News Commentary — June 5, 2017
As evidence mounts the London Bridge attack begins to look less like a false flag and more as if elements in authority knew what was being planned but knowingly allowed it happen.
Nothing else can explain the authorities recurring oversights.
Police were repeatedly warned about concerns over one of the suspects involved in the attack.
According to Sky News London Bridge attacker Khuram Shazad Butt was ‘known to police for many years’
The 27-year-old Muslim ringleader of the London Bridge gang, known to friends as ‘Abz’, even appeared in a Channel 4 documentary last year about British jihadists and unfurled an ISIS-style flag in Regent’s Park.
As seen on TV: Islamic State Flag unfurled in Regents Park. Click to enlarge
In other words the prime suspect in the London Bridge attack had openly advertised his militancy on national TV.
‘Abz’ was also ejected from a local mosque after he repeatedly interrupted the resident iman.
According to the Daily Mail, a friend of the suspect also called an anti-terror hotline to alert police of the potential threat he posed.
Housewife Erica Gasparri, 42, also warned police last year that the suspect and others were trying to radicalise youngsters in the area.
She said: ‘They were waiting for the children of the neighbourhood. They would give the children chocolate while talking to them. They would pray in the park for hours.’
Of course this doesn’t mean the police failed in their responsibility. Well, not exactly, because if a potential terror threat had been flagged then the police would then be required to alert one of the domestic intelligence agencies for further investigation.
And that’s where the problem probably lies because despite all the warnings domestic intelligence allowed the London Bridge attack to happen. There’s no other explanation for such repeated oversights.
Somewhere in the murky world of intelligence it was known that a genuine domestic terror threat was growing in east London. The question is why was it allowed to happen?
Part of the answer can be found in Theresa May’s announcement in the immediate aftermath of the London Bridge attack. On Sunday morning, only hours after the London Bridge attack the prime minister revealed plans to regulate the internet.
Under normal circumstances her plans would have been met with widespread objections from freedom of speech advocates and the like. However, in the immediate aftermath of one of the bloodiest terror attacks Britain has ever seen there were only muted protests.
Cynics might say that was because the London Bridge attack has achieved its aim. Having shocked the nation into compliance; more widespread control of the Internet is on the cards and it’s only a matter of time before new legislation is in place and a more draconian rule is enforced.