London Bridge terrorist worked at Westminster tube station: Had access to tunnels located under UK Parliament

Khuram Butt was familiar to London and UK law enforcement. Butt had known connections to radical Islamic terrorists and appeared in a jihadi documentary.

Yet, UK authorities did not consider Butt a creditable threat to launch an attack. How did all of that work out this past weekend?

A terrorist named "Khuram Shazad Butt" was known to the police. I'll refrain from making the obvious joke.

How many "known to the police" types have committed mass murder? How many innocents have died, so far?

 The guy who killed 50 in Orlando was known to the FBI.

The Russians actually phoned to warn the U.S. about the Tsarnaev brothers before they bombed the Boston Marathon.

Israeli intelligence agents were said to actually be tailing some of the 9/11 perpetrators in the U.S. at one point, and Mossad warned the Bush Administration about a possible plane-involved terrorism plot in the months prior.

Come on, already. 90% of terrorism in Western countries can actually be prevented if the authorities would only throw off the shackles of political correctness.

Now we have learned that Butt worked at the Westminster tube station and had access to tunnels located under the UK Parliament.

From the Daily Mail:

The police and MI5 insisted one of the London Bridge killers was not dangerous despite an attempt to travel to Syria, his links to a 7/7 bomber and a starring role in a Channel 4 documentary on British jihadis watched by millions, it was revealed today.

Khuram Butt, 27, was probed two years before his murderous rampage but officials downgraded the investigation because they did not suspect the married father of two was planning an attack.

Incredibly last year he even secured a job working on the Tube and had access to tunnels under the Houses of Parliament while working at Westminster station.

The Pakistani-born Briton, who came to the UK as an asylum seeker, had links to various hate preachers including Anjem Choudary and gained a reputation for abusing moderate Muslims including those who spoke out against the murder of Lee Rigby.

Read more......

One thing we seem to forget when we speak of extremism is how extreme something has to be before it's extreme. Let me focus on individualism in Islam.

But first let me ask whether Saudi Arabia is not extreme just because they have leaders with whom we can talk turkey? Isn't their official religion, Wahhabism, the most extreme form of Sunni Islam? And why is it that women in the Kingdom can't drive, hell, they can't even go shopping unaccompanied by a male chaperon and then only extremely well covered? And how come 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi as was Osama bin Laden himself?

I ask all of these questions because we are supposed to trust Muslims when even they don't trust each other. In Christianity individualism is king. Indeed, a core premise of Protestantism is that each person should interpret the Bible for himself or herself.


By contrast in Islam the Koran is the word of God and believers are supposed to follow it blindly no mater its internal contradictions. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule."

Islamic rule includes that women remain unblemished and immaculate, and we see how Muslims don't trust their women. We all see how extreme so many Muslims are about women covering themselves, and in some countries their word does not even count. Muslims clearly don't trust each other.

And please don't take this to mean that I think they are bad people. It's just that their book of most basic rules, rules that are part of a people's basic values, call for certain group behaviors. It's hard to know who to trust given the contradictions in the book they are supposed to follow blindly.

Muslim extremists pose a very real threat. People make a big mistake when they argue that Islam is a religion of peace. They think of Islam as just a religion like Christianity, when in fact it is both a religion and a political movement, and couldn't be more different than Christianity.

Jesus was a man of peace. Occasionally someone under his influence might have shown their uglier human side and strayed, but that in no way changed the fact that Christianity was founded as a religion of peace to save man from himself. Mohammad was the complete opposite, a man driven by conquest and subjugation.

Our problem dealing with Islam is that we look at it just as a religion. At one level it is that, but Islam is also a political movement. The problems arise when Muslims and we mix the two. Let's start with the fact that the prophet Muhammad was also a warrior and conqueror. Already in his lifetime he led a conflict that led to the conquest of Mecca and later the whole of Arabia.

Muhammad was a man that most definitely mixed religion with the politics of conquest, or if you prefer, forceful proselytizing, including that he might have created and used religion in order to control better those that he led.

If you read history you know that Muhammad’s followers set out to methodically conquer the lands around them; then parts of Europe, notably Al-Andalus consisting of most of Spain and Portugal; and they even knocked at the doors of Rome. Later, with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Roman Empire of the East became the Islamic Ottoman Empire that at one point reached from Algiers and Budapest in the West and North, to Baghdad and major parts of Arabia including Mecca and Medina in the East.

This mixing of the politics of conquest with religion as the instrument to hold the conquered lands together, is in very sharp contrast with the Christian attitude, that started with Jesus himself, of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Muslim extremists have no mercy towards the rest of the world.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.