Cognitive Dissonance: When the Truth Hurts

USA

News is already coming out about the Manchester suicide bomber. And while some news outlets have exposed too much information already, we will probably learn much more in the coming days and weeks.

But here is what we do know. The suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was the son of Libyan refugees. While they fled their nation for fear of Muammar Gaddafi, they kept strong ties to Libya, with all reports suggesting they did not embrace Western culture or customs.

Abedi himself, days before the attack, had traveled to Libya and perhaps Syria. There is a good chance that during that trip he was working with terrorists for preparation in his attack that killed 22 people.

We’ve also learned that UK police have arrested several more people connected with the attack, the latest number being nine in total. Some stories suggest it was a well-planned attack, orchestrated by what can only be called a terror cell.

Pretty scary stuff. Especially in England, which has been spared up until now from such wide-scale terrorism (the London attack from just two months ago was small compared to this event).

So what does this tell you? Well, a couple of things. First it disproves the notion that modern attacks are the work of “lone wolves.” It reaffirms our concerns that larger terrorist networks are operating within Western nations, working around the clock to plan deadly attacks.

Oh, and it also proves that Trump’s travel ban was a good idea.

If the UK had a travel ban like President Donald Trump’s proposed one, Abedi – with his record of having traveled to Libya and possibly Syria (both countries on Trump’s list) – would not have been allowed back into the country to commit his violent act. (Milo)

The truth is painful.

But sure, you might say that England would have never proposed such a ban. That was an American policy from Trump, right? Well England’s not the only victim of terror. And the United States is arguably a bigger target than anyone else.

Is it really crazy to think that there are terrorists planning similar events at venues in the U.S? The Summer’s coming, and there are lots of music festivals happening around the country. (It’s also the 50th anniversary of the Summer of Love, so San Francisco? Look out.)

Considering the Islamic State called the Manchester attack a success (even though police found and successfully detonated other explosives), it will inspire more attacks. That’s how this stuff works. While we look on with disgust and sorrow at the lost lives, radical Islamic terrorists—Trump’s evil losers—celebrate.

You’d be a fool to think that future concerts and events in the U.S. won’t be targets. And while smart event organizers will provide ample security, even a foiled attack can cost lives (keep in mind that even though it seems the Manchester concert had zero security, Abedi detonated his bomb outside the venue, where security wouldn’t be).

I’m saying all this in the hopes that you realize strict measures must be put into place to keep people safe. The liberal argument that reasonable security “targets Muslims” is nonsense. Especially when we see their policies have failed. After eight years of President Obama and his liberal buddies in Europe ruling, terrorism continues to thrive.

While Trump has taken the fight to the Muslim world, urging their leaders to drive out extremism, we still need to protect our people. If the Muslim world heeds Trump’s wisdom, we will see radical Islam decline. Yet for right now, there are still threats.

Trump’s temporary ban would have been (and still will be) a way to prevent killers from going back and forth between our countries with ease. It would be an effective net to not only stop them from entering the U.S., but allow law enforcement to apprehend would-be terrorists.

To, you know, stop them before they kill.

Around The Web