NY/NJ bomber's father warned police in 2014 that his son was a terrorist

Headshot image of Robert Laurie
Published by: Robert Laurie on Tuesday September 20th, 2016

"Motives murky."

Man.  This is getting really old. Continuing a pattern we've seen play out again and again, it appears that law enforcement had Ahmad Khan Rahami on their radar a full two years befrore he carried out last week's New York and New Jersey bombings.  Maybe, just maybe, when someone tells you "hey my son's a radical Islamist terrorist," we should start taking that seriously.

From the New York Times:

Two years before Ahmad Khan Rahami went on a bombing rampage in New York and New Jersey, his father told the police that the son was a terrorist, prompting a review by federal agents, according to two senior law enforcement officials.

Separately on Tuesday, another official said that when Mr. Rahami was captured during a shootout with the police, he was carrying a notebook that contained writings sympathetic to jihadist causes. In one section of the book, which was pierced by a bullethole and covered in blood, Mr. Rahami wrote of “killing the kuffar,” or unbeliever, according to the official, who agreed to speak about the investigation only on the condition of anonymity.

Progressives will, no doubt, try to argue that we are taking this seriously.  After all, there was "a review."  Anything more would have been "racist," or "insulting," or "Islamophobic profiling."  Except the very next sentence indicates that they're not really interested in getting serious at all:

After Mr. Rahami was captured on Monday morning, ending one of the largest manhunts in the city’s history, investigators have turned their focus to what might have motivated, inspired or led him to plant bombs in the Chelsea section of Manhattan and on the Jersey Shore.

"What might have motivated or inspired?" Really?  You literally just wrote that he was carrying a book in which he wrote of killing unbelievers, and you're still trying to run the "murky motives" play? 

No one can convince me that they're taking the dangers of radical Islam seriously if they're simultanesouly trying to pretend that we don't have a motive here.  His father warned you he was a terrorist.  He wrote about killing infidels.  Then he planted bombs to kill innocents.

It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that.   ...Unless you're trying to deflect from the real issue.

If the Times is honestly trying to suggest that he may have had some other reason for trying to blow people up on a Saturday night, please, by all means, tell us what that might be.