time: “What concerns me is my safety. I’d be happy with a month’s visa but this morning they told me I couldn’t because I’m not a British citizen any more.”

He was subsequently informed by the UK government that he would not be allowed to return here. Since then Mr Bakri Muhammed had repeatedly warned that the foreign policy being pursued by the UK would lead to retaliation by Muslims in the West and states would be powerless to prevent this.

A 29-year-old woman at a home in south London, and a man of the same age, were arrested in arrested at an undisclosed location.

The two men shot by police remain in hospital with non-fatal injuries but it is understood officers are yet to interview the pair. It emerged that the shooting was captured by a council camera. Two officers fired their guns and a third fired a taser weapon, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said.

‘Angel’ did not want victim to die alone

The son of a woman who became known as the “angel” of the Woolwich attacks has spoken about what made his mother stay praying by the side of dying soldier Lee Rigby.

He told The Independent: “She just thought at the time, imagine if that was my son. No one wants to die with no one by their side. She just wanted to comfort the guy.” He did not want to be named.

Family friend Joe Tallant said: “She wanted to comfort the man… She put her hands on his chest and prayed.”

Emily Dugan

It began on Tuesday in Woolwich, London, when two young men in a car deliberately ran over an off-duty British soldier who was walking to a nearby military installation, then “hacked and chopped” at his body and attempted to decapitate him as they shouted “Allah akbar!” They forced witnesses to film the scene, saying: “We swear by Almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” When police arrived, the murderers “charged at them wielding firearms, knives and a machete.” They were apprehended alive, and are now in hospital. It has since emergedthat one of them, a son of Nigerian immigrants, was born in Britain as Michael Olumide Adebolajo, converted to Islam in 2003, changed his name to Mujaahid (i.e., jihadist), and for several years attended meetings of the group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by terrorist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed. Late Thursday afternoon, U.K. time, the murdered soldier was identified as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, a drummer in the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the father of a two-year-old son.

Just like this week’s nightly riots by “youths” in Stockholm, the brutal slaughter in Woolwich was plainly a jihadist act. Yet just as the Swedish elites are continuing to dance around that uncomfortable core truth, their British counterparts are engaged in some fancy footwork of their own – led by Prime Minister David Cameron, who described Tuesday’s atrocity as “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life” but “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” (Does it need to be said that for a British leader to haul out this ragged, repulsive lie in the year 2013 is itself a betrayal – a shameless, craven betrayal of precisely what Cameron pretends to be standing up for, namely “Britain and…the British way of life”?)

The papers were full of the standard-issue stuff. The Muslim Council of Britain made the usual assertion that the latest heinous act committed in the name of Islam had “nothing to do with Islam.” Baroness Warsi, a Pakistani-English Muslim who serves as “Communities Secretary” in the current government, paintedthe familiar pretty picture of “faith communities coming out together” in the wake of said heinous act “and showing a unified condemnation of this.” TheGuardian ran the obligatory hand-wringing article about the “fear of backlash” against Muslims in the wake of the heinous act in question. (The headline of another Guardian article actually indicated that there had been “Anti-Muslim reprisals after Woolwich attack”; it turned out that one man was “in custody on suspicion of attempted arson after reportedly walking into a mosque with a knife in Braintree, Essex,” and that “police in Kent were called to reports of criminal damage at a mosque in Canterbury Street, Gillingham.”) And Ken Livingstone, the loathsome ex-mayor of London (which he described as “the most successful melting pot in the history of the world and the city of the free”), warned those less evolved than himself not to “scapegoat entire communities for this barbaric act.” This from the sometime host, defender, and chum of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous precisely for encouraging such barbaric acts.

Newspaper commentaries on the atrocity added up to a depressing profile of the pathetic, obstinately reality-challenged psychopathology of the British elite when confronted with Islamic violence. The prize for sheer inanity of approach must go to Laborite Dan Hodges, who spent a whole column in the Telegraphelaborating on the theme that “for me, yesterday’s barbaric act of terror in Woolwich was literally senseless. None of what happened actually made any sense.” The murder, he asserted, was “confusing, horrific, bizarre.” He proceeded to repeat this refrain in one paragraph after another: “none of it made sense….Still none of it made sense….It didn’t make sense….It didn’t make any sense….Yesterday was the senseless day.” Reading this feeble, embarrassing nonsense, one could not help wondering: was Hodges equally stumped by 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, the Boston bombings? One of the things that didn’t “make sense” to Hodges was that one of the murderers spoke of “our lands,” meaning the Muslim world, even though “he had a south-east London accent.” It was as if the Woolwich killers were the first “home-grown terrorists” to ever come to Hodges’s attention. How remarkable that during all these years when the non-Muslim world has been racked by one death-dealing jihadist assault after another, Hodges’s contemplation of these incidents has apparently yielded absolutely nothing in the way of awareness or insight.

