Last weekend an Islamist blew himself up in Stockholm.
The terror attack in Sweden’s capital city killed only the terrorist, lightly injuring two passersby.
The Swedish Islamist terrorist had a total of 8 bombs with him: one car bomb, which exploded. One explosive backpack packed with sharp nails which he intended to throw into a shop filled with Christmas shoppers but which he failed to detonate. And a total of 6 pipe-bombs packed around his waist, of which only one exploded.
There has been a lot of in-depth speculation here in Sweden about what might have caused a Swedish Muslim to commit such a horrific crime – a crime not only against the innocent passersby he selected for death but also against his own family (he was married with young children) and also of course against Sweden’s Muslim population.
While Sweden’s politicians adopted a predictable and embarrassingly subdued tone framed by political correctness, most of the Swedish media have been surprisingly open, critical and analytical about the attack itself and the Islamist pressure that nurtured it.
Left-wing Aftonbladet, normally a newspaper that makes a living concocting stories about Jews harvesting organs from Muslims in the Middle East, published a refreshingly honest article (link in Swedish) written by Johan Hakelius about the dangers of political correctness strangling our politicians’ analysis of the violent and racist political ideology that is islamism. This is probably the best article written on the subject in Sweden this year.
Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, not exactly renowned for tackling the issue of Islamism, writes that there is no Swedish plan for dealing with extremists (link in Swedish) and says openly that these extremists are Islamists. There are many vital considerations when drawing up a plan for dealing with Islamist extremists. One of the most important is to tackle the problem without disrupting Swedish society’s relationship with other practitioners of Islam. What is interesting is that ever louder voices are beginning to be heard both in Sweden and abroad about the use of ethnic profiling as one of many parallel methods for dealing with the problem.
Among the very best, open and honest articles written on the subject of Islamism and the groundswell of violence it brings with it is a series of pieces written by Mats Tunehag, International Affairs Editor at Världen Idag. He asks tongue-in-cheek whether the Swedish suicide bomber was perhaps a member of the Liberal Party, or whether in fact he belonged to a political party with a far more sinister world-view. He asks readers to answer a simple question: who would you rather stand beside on a crowded street – a bible-thumping Christian street-preacher or a committed jihadist just out of training camp in Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. Tunehag asks readers to answer another question: which society and religion preach on a daily basis such tenets as antisemitism, jihad and the murder of those who “insult Islam”. He wants readers to consider who it is who is behind the murder threats against Swedish artist Lars Vilks – were the threats made by card-carrying Conservatives, devout Roman Catholics, peaceful Buddhists, eco-concerned Green Party members? Or by people with an unshakeable conviction that Islam – and their particular interpretation of Islam – shall prevail, whatever the cost to human life?
In another article Mats Tunehag asks the thought-provoking question: “What is moderate Islam? Does it exist?” (link in Swedish). And in yet another article Tunehag writes (link in Swedish) that “Taking Islam out of any discussion on the terrorist act in Stockholm would be like taking communism out of any discussion on Stalin’s terrorism and Mao’s mass-murder.”
The Swedish media, in other words, are by and large doing some pretty thorough soul-searching.
Among the country’s political elite, however, political correctness is preventing the adoption of a cohesive strategy for dealing with Islamism, although thankfully Swedish media and social analysts are showing an interest in discussing and highlighting the problem.
The media appear to realise the importance of differentiating between followers of the religion of Islam and followers of the violent, fanatical and racist political ideology of Islamism, although that difference is often blurred both by Islamists and by followers of Islam.
Islamism without Islam would not be possible. Islamists succeed in gaining ground only because they have understood that the western world’s devotion to political correctness prevents criticism of Islamism because of the similarity of its name to the religion of Islam. A simple ruse – and very effective.
And this is the weakness that social saboteurs and political wannabees such as Sweden’s Jan Guillou (link in Swedish) exploit to support Islamism and attack the fundamental democratic values of Swedish society. Jan Guillou is widely regarded as having been a Soviet spy acting against his own country, Sweden. Guillou refers to the Swedish suicide bomber as a “weirdo”. Watch this film clip about a British Islamist “weirdo” who sent 52 people to their deaths. Guillou, who exploits Sweden’s freedoms to write openly in the press, does not characterise these people as terrorists or mass-murderers who ought to be tackled with the combined might of the Swedish state and Swedish society, but instead as harmless-sounding “weirdos”.
Guillou makes the outrageous claim that these “weirdos” are being targeted by state and society simply because of the colour of their skin. Not because of the bombs they wrap around their torsos, not because people of this ilk favour killing Jews wherever they live – yes, in Sweden – and not because their violence and aggression are making it impossible for Jews to live in Sweden’s third-largest city Malmö.
Guillou is also an avid supporter of Palestinian terror group PFLP. Guillou has taken part in this organisation’s actions and he is more than happy to distribute its propaganda. Among much else, the PFLP killed a large number of civilians – Jews, Christians and Muslims alike – throughout the Middle East and Europe and hijacked a number of civilian aircraft. The PFLP is a racist organisation. Sweden’s Jan Guillou encourages Swedes to support the PFLP. Enough said.
Today we are facing a possible ramping-up of Islamist violence in Sweden. The more responsible media are protesting against the violence and working to spotlight it while at the same time trying to ensure that the rest of Sweden’s Muslim citizens are not drawn into the maelstrom generated by fanatical Islamists. At the same time, we have useful idiots like Jan Guillou doing their immature best to stoke the fires of hatred, violence and death. He appears to believe that the mayhem on Stockholm’s streets is an inspiring theme for a trashy dime novel.
It isn’t. This is serious. This is about Swedish lives and Swedish democracy. Jan Guillou’s track record speaks volumes about his regard for Swedish lives and Swedish democracy. Do we really want to develop in the direction Guillou so eagerly espouses, with overseas organisations and countries issuing travel advisories for Sweden, as did the Simon Wiesenthal Center recently? Guillou is naturally not alone; there are plenty of other Swedish heavyweights who have what can be euphemistically termed an “unorthodox” view of democracy and human rights, such as Malmö mayor Ilmar Reepalu. In Malmö it is the Islamist mob that decides who may and may not live in Reepalu’s city – the city’s Jews, who have lived there for 100 years and more, are leaving in droves. Reepalu says that if Swedish Jews do not publicly criticise Israel, they have only themselves to blame and must understand the treatment meted out to them by his city’s violent Islamists. He makes no corresponding demand of Muslims in his city that they must distance themselves from Islamism, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, in order to be allowed to live in peace.
This is where the Islamists of Sweden draw their succour.
It is high time that someone with suitable legal clout took a good, long look at these people. Overseas media may also want to contact Jan Guillou and Ilmar Reepalu and ask them about their vision for tomorrow’s Sweden.
Want to find out more about how Sweden is perceived abroad? Watch the clip below.