Yet another attack in the UK.  Like the Manchester bombing, there were warning signs that weren’t heeded.

(A former friend of one of the London terrorists said: “He used to listen to a lot of Musa Jibril. I have heard some of this stuff and its very radical. I am surprised this stuff is still on YouTube and is easily accessible. I phoned the anti-terror hotline. I spoke to the gentleman. I told him about our conversation and why I think he was radicalised.”

However, he said he was not arrested and was allowed to keep his passport. “I did my bit, I know a lot of other people did their bit, but the authorities did not do their bit,” the friend said.

It’s not stated in the article, but I think the former friend is a Muslim.  He knew exactly what the warning signs were for radicalization.  Duly reported it.  Nothing was done.  The article also mentioned that a suspect was kicked out of a local mosque for verbally abusing the imam a couple of years ago.

It doesn’t say if the imam reported him, but that too is an enormous red flag that radicalization has occurred.  The would-be jihadis get frustrated when their mosques aren’t “authentic” enough for their liking.  They push for the most extreme and literal interpretation of Islam imaginable.  When the imam laughs them off, they stop showing up at mosque.

No bullshit.  I once heard an FBI terrorism speak at a local seminar.  He said there have been numerous instances in which a suspect came onto law enforcement’s radar thanks to the local imam reporting his observations out of concern that a certain person was going off the deep end.  Again, it’s a red flag.

In the Manchester bomber’s case, you had so much more.  The fact that he had recently traveled to Libya and the FBI had apparently tipped off UK intelligence about him should have been enough.  They didn’t “do their bit”, did they?

This is where I strongly agree with Donald Trump that political correctness must fall by the wayside if governments are serious about protecting their citizens.  More specifically, if governments are serious about protecting their Muslim citizens, it is essential that they follow up when they receive such strong confirmation that radicalization has occurred.

Nothing will erode confidence in government or the trust of Muslim communities throughout the West more than the mere implication that government is somehow coddling these losers because it cares more for that community’s feelings more than it does the safety of its people.  Besides the inevitable victims and their families, it is the Muslim community itself that will suffer in the form of a horrible backlash.

This is why the silent Muslim majority is so willing to report suspicious activity.  Seriously, Politicians and Intelligence Professionals of the West, if you really care about your Muslim communities and want them to be welcomed and assimilated, fucking listen to them when they tell you that one of their own is acting like a nutcase.


  1. Part of the problem is a lot more “what if the public finds out we are watching them.” reaction, ACLU CAIR steps in starts the ball rolling, then if the guy gal in question is a legitimate possible threat, he/she/it/Xi/xir? is still not committed a crime. They become a victim of Islamophobia, and the agency that was conducting the surveillance suddenly has a PR problem, along with the issue that the target and his associates and fellow travelers are alerted to the agency activities and locations. This is all assuming that the subject in question was a risk, and not a case of Islamophobia, misinterpretation of action/words or a out right revers dragnet type op, by those that want to stir up mistrust or confuse authorities.
    The attacks will continue, they will be more complex and more daring. trumps works on Twitter will be used to incite/place blame on, more security will be called “police state mentality”, any focus on Islamists will be called out as provoking backlash, and hate, and more possible terrorist action…. a never ending cycle, until those in the community simply take matters into their own hands. Maybe a few of the peaceful loving Islamic type might snatch up a few of these nutballs string them up publicly, tell the world of Islam that “we wont take this shit any more.”

    oh well…

  2. This is where I strongly agree with Donald Trump that political correctness must fall by the wayside if governments are serious about protecting their citizens.

    You’re assuming that the breakdown was due to ‘political correctness’ – it might have been I guess. I mean those MI5 folks are a bunch of tree hugging hipsters… 🙂

    More likely is that there isn’t enough resource to fully investigate all 3,000 that are on the list. (With 23,000 on a ‘lower threat list’)

    When people are calling for us to ‘take it seriously’ – this is what they should be talking about.

  3. The San Bernadino killers had been on the radar since 2014. The FBI had infiltrated a radicalism sect of Afghan muslims here in Los Angeles. They tailed the guy and waited while he and others plotted an attack on our freeways during rush hour. It would’ve been lambs to the slaughter if they’d done it because traffic hour is usually bumper to bumper in every lane for hours.

    then, for almost no reason at all it appears, the Mexican dude chickened out and they called it off. It later became the San Bernadino massacre but IMHO it didn’t have to be. I hate to sound intolerant but the minute that feckless shit stain on humanity’s ass went to Pakistan to pick up his openly jihadi wife, they should have ripped up his passport as soon as he landed there.

    If the government refuses to vet these people through sheer laziness, volume, or fear of political correctness, then I say call it a mulligan. At that point its ok to throw our hands in the air and let none of them in.

  4. If there are that many on the list, then they should be deporting, yanking passports, and other measures. Why don’t they if not for political correctness reasons?

  5. Because of the rule of law. You can’t prosecute anyone because of hearsay, for anything. You can’t take away someones driving licence because someone heard them say they loved drink driving. And you can’t take away someones passport because someone heard them say something about terrorism. There has to be a process.

    If I phone up your local police station and say that I heard you were radicalised – should you be deported? Or is it ‘politically correct’ for them to investigate further before making that legal judgement?

    Look, I’m not saying that the systems works(ed) – but my hypothesis is that it’s a resource issue. Maybe there are some laws we need to change to be able to expedite things faster. Maybe it was human error.

    Can I ask you to explain in more detail what you mean by ‘political correctness’ in this instance?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: