They thought wrong. Why? Because they don’t have the first foggiest clue about what motivates these people, and what their goals are. So how can they possibly evaluate who is an “immediate threat” and who isn’t? They have to discount so much evidence that someone may be an “immediate threat” because to acknowledge the importance of that evidence would be “Islamophobic,” they’re left with nothing to go on.
“Manchester suicide attacker ‘was known to security services but not thought to pose immediate threat,'” by Justin Davenport, Benedict Moore-Bridger, and Martin Bentham, Evening Standard, May 23, 2017:
The suicide bomber who killed 22 people, including children, at an Ariana Grande pop concert in Manchester was known to security services but they did not believe he posed an immediate threat, sources said today.
About 59 people were injured when the terrorist detonated an improvised explosive device in a foyer packed with fans and families at the Manchester Arena last night.
Police said the atrocity was carried out by a lone male bomber, who died at the scene. He is not included in the death toll.
Today Theresa May condemned the killer’s “warped and twisted mind”.
In Downing Street, after chairing a Cobra emergency committee, the Prime Minister said: “This attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenceless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives.”
General election campaigning has been suspended. Mrs May said police knew the identity of the attacker and were working to establish if he was acting alone or as part of a wider group.
It is thought he had been known to the security services but sources said he was not thought to be an immediate threat….