Let’s admit: Manchester is the 'new normal'

Could a TV scriptwriter make up a more obvious jihadist than the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi?  According to my reading of a Daily Mail article, this guy was so off the charts and stereotypically bad that it probably took more effort to keep him in Britain than it would have to deport him.  Is any U.K. jihadist ever deported?  For anything?

Consider the points made in this Daily Mail report.

Abedi was the son of refugees from Libya.  (Who fled Libya?  Jihadists.  Why?  Gaddafi cracked down on jihadists.  Why would the U.K. take people fleeing from Gaddafi when so many would be jihadists or sympathizers?)

Once in the U.K., the dad was allowed to work in airport security.

The dad goes back to Libya to fight Gaddafi, on the side of the jihadists.

Abedi is known to U.K. security services.

Abedi is believed to be connected to an ISIS recruiter, Raphael Hostey.

Abedi recently returned from a three-week trip to Libya.

Some neighbors say he had the "face of hate" when growing up.

His mother told people she was concerned about her son's radical views.

His wife was reported to a counter-terrorism unit.

He was known at his mosque as a troublemaker, uncooperative.

He objected to anti-ISIS statements made at his mosque.

He had grown a beard.

His brother posted pro-ISIS comments online.

This guy checks every single jihadist box.  When people like this are allowed to walk the streets – there's a report that there are 3,500 Abedis roaming free in the U.K. – the public can be excused for assuming that a suicide bombing at a pop concert is the "new normal."

It certainly seems normal to me.  It would be abnormal for the U.S. to implement a commonsense immigration policy, or to deport Islamist preachers promoting sharia.  But it is normal, as per Tucker Carlson's report this evening, for the U.S. immigration authorities to find homes for M18 gang members in communities around the country.

"Normal" is the perfect word to describe the terror threat in the West, because the threat of terror is average and expected.  When I heard about the Manchester bombing yesterday, it felt as though we were going back to normal.

It is not productive to fantasize about our governments in the West finally waking up to the threat.  "Tipping point" analyses are pointless.  When you have government agencies seeped for decades in multicultural religion and diversity dogma, it will take decades, if ever, to reach a stage when bad people are tossed out.

Maj. Hasan presented his views in a PowerPoint presentation to other officers, on an American military base, eight years after 9-11 and eight years ago.  Has the U.S. military changed its personnel policies since Hasan killed 13 fellow soldiers?  Or would today's military turn a blind eye to a "We love death more than you love life!" presentation?

Asking the question is painful, because the answer is far from certain.  Those in charge haven't convinced me that the term "counterterrorism" has a fixed, settled, and dependable meaning.  It mostly refers to plans, organizations, and people.  It doesn't refer to a consequence or an end point the way that "J. Edgar Hoover and his G-men" meant that die-hard, ruthless criminals were marked for death.

Americans are taught that Hoover was the enemy, and Bonnie and Clyde were cool.  The jihad will be with us for our lifetimes.  Admitting it is to accept the truth.

Could a TV scriptwriter make up a more obvious jihadist than the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi?  According to my reading of a Daily Mail article, this guy was so off the charts and stereotypically bad that it probably took more effort to keep him in Britain than it would have to deport him.  Is any U.K. jihadist ever deported?  For anything?

Consider the points made in this Daily Mail report.

Abedi was the son of refugees from Libya.  (Who fled Libya?  Jihadists.  Why?  Gaddafi cracked down on jihadists.  Why would the U.K. take people fleeing from Gaddafi when so many would be jihadists or sympathizers?)

Once in the U.K., the dad was allowed to work in airport security.

The dad goes back to Libya to fight Gaddafi, on the side of the jihadists.

Abedi is known to U.K. security services.

Abedi is believed to be connected to an ISIS recruiter, Raphael Hostey.

Abedi recently returned from a three-week trip to Libya.

Some neighbors say he had the "face of hate" when growing up.

His mother told people she was concerned about her son's radical views.

His wife was reported to a counter-terrorism unit.

He was known at his mosque as a troublemaker, uncooperative.

He objected to anti-ISIS statements made at his mosque.

He had grown a beard.

His brother posted pro-ISIS comments online.

This guy checks every single jihadist box.  When people like this are allowed to walk the streets – there's a report that there are 3,500 Abedis roaming free in the U.K. – the public can be excused for assuming that a suicide bombing at a pop concert is the "new normal."

It certainly seems normal to me.  It would be abnormal for the U.S. to implement a commonsense immigration policy, or to deport Islamist preachers promoting sharia.  But it is normal, as per Tucker Carlson's report this evening, for the U.S. immigration authorities to find homes for M18 gang members in communities around the country.

"Normal" is the perfect word to describe the terror threat in the West, because the threat of terror is average and expected.  When I heard about the Manchester bombing yesterday, it felt as though we were going back to normal.

It is not productive to fantasize about our governments in the West finally waking up to the threat.  "Tipping point" analyses are pointless.  When you have government agencies seeped for decades in multicultural religion and diversity dogma, it will take decades, if ever, to reach a stage when bad people are tossed out.

Maj. Hasan presented his views in a PowerPoint presentation to other officers, on an American military base, eight years after 9-11 and eight years ago.  Has the U.S. military changed its personnel policies since Hasan killed 13 fellow soldiers?  Or would today's military turn a blind eye to a "We love death more than you love life!" presentation?

Asking the question is painful, because the answer is far from certain.  Those in charge haven't convinced me that the term "counterterrorism" has a fixed, settled, and dependable meaning.  It mostly refers to plans, organizations, and people.  It doesn't refer to a consequence or an end point the way that "J. Edgar Hoover and his G-men" meant that die-hard, ruthless criminals were marked for death.

Americans are taught that Hoover was the enemy, and Bonnie and Clyde were cool.  The jihad will be with us for our lifetimes.  Admitting it is to accept the truth.

RECENT VIDEOS