What To Do About Yesterday's Madness on London Bridge

Judge WARNED in 2012 that London Bridge attacker

should NOT be released from prison early

Usman Khan (inset) was convicted of terrorism in 2012. Main image: emergency response agencies during Friday's attack.

© Guilhem Baker/ Global Look Press

The violent extremist who killed two people in a terror attack in London on Friday had previously been described by a judge as a “serious jihadi” who should not be eligible for early release from prison.

Usman Khan was one of nine men jailed in February 2012 for plotting to bomb the London Stock Exchange and building a terrorist training camp.

Khan was sentenced to serve a minimum of eight years in prison and, when handing down the sentence, UK High Court judge Alan Wilkie said that the convicted terrorist should not be released from jail early. 

In the aftermath of Friday’s attack, the London Metropolitan Police confirmed that the murderer was released on license in December 2018, less than 11 months before he killed two people in the stabbing spree. 

During the 2012 sentencing Justice Wilkie singled out Khan and two of his co-conspirators as “more serious jihadis than the others” in the case.

“They were working to a long term agenda, no less deadly in its potential than the potential for damage and injury the subject of the short term intentions of the others. They were intent on obtaining training for themselves and others whom they would recruit and, as such, were working to a more ambitious and more serious jihadist agenda,” the judge said in his sentencing remarks.

In my judgment, these offenders would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on licence in the community,

subject to conditions, by reference to a preordained release date.

“The safety of the public in respect of these offenders can only adequately be protected if their release on licence is decided upon, at the earliest, at the conclusion of the minimum term which I fix today,” he added, while fixing a terrorism notification period of 30 years.

© Global Look Press

The judge’s prescient comments were reported by the BBC at the time and have resurfaced on social media following Khan’s murderous rampage on Friday. 

Speaking at the scene of the deadly attack on Saturday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that people convicted of terrorism offences should not be allowed out of prison early.

“I think that the practice of automatic, early release where you cut a sentence in half and let really serious, violent offenders out early simply isn’t working, and you’ve some very good evidence of how that isn’t working, I am afraid, with this case,” Johnson said.

To be blunt - I don't think jihadists, radicalized Muslims, should ever be allowed out of prison. It should be a crime, bordering on treason, to be a radicalized Muslim, and it should result in segregation from society until Islam is completely renounced, or they agree to return to an Islamic country and not try to re-enter Europe, after serving their full sentence for any other crimes they commit. This is the only way Europe will be safe from Islamic insanity.

London Bridge stabbing victim named:

25yo man who worked on same criminal

rehab workshop attacker had attended

London Bridge stabbing victim Jack Merritt © Facebook / Jack Merritt

A 25-year-old man stabbed to death by terrorist Usman Khan has been named as Cambridge graduate Jack Merritt, who worked to rehabilitate criminals like his killer.

On the day of his death, Merritt was coordinating a ‘Learning Together’ conference organized by Cambridge University academics. The conference aimed to bring together convicts and criminology students, to learn more about “stigma, marginalisation and the role of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice.”

Khan was also reportedly attending the conference, which was held at Fishmongers’ Hall, next to London Bridge. It is unclear whether he had been invited to speak – as some news reports suggested – or had turned up of his own accord.

Sometime during the scheduled storytelling and creative writing workshops, Khan’s rampage began. Merritt and another woman were stabbed to death, three others were injured, and Khan was subdued by members of the public on London Bridge - which reportedly included some of the convicts attending the workshop - before police officers shot him dead at point blank range. He wore a fake suicide vest under his jacket, and had reportedly threatened to “blow up” the conference building.

Merritt’s father described him in a tweet as a “beautiful spirit” and “champion for underdogs everywhere,” while colleagues paid tribute to his work with offenders.

Jack “was the sweetest, most caring and selfless individual I’ve ever met,” criminology lecturer Serena Wright said. Suffolk Law Centre Director Audrey Ludwig praised his “deep commitment to prisoner education and rehabilitation.”