Brendan O’Neill, also writing in the Telegraph, was also purportedly baffled beyond all hope by Tuesday’s events, professing to find it “shocking” and “bizarre” (that word again) that one of the terrorists “claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims,” speaking “as if he were a representative of the ummah.” Again, one would have thought that this was the very first time such a thing has ever happened. “How can a couple of men,” O’Neill asked, “so thoroughly convince themselves that they speak for all Muslims, to the extent that they seriously believe their savage and psychotic attack on a man in the street is some kind of glorious act of Islamic resistance?” Unlike Hodges, however, O’Neill had a theory. A certain kind of thinking, he posited, had led directly to the Woolwich atrocity. Jihadist ideology? Nope: contemporary British identity politics. You see, “in this era in which any old fool can claim to be a ‘community spokesperson’, and can be treated seriously as such, these murderous loners seem to be trying a psychotic version of the same trick – claiming that by dint of shared skin colour or common religious sentiment they have the authority to speak on behalf of millions of people they have never met or whose lands they have never visited.” Somehow, O’Neill would appear to have missed the news that it’s not only in Merrie Old England that jihadists have proudly proclaimed themselves to be jihadists.

Some observers emphasized that it was crucial to “keep calm.”  Writing in the Independent, sociologist Frank Furedi urged Brits not to “over-react” – and, moreover, not to “redefine” this “incomprehensible act of violence” (yes, he was mystified too) as “an act of political terrorism.” If O’Neill saw the two killers as products of British identity politics, Furedi, calling it “unlikely” that they had “been busy reading al-Qaeda’s terror manual,” cast them instead as products of “reality entertainment” culture, noting their decision to record their monstrous actions on camera. “The murderers may have adopted the role of idealist jihadists as one of them chanted ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’” wrote Furedi, “but what they really meant was that we will never stop performing.” Furedi’s advice to his readers: don’t give “recognition to two self-obsessed killers who did not deserve it.”

Michael White made a similar argument under the headline “Woolwich attack: let’s try a bit of keeping calm.” Hey, here’s a thought: could it be, just possibly, that official Britain has been too damn calm for too damn long? How about finally getting a little angry? Just to begin with, how about reforming the insane immigration and deportation policies that have made London a sanctuary for some of the most contemptible preachers of Islamic terror on the planet? How about cutting out all the smooth lies, the slick euphemisms, the talk of “Asians” when the subject is really Muslims? How about somebody in a position of authority screwing up a little courage and facing a few facts – and thereby maybe, just maybe, causing Churchill to stop spinning in his grave?

White had a lot to say. Protesting that the publication of photos of the Woolwich perpetrators’ “rusty knives and meat cleavers” was “indecent” and “voyeuristic,” he proposed that today’s Brits adopt the “Keep Calm and Carry On” attitude of their World War II-era forebears – in other words, turn away from the gruesome images and don’t exaggerate the importance of these evildoers (who might just as easily have been members of some street gang unrelated to Islam rather than “ill-educated and unemployed young men…who have been watching jihadi video nasties on the internet”). Suggesting that the Woolwich killers are “lone wolfs” (sic) whose acts have no wider meaning or organizational backing, he maintained that “the only visibly organised conspiracy” in the picture is the English Defence League (that tacky pack of unspeakable rowdies). He went on to insist that, in any event, ordinary street gangs are “a greater problem for life in our big cities than wannabe jihadis.” And he found it appropriate to add that British soldiers of the non-Islamic persuasion are, after all, sometimes “attacked” or “even occasionally murdered” by “their drunken co-religionists.” So why make a fuss about the Islamic roots of this unfortunate affair? (For good measure, White worked in a passing reference to the nightly riots in Stockholm by “the unemployed.”)

