AHMAD KHAN RAHAMI, “WAS NOT A THREAT”? I SEE A PATTERN HERE.

One very disturbing feature of this latest event in the US has to be the fact  that once again, the individual was “known”. 

Let’s cut to the chase on this whole issue and it’s a chase that has come up time and time again.

Is it a valid argument when someone states, “The federal government is more worried about being accused of being phobic when it comes to Muslims than it is about stopping the next attack”?

Is the US federal government “soft” on the topic?

As I said, this is not a new argument. It has been taking place for over ten years now.

But, is it valid?

I hate answering this way, I really…..really hate it, but here I go!

Yes and no!

Yes, it’s true the Progressive, liberal mindset of the current US administration is grounded in the belief that compassion is the key to solving all of the world’s problems. A philosophy I find astounding given a large percentage of the liberal, progressive movement is made up of people who don’t place a great deal of stock in organized religion.

This “let’s not upset anyone” attitude, over simplified I know, is a key ingredient in the plotting of this particular enemy. Simply put, the aggressors rely on the federal government being timid on the issue of being a Muslim. As the saying goes, “the best offense is a good defense”. If questioned, simply reply, “are you harassing me because I am a Muslim”?

A reluctant federal government supported by a very liberal media is currently a key ingredient in these attacker being successful. By the way, did anyone notice two nights ago when CNN tired so hard to once again paint ahmad as being “disgruntled…. Upset…..mentally ill? “Was he really ‘radicalized’ or was he just upset with the Police hassling his family”?  Yep, I actually predicted they would take this approach the day before. An easy bet that nobody wanted to take.

Leveraging the current U.S leadership, that is what our enemy has accomplished.

Ok, now for the “NO” answer and I’ll be upfront with you, I’m not sold on this one, but I do follow some of the logic…..some of it!

Can the US afford to investigate everyone lead to the level of detail required? Are the same American Citizens willing to see a much more active Police State than they already have?

Is the US willing to hold every Muslim that travels to the Middle East until they have a sound understanding of what that person was doing?

What size of a force would this take?

How much would it cost?

What liberties would be lost?

The level of dedicated manpower required to give every person of interest a complete investigation would dwarf what programs are currently out there.

Is this an excuse for poor investigative operations? No and to be honest the whole issue of being afraid of accusations must be reevaluated as soon as the elections are over.

Is there a danger in taking a much harder line on this issue of monitoring?

Absolutely!

From day one, some of the most philosophical thinkers behind this insane movement knew one ultimate goal would be to change the way the West acts towards the faith the enemy hides behind.

In the end, is warning, “you can win the battle, but lose the war”?

Can the US become something it didn’t want to become?

Yes.

Here is the scary part.

Does that “change” have to take place?

At what level of attack does the price reach the point that change is the only option?