“I ain’t no terrorist”

Said Terrorist on BBC

Khan himself has been on the wrong side of the law for over a decade. When his house was raided by counter-terrorism police in 2008, he took to the BBC to protest his innocence, declaring “I ain’t no terrorist.”

However, he was arrested two years later for plotting to blow up the London Stock Exchange, kill then-Mayor Boris Johnson, bomb a series of London pubs, and establish a terror training camp on family land in Kashmir. Described by a judge as a “serious jihadi,” he was sentenced in 2012 to an indeterminate stretch in prison, before his sentence was fixed at 16 years in 2013. Khan was automatically released on parole last December, against the advice of the original sentencing judge.

With Prime Minister Boris Johnson promising longer sentences for criminals, Merritt’s father has asked that his son’s death not be used to toughen up the UK’s justice system.

“My son, Jack, who was killed in this attack, would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily,” he wrote on Saturday, in a since-deleted tweet.

Today, ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack on London Bridge. It might be true, or it might be a pathetic attempt to convince vulnerable people that they still exist.

It's a tragedy to lose such a greatly admired young man to a lunatic jihadist. But there are a few reasons for not taking his father's tweet seriously. His father described him as a champion for the underdogs. We all love champions for underdogs, however, is it right to call terrorists underdogs? Shouldn't their victims be called underdogs and deserve increased protection from them. Nobody goes out onto the streets of London expecting to be accosted by a knife-wielding lunatic.

It would be nice to know how many jihadists Jack Merritt turned away from their madness? Certainly not Usman Khan! I am quite certain that jihadists can only be turned away from their madness by being turned away from Islam. Radical Muslims and jihadists are a grave danger to those whom they call infidels, which includes all non-Muslims, and all Muslims not of the same sect as they, ie, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Druze, etc., etc.

Devout Muslims should not be allowed into Europe, and those who put Mohammed and Allah above the laws of the country in which they live, should be locked up, or kicked out. I know that's harsh, but I believe it will come to that sooner or later, and the later it is, the more blood will be spilled. 

“I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.” - Syrian Psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan

London Bridge Terrorist Attack Leader Released 8 Months Prior Despite Owning Jihadist Material

© Global Look Press/ Rob Pinney

The London Bridge terrorist attack ringleader was released eight months before carrying it out in June last year, a report reveals. Police found he had jihadist materials when he was arrested for fraud but didn’t prosecute.

According to a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, Khuram Butt, who was responsible for planning and heading the attack that killed 8 last summer, could have been jailed over possession of terrorist propaganda almost a year before the carnage happened.

It was revealed that after allegations of bank fraud against him in 2016, he was found with terrorist-related materials. He was briefly arrested and then released.

Butt first came to the attention of MI5 between mid-2015 and 2017 following reports of him looking to carry out a terrorist attack, but they never got any incriminating material to prosecute him under the Terror Act.

The investigation into him was still open when the attack in the heart of Britain's capital happened, though no sign of him planning it had been detected.

Butt, along with Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba, hired a van to mow down pedestrians in his attack on June 3 last year.

The trio then abandoned the van and proceeded on foot to Borough Market, where they went on a knife rampage before all three attackers were killed by armed police.

Zaghba had not been investigated by MI5 before the attack, though he was known to Italian authorities.

Redouane, on the other hand, had not been investigated by either MI5 or counter-terrorism police.

Surely there must be a way of declaring jihadists mentally unstable and fit for incarceration in some kind of secure facility until they are deemed to no longer be jihadists. It's impossible to anticipate every terrorist act planned by these lunatics.  

Blowback or Extremism? Uneasy Debate in UK on Causes of Terrorist Attacks

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May (L), Jeremy Corbyn,

the leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party (R). © Reuters

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, Theresa May called for a crackdown on extremist ideology, Jeremy Corbyn called on Arab countries to stop promoting it, while John Pilger told RT he believes the attacks are the “product” of UK foreign policy.

