When it comes to these terrorist attacks, it seems like they were always so preventable. You know, hindsight is always 20-20. It’s woulda, shoulda and coulda all day long in the media, but in the Manchester bombing case there really may have been some key red flags that were missed.
What we know: Again the suspect fits the classic terrorist profile which we can’t use. He was a devout Muslim male, between the ages of 17-37, and his parents once immigrated from a country known for terrorism (Libya). His name was Salman Abedi, born in Manchester and here’s where it gets even more interesting. The suspect’s father belongs to a faction of Al Qaeda operating in Libya. The father moved to England then back to Libya. Now that should be a screaming red flag! Salman recently traveled to Libya and he came back just days before the bombing…mmmm, that’s never a good sign. The authorities think he may have been radicalized while in Libya and that he possibly had some internet activity that suggests he was being radicalized. But, apparently nobody was watching his internet traffic because was not on a watch list. In addition, his brother who still lives in Libya was fully aware of what his brother was doing. So, this suggests that they were in close contact right up to the time of the bombing. This doozy was revealed after the brother was arrested in Libya for suspicion of aiding and abetting in a terroristic plot.
At this time the technical composition of the triggering device and the explosive materials are believed to beyond Salman’s ability, meaning he had assistance within the UK.
Salman had several associates known to British for their radical links.
Given the above information about our prime suspect, it seems odd that the British had not flagged him for at least a watch list? Among many helpful things that watch list would have done is, it would have revealed Salman’s credit card purchases that could have then revealed any buys of bomb making ingredients and it would have noted all recent phone contacts and known associates. Would that have been enough to legally intervene into his bombing plans? Highly likely.
Currently, the British government is deploying several thousand armed soldiers to the streets of London and other key cities in the wake of the Manchester bombing. Apparently they have developed information that leads them to believe that other terrorists are on the loose and planning another attack.
Breaking news: Las Vegas, known for its holiday crowds was named a target by ISIS. They (ISIS) called upon Muslims acting as a lone wolf and any Muslim terror cells to attack Vegas on the Memorial Day week-end, using knives, vehicles or any other method of mass killing.
The good news ISIS will not be attacking anyone in California with assault rifles or banned pistols, thanks to our strict gun laws that prohibit them (and us) from owning and using a number of banned weapons. To do so would be seriously breaking the law. What terrorist would want to risk that?
However, a terrorist (or you and me) may legally own a number of otherwise banned weapons, if we have the $15 fee required to register said weapons as “assault” weapons. So, let me make this clear for our liberals…in the infinite wisdom of the great California State legislature, who just 2 years ago declared that all assault weapons posed an immediate and intolerable public danger and therefore nobody should have one, to this: They will gladly overlook all that previous hype… if you are willing to pay a $15 fee to registered a so-called assault weapon! See, money talks. It’s all about the money, not public safety and it’s always been that way. The assault weapon ban was just a big scam to raise more money for the bullet train, uh, er, no pun intended.