After some confusion, Scotland Yard has belatedly identified the terrorist responsible for Wednesday’s ghastly attack in front of the British parliament building. British police identified him as Khalid Masood, a native of Kent. British media originally reported that the perpetrator was Abu Izzadeen, a well-known Muslim hate preacher but later recanted after learning that Abu Izzadeen was in prison during the carnage and could not have executed the attack.
Masood was a career criminal with a lengthy rap sheet that spanned some two decades. According to British police, his recidivist record included convictions for causing Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) possession of offensive weapons and public order offenses.
Masood’s past criminal history is not surprising. There is a strong nexus between criminals – petty as well as hardcore – and those who commit terrorist offenses in the name of Islam. Numerous studies have demonstrated substantial overlap between recidivist criminals and Jihadism. Islamists often recruit their members from the criminal pool. Still other delinquents with violent proclivities are drawn to cruel and sadistic aspects of radical Islam.
The horrific Westminster attack was an all too familiar scene reminiscent of what we’ve witnessed in Nice, Berlin and Jerusalem. The 52-year-old Masood plowed his rented vehicle into a crowd of people on Westminster Bridge killing two and injuring approximately 40, some seriously. Kurt W. Cochran, an American tourist in his 50s was among the dead.
Masood, borrowing chapter and verse from Palestinian-style terrorism, then proceeded to the parliament building where he exited his vehicle and fatally stabbed 48-year-old police constable, Keith Palmer before other policemen were able to finally end his murder spree. ISIS, through its propaganda outlet, Aamaq news agency, claimed responsibility for the act of cowardice and referred to Masood as one of its “soldiers.”
ISIS often takes responsibility for these types of attacks but authorities have not as of yet confirmed any link between Masood and the Muslim terror group. Nevertheless, even in the absence of confirmed links to ISIS, it is all but certain that Masood was at the very least, inspired by radical Islamic ideology.
In politically correct Europe, security officials have often attributed violent Muslim terror attacks to “mental illness,” in a misguided effort to sanitize the political and religious component of the crime. Mainstream media analysts often feed into this ridiculous charade, speculating on the perpetrator’s motive even when the act is accompanied by the obligatory Muslim battle cry of “Allahuakbar.”
There is no doubt that Europe has become the epicenter of radical Islamic terrorism. As ISIS loses ground in Iraq and Syria, it will seek to carry out additional mega attacks in Europe in an effort to highlight its “success” in striking at the Western infidel and to draw Muslim recruits to the cause. The venue chosen by Masood was not fortuitous. He chose the parliament building for its symbolism. The message he sought to convey was that no place in England, however secure and important, was immune from the sword of Islam.
Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden represent European countries with large, restive Muslim populations. Many harbor views that are antithetical to liberal and tolerant Western values. For example, a recent poll of British Muslims revealed that more than half believe that homosexuality should be illegal and nearly 40 percent held deeply misogynistic views. Other polls suggest that there is strong prevalence of anti-Semitic views among Muslims throughout Western Europe and a near 100 percent prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes among Muslim migrants.
Those revealing and disconcerting statistics suggest that the multicultural experiment is an abysmal failure that cannot be remedied with the traditional, tolerant Western approach. Some European nations are slowly coming to grips with this fact but others like the Sweden, are stubbornly clinging to liberal dogma and are deliberately obfuscating crime statistics and its correlation with Muslim immigration in an effort to fool the public into believing that all is well. They have in effect become ISIS’s useful idiots.
Clearly, Europe has several viable options at its disposal to minimize the risk. First and foremost, suicidal immigration policies that have allowed for the influx of millions of Muslim migrants must be reversed. A disproportionate number of these migrants are young Muslim males with little education who have been indoctrinated from birth with hateful ideologies and religious zealotry. Their sudden exposure to Western liberalism is a recipe for disaster. Germany and Sweden have witnessed an explosion of rapes and sexual assaults. Women in these countries can no longer walk the streets at night.
Many migrants are fleeing for purely economic reasons, believing correctly, that they will be given generous entitlements, such as welfare stipends and free housing. This insane practice must stop. It encourages the influx of further immigration not to mention the enormous burden it places on the European taxpayer.
As a result of years of irresponsible immigration policies, some European countries have been transformed into armed camps, with soldiers in full battle gear patrolling the streets. France has extended its national State of Emergency and resembles a country under lockdown, a product of an unrelenting wave of Muslim terrorist bombings, shootings, knifings and car ramming attacks.
These outrages will continue unless drastic action is taken. Sadly, at present, European leaders appear to have neither the will nor the fortitude to take decisive action.