Downplaying the threat of terrorism makes us all sitting ducks

THE civilised world recoils in horror at the latest slaughter of innocent lives yet we continue to be sitting ducks by downplaying the threat of terrorism, writes Miranda Devine.

People flee after the deadly terror attack at Manchester Arena in Manchester. (Pic: Channel Ten)

THE SCREAMS of terrified little girls play on video loop after the latest terrorist attack at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, and the sound sears the soul. Barely into their teens, their whole lives have been in the shadow of Islamist terrorism.

For all our prowess, we can’t keep our children safe. Every concert, every train ride, every walk across a bridge, every gap year trip to Europe, every cafe visit is fraught with fear.

And that is exactly how the Muslim fanatics want it, the inadequate, baselessly arrogant fans of Islamic State with hearts full of scorn and hatred for the free societies which have taken their families in, nurtured them, and offered them every freedom. They kill our children on purpose. They maim deliberately with nail bombs to rip through soft flesh, mutilate pretty faces, butcher young limbs.

Police talk to people affected by the deadly terror attack at the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena. (Pic: AFP/Oli SCARFF)

Their twisted ideology is every bit as lethal as those other deadly -isms, Communism and Fascism.

Islamism seeks to rule the world by force, and now that ISIS is being defeated in its self-proclaimed “caliphate”, the threat of terrorism back home only escalates as jihadis return from Syria and Iraq.

Yet we continue to be sitting ducks, disarming ourselves with a corrosive political correctness that can barely manage to acknowledge terrorism when it occurs, let alone utter the word “Islam”.

“Their twisted ideology is every bit as lethal as those other deadly -isms, Communism and Fascism.” (Pic: Terry Pontikos)

Britain is further down this path of appeasement, with perverse results.

It’s a sick irony that just two weeks ago, police in Manchester were forced to apologise for “racial stereotyping” after staging a training exercise featured a mock suicide bomber shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

That wasn’t as big an apology as the one Greater Manchester police had to make in 2015 for its failure properly to investigate the Rochdale child sex abuse ring in which 47 mainly white British girls were preyed on by Pakistani Muslim sex gangs, convicted of sex trafficking, rape, and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child. Authorities turned a blind eye for fear of being accused of racism.

Helpers attend to people inside the Manchester Arena after a suspected suicide bomber detonated an explosive device at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 people. (Pic: PA Wire)

The same mindset prevails here.

With uncanny timing Monday night, a few hours before the Manchester attack, the usual leftists on our ABC’s Q&A program were busy downplaying the threat of terrorism.

Mona Chalabi, the Guardian’s data editor, who chose the period 1975 to 2016 to make her point (even though the modern age of Islamist terror began on September 11, 2001) said: “The threat of Islamic fundamentalism… actually really isn’t that present. So if you take the years from 1975 to 2015… the chance of being killed by a foreign-born terrorist is one in 3.6 million… but all of our perception of threat has been distorted because of the way risk is presented to us by politicians.”

American scientist Lawrence Krauss agreed: “We have a view it's a huge threat but… you’re more likely to be killed by a refrigerator in the US falling on you.”

Host Tony Jones chimed in: “If you’re a black American you’re more likely to be killed by a policeman.”

Even the knowledge of the Lindt cafe siege doesn’t dent their complacency, even though the excellent Four Corners expose of police tactics had aired on the ABC an hour earlier.

For the grieving families of the hostages killed, and the city terrorised, downplaying the threat of terrorism for ideological ends is an obscene game.

And with the coroner to release his findings today it’s worth remembering that political correctness and appeasement of Islamist sensitivities has endangered lives.

Whether it was pandering to Man Monis’ demands since he set foot on our shores and showering him with hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare, or ignoring his increasingly strident support for Islamic State, or focusing police resources on an operation to combat non-existent Islamophobia while hostages were being held at gunpoint, or the downplaying of Monis’ violent extremism by the unnamed psychiatrist advising police negotiators, common sense was thrown out the window.

The Lindt cafe siege in December 2014 saw two hostages Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson along with the gunman killed. (Pic: AFP/William West)

While police, psychologists and politicians in Australia engaged in a silly debate about whether or not the siege was an act of terrorism, FBI terrorism expert, Professor Bruce Hoffman stated the obvious.

“It was conducted on behalf of an organisation or at the inspiration of an organisation and (Monis) affiliated himself with IS by asking for an IS flag,” he told the inquest. “In this expert’s view the case is overwhelming that this was terrorism.”

Monis’ narcissism and delusions of grandeur were “immaterial… The act itself was a terrorist act”.

The coroner’s report today is expected to declare the siege an act of terrorism, despite Australian Press Council chairman Julian Disney insistence that it was a “hostage incident” while castigating the media for its coverage.

That was evident from the minute Monis started demanding an Islamic state flag.

Yet, during the siege Commissioner Andrew Scipione made the curious statement that police had moved to a footing “similar to that of a terrorist attack”.

This reluctance to categorise the attack precisely may have helped cripple decision making.

Did the failure to confront the true nature of Monis’ attack factor into the decision not to take decisive action until a hostage had been murdered?

Maybe the Coroner will say. But cloudy thinking inhibits sound decision making.

We don’t have the luxury of semantic arguments when it comes to the real and present danger of Islamist terrorism. To fight the enemy we have to understand what it is, not pussy foot around.