Speaking on how to fight terrorism in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack on Sunday, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that stamping out radical Islamist ideology is the number one priority, adding that “we cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are.”

Terrorism, she said, “will only be defeated when we turn people’s mind away from this violence and make them understand that our values – pluralistic, British values – are superior” to that harbored by jihadists.

In addition to eradicating terrorist propaganda, military action “to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria” will be needed, as well as showing less tolerance to the manifestations of extremism at home, she said.

May’s Labour rival Corbyn, who has resumed his election campaign – briefly put on hold in the aftermath of the London carnage – pledged to empower police, granting them “full authority… to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life,” and boost their numbers with 10,000 additional recruits, while taking aim at May for extensive cuts to the police force.

Echoing May’s concerns over radicalization, Corbyn said that the UK needs to have “some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states,” who he blamed for “funding and fueling extremist ideology.”

Referring to a recent admission by the Home Office that it may never make public an inquiry delving into foreign funding of Islamist groups, which reportedly implicates Saudi Arabia, Corbyn blasted May for “suppressing the report.” 

Speaking at a campaign rally on Friday, the Labour leader, known for his staunch anti-war stance, stated that by getting mired in military conflicts outside its borders, such as in Iraq and Libya, Britain invites blowback.

“Many experts… have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home,” Corbyn said. He added that merely pointing out the apparent link between the UK’s policy of meddling and terrorism on its own soil should in no way be interpreted as a justification for terrorism.

According to a YouGov poll, Corbyn’s explanation for the surge in terrorist attacks on British soil seems to strike a chord with people. Around 53 percent of the 7,134 UK citizens who were surveyed said they believe that the wars are at least in part responsible for terrorist attacks against the UK. Only 24 percent said that they do not see any connection, while another 23 percent said that they did not know.

Pilger: Terrorist attacks ‘product of UK foreign policy, 

of being where it shouldn’t be’

Author and documentary filmmaker John Pilger told RT’s Afshin Rattansi he believes that the interventionist British foreign policy of recent decades has backfired. Pilger spoke on RT’s ‘Going Underground’ ahead of the Saturday attack in London.

What terrorist attacks on British soil “have in common is that they are the product of the British foreign policy, of being where we shouldn’t be,” Pilger said.

He believes that the deadliest terrorist attacks in the UK in the 21st century, in particular the recent Manchester Arena attack and the 2005 London Underground bombings, demonstrate “that the rock of British foreign policy is briefly lifted and we see the cause and effect.”

Members of the ‘Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’ (LIFG), who claim to have played a key role in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe when Theresa May was UK Home Secretary.

“When Libya, Africa’s largest producer of oil, was invaded, these salafists and wahhabists in Manchester, known as the Manchester boys, were told they could go to Libya… May was the country’s interior minister, responsible for control orders which were lifted by MI5. One of them talked about going to Heathrow Airport where he is stopped by counterterrorism police, and he gives them a name and a number in MI5, they call it and he sits there and waits, and they say, ‘Oh it’s fine, fine, off you go to battle,’” Pilger said, adding:

“They wanted to overthrow Gaddafi and these people were used.”

Once Gaddafi was removed in Libya, the “next stop” for those fighters, who were by then “at the very least Al-Qaeda affiliated,” was Syria.

“So many of the Manchester boys ended up in Syria fighting the West’s war or efforts to overthrow the government of Assad,” Pilger told Rattansi.

“It is a complicated story most certainly, but it has strands running through it, and the strongest strand is the support of powerful Western governments like the British government, the US government and the French government for what they call assets… This web of collaboration, proxy power in the Middle East invariably will produce this kind of violence and what we’ve seen since 9/11 is that the violence has come home, not only to the US but also to this country,” he said.

“We have to take responsibility for that, it has to be discussed, we can’t walk around with their hands over our eyes and their fingers in our ears, it’s absurd. The people who died in Manchester, and in the London Underground, and the people who died in the Twin Towers, and all those children in Yemen and Afghanistan deserve better.”