British authorities are conducting more than 500 anti-terrorism operations involving approximately 3,000 “subjects of interest” at any given time — and the situation is only poised to get worse in the near future.
As Reuters reports, “The threat posed by Islamist militants to Britain is expected to remain high for the next two years and could even rise, the interior ministry said on Sunday, on the first anniversary of an attack that killed eight people in central London.”
“The current threat level to Britain is assessed as severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. The government said it had foiled 25 Islamist militant plots since June 2013 — 12 of those since March 2017 — and was currently handling over 500 live operations,” the news organ continued.
Adding detail, the Independent writes, “In addition, there are in excess of 20,000 people who have previously been investigated and who could again pose a threat.”
The government also claims to have foiled four “extreme right-wing” plots since last March, an assertion some observers may view with suspicion. Not only is there no established pattern of “right-wing” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) terrorist incidents in contemporary Britain, but U.K. officials have already been caught manufacturing non-Muslim “threats” so that jihadist ones won’t appear as prominent. For example, radio host Michael Savage was in 2009 placed on a list of those prohibited from entering the U.K., along with Muslim extremists and race-group leaders; this was for, as the British government deceitfully put it, “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred.” Yet it was later revealed that Savage was included merely to “balance” out the Muslims on the list.
It’s no coincidence that the increasing terror threat all over Western Europe has coincided with a wave of Muslim migration into the continent. First, multiple sources have warned that Islamic State terrorists are seeded among the newcomers. One of these sources, Jordanian Opposition Coalition leader and self-professed practicing Muslim Dr. Mudar Zahran, sounds the alarm about stealth terrorists — and goes even further. He calls the Muslim influx “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” and warns that the migrants should be kept out of Europe.
In a 2015 interview (video below), Zahran essentially said the migration was a con. While the Syrian civil war was supposedly its impetus, he said that most of the migrants weren’t Syrian, most of those who were weren’t actually imperiled, and that the Islamic world viewed the migration as an opportunity to “conquer” Europe via demographic displacement.
Zahran’s terrorism warning is not surprising given that, contrary to Obama-era U.S. government claims, sources ranging from intelligence agencies to Muslim community leaders have informed that it’s impossible to effectively vet the migrants. After all, not only do many of the nations they hail from (e.g., Syria, Somalia) lack well-functioning governments and Western-style databases with comprehensive information on citizens, but bribery also may get someone official state documents stating he is whoever he wishes to be.
Thus are we facing Russian-roulette migration. If a nation admits one million Muslims and only one-tenth of one percent constitutes terrorists, that’s 1,000 violent jihadists. Moreover, what of their children? Studies have shown, after all, that younger generations of Muslims are more jihadist-oriented than their elders.
Relevant here is a comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010; it found that while increasing religiosity among Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among Muslim youths actually made them more violent.
Yet terrorism may not even be the greatest threat. Returning to Dr. Zahran’s “soft Islamic conquest” warning, he stated in his interview:
We do have a genuine problem with Muslims in Europe.… In most cases they don’t seem to fully integrate in the country. Not to mention the cases where there are people who want to turn Europe into a Muslim state in 30 or 40 or 50 years through producing children and depending on welfare through the children. In short, I think there is a very major problem to Europe’s identity…. What we see with many Muslims in Europe are people marching in London, Berlin, and elsewhere demanding Sharia law.
This gets at a seldom mentioned aspect of the (im)migration issue: It’s literally a discussion about what your nation is going to become. Would the United States have existed had Christian Europeans not migrated to North America? Would Australia be Australia had Westerners not colonized it? Would Japan have become Japan had the original inhabitants, the Ainus, not been overrun and subsumed by the people who’d become the “modern Japanese”? Would Formosa have become Taiwan had the Nationalist Chinese not fled there and the island had been left to its indigenous inhabitants, the aborigines?
This isn’t to imply that the dominating group will always be the morally superior one. The conquest may in the scheme of things be a good thing or a bad thing. The point is that it is a real thing, a simple truth, that the country doesn’t make the people.
The people make the country.
And with Western governments proceeding to remake their countries, will anyone ask “Is this a good or bad thing?” before it’s an irreversible thing?