What artful dodgers! The lesson was clear: with very few exceptions, the British elite is terrified to call jihad by its rightful name. It would rather condemn the English Defence League for the thousandth time than choke out even the most muted, gracefully nuanced acknowledgment that there might, in fact, be something of a causal connection between the instructions to the faithful spelled out in the Koran and the actions carried out in Woolwich on Tuesday afternoon. Yet it’s precisely that elite’s dishonest, irresponsible, lily-livered response to abominable transgressions like this one that is driving more and more people into the arms of the EDL. For while Cameron, Livingstone, and company were responding to the Woolwich killing by defending Islam, feigning perplexity, and/or dismissing the idea that this murder had any larger significance, EDL leader Tommy Robinson was speaking the plain and simple truth, accusing the country’s leaders of being “scared to say the word Muslim” and flatly rejecting the fatuous falsehoods about Islam that are proferred in Britain’s classrooms and endlessly reiterated in its media. Said Robinson on Tuesday: “Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam.”

•  Comments

H/T The Observer

Groups of youths Mohammedans in Stockholm have burnt down a restaurant and torched more than 30 cars in a fourth night of rioting.

The unrest is being blamed on police shooting and killing a 69-year-old knife-wielding man on May 13.

Hundreds of young people are said to have been involved in the rioting in immigrant suburbs of the Swedish capital.

Local media also said a police station office was set on fire in the suburb of Rågsved and police in the southern city of Malmo said two cars had been set ablaze.

Three police in Stockholm were also injured in the unrest.

The rioters have been heading out at nightfall over the past four days, ignoring calls from Sweden’s prime minister to end the violence.

Selcuk Ceken, who works at a youth centre in one of the affected suburbs, said: “It’s difficult to say why they’re doing this.

Its a real head scratcher, nothing to do with Islam.

“Maybe it’s anger at the law and order forces, maybe it’s anger at their own personal situation, such as unemployment or having nowhere to live.”

Its far worse back in the sewers they crawled out of….

The killing of a 69-year-old man in the suburb of Husby – which prompted accusations of police brutality – is said to have sparked the violence.

Sweden traditionally prides itself on having a reputation for social justice and hospitality towards refugees.

But a steady decline in welfare provision since the 1990s has been blamed for increased inequality and high unemployment, particularly among asylum seekers and immigrants.

Sweden ranks second in the absolute number of asylum seekers relative to its population, according to UN figures.

The left-leaning tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet labelled the riots a “gigantic failure” of government policies, which it said had led to inner city ghettos.

These leftist  wankers  should take these soldiers of allah home with them if they’re so concerned. WTF do they have they blame the government for Mohammedan hostility and violence?

The Riots in Sweden –By SAMUEL GOLDMAN 

Sweden has the reputation of being a placid, comfortable place, where the contradictions of capitalism have been softened into irrelevance. That reputation is now very much out date. For the last four nights, mobs of young men have run riot through the suburbs of Stockholm. No deaths have been reported, but windows have been smashed, cars burnt, and police attacked with stones and other weapons.

The riots were set off by the police shooting an old man who threatened them with a machete. In light of yesterday’s atrocity in London, that decision looks eminently reasonable. But allegations of police brutality are really just a pretext. The rioters, most of whom seem to be Somali immigrants or their children, are angry at what they see aseconomic and social marginalization.

This attitude is particuarly disturbing because Sweden has invested more energy and money to integrating immigrants than any other European country. It’s also reliably prosperous: there’s no mass unemployment, as in France or Spain.  What’s happening around Stockholm, then, can’t be explained away as a reaction to official neglect or poverty. Rather, it’s a predictable consequence of  mass immigration from the Third World  into a small, ethnically and culturally homogeneous society.

Immigration critics on this site and elsewhere worry that the United States is failing to assimilate the millions who have come here, legally and illegally, since the 1960s. I think those fears are mostly exaggerated. Although fashionable multiculturalism can inhibit assimilation, American life has proven to be an reliable solvent of foreign identities. As Christopher Caldwell has argued, however, the classic nation-states of Europe lack the cultural resources to absorb an influx of population from some of the poorest and most backward societies in the world. I’m glad I don’t live in Stockholm tonight.

His take on the bloody, broad daylight beheading is the same as the Islamists’—that it represents a “misinterpretation” of Islam. Does he read the Koran the way Tony BLiar does?

• It’s like Tamerlan Tsarnaev all over again.