Manchester Refujihad: Time to Brexit

REFUJIHAD strikes Europe again. The Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, was the son of Islamists who entered the UK claiming refugee status. Like refujihadis who attacked Paris & Brussels, Abedi was a second generation immigrant who travelled to Islamic states for jihadist training and then returned through Europe’s borders to unleash terror on innocents. And, like other refujihadis, he attended a mosque on European soil suspected of extremism.

AS I have written, refujihad is a direct consequence of multicultural ideology and porous border policy (see selected columns below under References). Once radicalised in a battle setting, it is near impossible to de-radicalise militant Islamists. The solutions available to Western states without the death penalty are prevention, or deportation.

ONLY a fortnight ago, I warned in the column Refujihad here as traitors return with plans to kill us’ about the danger of permitting jihadists a right of return to the West:

By permitting the return of battle-hardened Islamists from Syria and Iraq, Western governments are inadvertently empowering jihad. As allied forces contain Islamic State in the Middle East, the terrorist group is deepening the war against the West by a planned strategy of dispersion.


Jihadists like Neil Prakash are being sent back to their countries of origin to prepare jihad against the West from within. They will be sheltered by Western laws that prevent robust interrogation and enjoy legal support, food, housing and the freedom to spread their lethal ideology. The free world citizens that Islamists vow to exterminate will be forced to pay for the soldiers of genocide to live in well-funded prisons equipped with prayer mats, halal food, house imams and plenty of free time to develop jihadist ideology. We are being lured into the second phase of Islamic State jihad. Make no mistake, we aill pay for it dearly.


… In the ideal, allied forces would kill the genocidal soldiers where they stand. Unfortunately, some escape the battlefield death they so richly deserve, including Islamic State recruiter Neil Prakash … The singular benefit that Prakash and other highly ranked Islamic State officials offer the West is strategic intelligence on the terrorist group and its affiliates. However, common Western methods of interrogation could be ineffective in extracting intelligence for successful prosecution, or strategically valuable data.


In late 2016, British Home Office Minister Baroness Williams revealed that only ten cases of suspected foreign fighters had been successfully prosecuted in the UK. IN December, EU counter-terrorism chief Gilles de Kerchove estimated that between 1,200-1,750 “foreign terrorist fighters” had returned to Europe. Many are armed with specific missions. Several terrorists responsible for jihadist attacks in Europe were foreign fighters who re-entered the continent posing as refugees. It is not a coincidence. Islamic State openly celebrates its strategy of exploiting porous border policy to populate the West with battle-hardened jihadists. Some counter-terror analysts are using the term “refujihad” to describe it.


Australia is more protected from returning jihadists than Europe thanks to the conservative approach to secure border policy and counter-terrorism developed under the Abbott government. The government can strip dual nationals who serve jihad of Australian citizenship. Islamic State killer Khaled Sharrouf was the first dual national to have his citizenship revoked. However, sole nationals like Neil Prakash still enjoy right of return.


Despite their common pretensions to supranational virtue, the institutions of liberal international governance have not developed mechanisms to redress the most prolific violators of international law in the 21st century: non-state actors. The UN has proven impotent in the face of Islamic State barbarity. It took Russian aggression to yield a decent kill quota of jihadists in Syria. When the US finally overcame its Western guilt complex and responded to Kurdish, Yazidi and Christian pleas for protection from genocidal jihad, IS already had colonised strategic regional strongholds. The UN’s material contribution to stopping the worst genocide of the 21st century is virtually non-existent. It is nation states, not supranational powers, that stand between jihadists and their next hundred victims.


In the absence of a Nuremberg-style trial to bring Islamic State jihadists to justice, allied nations must unite to develop a jihad non-proliferation mechanism. In the meantime, thank Australia’s defence forces for killing every jihadist they can so the genodical traitors can’t escape to a soft landing in the heart of Western justice.

PREVENTION of jihadism begins with secure borders and enforcing Western values. If you permit extremist mosques, jihadis will come. If you open borders, jihadis will come. If you accept sharia, jihadis will come. If you reject extreme immigrant vetting, jihadis will come. If you tolerate intolerance in the name of diversity, multiculturalism, or a need to feel nicer than the conservatives who defend your liberties, jihadis will come.

REPORTS suggest Abedi’s parents are Salafis (fundamentalist Muslims) who claimed to be refugees fleeing Gaddafi. There are ongoing problems with Salafis in Europe. After the mass sexual assault of Germans in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015, news outlets reported that local Salafist imam Sami Abu-Yusuf said: “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume. It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them.”

BRITONS secured Brexit by popular referendum in 2016. As a result, they can demand basic security and safety without the EU prosecuting or fining them for resisting jihadis at the border. European states such as Hungary and Poland that resist the new totalitarians (socialists at the EU and Islamists at the borders) are being penalised for defending Western culture, Christianity and democracy.

PEOPLE of the free world must never accept jihad as the new normal. It is an imported problem utterly alien to Western Civilisation. We must eradicate the scourge of Islamism before it kills more of our children.


Refujihad Here as Traitors Return with Plans to Kill Us

West Proves Not All Cultures Are Equal

A European Union Stripped of Western Values Isn’t European Anymore

Belgium’s Open Border Failures

Open Borders Crack EU Melting Pot

5 thoughts on “Manchester Refujihad: Time to Brexit

  1. The media (and governments) forever referring to these terrorists as ‘lone wolves’ does three things (according to Maajid Nawaz – one of the few Muslims to speak out in Britain):
    1. Allows the security forces to wash their hands. i.e. “Lone wolf…we can’t keep an eye on everyone, this was a one-off, sorry”
    2. Governments, “We can’t keep an eye on everyone…single operators will get through from time to time, sorry” (but we mustn’t let is stop ‘our way of life’ of course)
    3. The public itself, perhaps feeling safer in saying that “It’s one guy, well too bad, from time to time, one will slip through the net”

    Research reveals that they are NOT lone wolves, but up to 80% are supported by a complex network of individuals and groups supplying them with training, equipment and naturally, propaganda to inflame them.

  2. Jennifer, I don’t want them here. New test or not, they are trying everyday to change us. Our politicians are gutless. Put me in there and I would fix a few things: no more Aussie passports given out.

    So angry, never had this problem when I was growing up.

  3. Great article.

    But I think we’re pissing in the wind because of our weak-kneed pollies.

  4. Jennifer, you must talk to politicians. Do any of them say, off the record, that they have had a gutful, it’s time to shut the borders to muslims etc, or have they all drunk the kool aid?

    1. There are politicians from both major parties who realise the West is under attack from within by Islamists. However, the push to secure borders has to come from the people because, as you know, the media is dominated by weak border advocates. If you read my column this week, ‘Media’s choice is between truth and propaganda’, you will have seen that 96% of surveyed media stories on Trump’s immigration proposals were negative. It is very difficult for politicians to prosecute more secure border policy in such a context.

      The new citizenship test proposed by the Liberals includes a specific list of Australian values. It’s a step in the right direction, but must be made enforceable. However, Labor and the Greens are likely to block an improved values test to vet prospective immigrants.

Comments are closed.