Last week, in the Swedish town of Vetlanda, a 22-year-old Afghan citizen, Tamim Sultani, went on a stabbing rampage while screaming the Islamic battle cry “Allahu Akhbar”. Eight people were reported injured in the attack, but the number was later reduced to seven. After police opened a terror investigation into the attacks, they declared the incidents were not in fact terror-related.
Tamim Sultani was granted a residency permit through Sweden’s current Prime Minister, Social Democrat Stefan Löfven’s “High School Amnesty” act. This act makes it possible for unaccompanied young men from Afghanistan to stay in Sweden despite not having grounds for asylum, so long as they choose to attend high school.
At a press conference with the Prime Minister, a journalist mentioned that the Sweden Democrats, a conservative leaning party, had linked the incident with his immigration policy. The party and its leaders demanded a “complete stop to all asylum-and family immigration, including quota refugees.” The journalist asked Sweden Social Democrat leader, PM Löfven, what he thought about their statements. PM Löfven retorted that the knife rampage had nothing to do with immigration and this was not a “migration issue”.
The left-wing Social Democrat Party and their leader Stefan Löfven’s open border migration policies have put the country at great risk. As a result of the uncontrolled immigration, islamic terrorists walk freely on the streets and live off the country’s welfare and asylum systems. Löfven also has a long history of collaborating with many Islamic supremacist organizations and individuals. RAIR recently reported on the party’s long record of antisemitism and anti-Israel incitement by many of its leading figures.
An ex-Muslim, Mohamed Omar, strongly disagrees with Prime Minister Stefan Löfven claim that the latest Islamic attack in Sweden has nothing to do with immigration. Read Omar’s Op Ed which was originally posted at the Swedish newsite, Det Goda Samhället:
When a fanatical Muslim screams “Allahu Akhbar” and blows himself up in Stockholm, that has nothing to do with Islam. And when an immigrant stabs people with a knife in Vetlanda, that has nothing to do with immigration.
Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has previously explained that he has the greatest respect for Islam, that he has never criticized the religion, and he will never do so.
Not because there is nothing to criticize in Islam; rather Löfven doesn’t criticize Islam.
The “unaccompanied child refugee” from Afghanistan who stabbed people on the street in Vetlanda was perhaps no fanatical Muslim. Perhaps he was not motivated by his Islamic belief.
The prime minister says that the terror in Vetlanda has nothing to do with immigration.
But the terror in Vetlanda obviously has something to do with immigration. Islamic terror has something to do with Islam, and immigrant terror has something to do with immigration. In Sweden, one needs to point out these self-evident facts.
For there are people with power and influence who seem to think that 1) Criticism of Islam is a bigger problem than Islamic terror, and 2) criticism of immigration is a bigger problem than immigrant terror.
For us common people, who are not schooled in the sophisticated thinking of politically-correct-isms, this is difficult to understand.
When we let in masses of criminal immigrants, criminality increases in Sweden. If we had not let them in, criminality would have been lower.
Those who have run immigration policy seem to think that it is more important to let in foreigners into our country than that we who live here should be safe.
For us common people, that is a strange priority.
We common people do not understand why foreigners who commit crimes are allowed to stay. The “unaccompanied child refugee” who went on the attack in Vetlanda had, for example, had committed crimes previously. Why was he not sent home?
Stefan Löfven, and those who think like him, think it is more worrisome that Swedes become more critical of immigration than is immigrant crime.
We common people cannot understand how a critical view of immigration can be a problem, and it is also more difficult to understand that this should be a bigger problem than immigrant crime.
Criticism of immigration means that one weighs the advantages against the disadvantages. One looks at how immigration has gone so far and asks himself: Has it gone well?
That is what sensible people do. You cannot continue to do what does not go well.
“I condemn this terrible act,” says Löfven about the terror in Vetlanda. Those are empty words as long as he cannot criticize his immigration policy.
It is because of Löfven’s — and his like-minded colleagues’ — irresponsible immigration policy that seven people were stabbed in Vetlanda.