The Denial Game
Reader comment on item: Denying [Islamist] Terrorism

Submitted by Arlinda DeAngelis (United States), Feb 13, 2005 at 21:15

I have had personal experience with the reporting of terrorism and law enforcement.

Not only did the FBI not respond, they then lost the documents I sent them, then denied they ever got them. They got annoyed and became enraged when I tried to follow up. I finally had to go to the Justice Department who asked that I send them the evidence and they in turn sent it to the FBI.

It was utterly disheartening that agencies entrusted with our safety, especially following September 11th, acted annoyed that I would dare to follow up on what was obviously a potential case of a charity funding terrorism. It wasn't a notion or some vague idea I had. I was in possession of their documents, their names, their addresses and the mission statement of their charity.

It was the trust divison of the Justice Department, who I contacted from the frustration of dealing with the FBI, that finally transmitted the documents to an agent.

I know we are doing our best with Homeland Security but there are times as in the incidents mentioned by Dr. Pipes that scream for immediate and thorough investigation. The smell of terror is everywhere in those incidents. Yet law enforcement does absolutely nothing. The first comments they made in the case of the family that had their throats slit was that "it was NOT terrorism."

I am appalled that political correctness and the need to be careful of Arab/Muslim feelings hog ties what should be a dispassionate disinterested police investigation. It is all very very grotestque on the part of law enforcement to consider politics before enforcing the law.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.