Same old story... They knew someone is a potential threat but didn't do anything about it..
" BBC News understands that members of the public had called an anti-terrorism hotline after Abedi expressed the views that "he was supporting terrorism" and "being a suicide bomber was ok". Home Secretary Amber Rudd said Abedi was known "up to a point" by security services, and it was believed he had recently returned from Libya."
I don't think it is that easy as at times, there may be too much noise. Always at hindsight...
A responsible government and law enforcement agencies need to balance between freedom of speech vs safety. Else, foul play and vindictive claims will be rampant. The real question is how the law enforcement agencies can improve on their methods without compromising on innocent people's rights.
I remember my dad used to say that in the 60s, if one wants to get someone into trouble, just claim the person is a communist.
Just imagine this. Everyone follows Donald's idea. Bar everyone from a certain country to come into his country and round up anyone who is remotely sympathetic to certain cause. Easily solved right?
Someone " who was known up to a point by security services, and had recently returned from Libya " was allowed to carry a rucksack and walked freely into a crowded concert unchecked. This is a clear sign of security lapse, in the opinion of a layman like me.
I don't know how the Malaysian enforcement managed to fail so many terrorist attempts. I also amazed how Singapore can keep the island safe taking into consideration that hundreds of thousand of people enter the tiny island each day. In a way, I feel safer to live here or live in Singapore.
I'm not supporting suppression of human right or violation of individual's freedom, but I do think there is no need to talk human right to those who intended to blow others into pieces..
What about the right to live peacefully of those innocent victims ???