Can a Western welfare state defend itself against Islamic terrorism? Perhaps, but it will require fundamental changes. The Telegraph reports that last week’s terrorist attack in Manchester was funded by the British government:

The Manchester suicide bomber used taxpayer-funded student loans and benefits to bankroll the terror plot, police believe. Salman Abedi is understood to have received thousands of pounds in state funding in the run up to Monday’s atrocity even while he was overseas receiving bomb-making training.

Why? What qualified a terrorist in training for state aid? I suppose the answer is, anyone can get state funding these days, no serious questions asked.

Abedi’s finances are a major ‘theme’ of the police inquiry amid growing alarm over the ease with which jihadists are able to manipulate Britain’s welfare and student loans system to secure financing. One former detective said jihadists were enrolling on university courses to collect the student loans “often with no intention of turning up”. Abedi was given at least £7,000 from the taxpayer-funded Student Loans Company after beginning a business administration degree at Salford University in October 2015. It is thought he received a further £7,000 in the 2016 academic year even though by then he had already dropped out of the course. Salford University declined to say if it had informed the Student Loans Company that Abedi’s funding should have been stopped.

Time out! British universities aren’t required to advise the government when students who are receiving loans drop out of school? Apparently not. The student gets to keep the cash that was intended for tuition.

Then there is Britain’s generous welfare system. The fact that murderous imams have been supported by the British government for years has been widely reported.

Separately, the Department for Work and Pensions refused to say if Abedi had received any benefits, including housing benefit and income support worth up to £250 a week, during 2015 and 2016. It would only say he was not claiming benefits in the weeks before the attack.

So taxpayers are required to fund terrorists as they prepare to murder Brits, but are not entitled to find out how much money they have paid to reward their murderers. Actually, in the 21st century welfare state that is not at all surprising.

Apparently Salman Abedi never actually worked, so pretty much everything he did was government-funded:

Abedi, 22, never held down a job, according to neighbours and friends, but was able to travel regularly between the UK and Libya. Abedi also had sufficient funds to buy materials for his sophisticated bomb while living in a rented house in south Manchester. Six weeks before the bombing Abedi rented a second property in a block of flats in Blackley eight miles from his home, paying £700 in cash. He had enough money to rent a third property in the centre of Manchester from where he set off with a backpack containing the bomb. Abedi also withdrew £250 in cash three days before the attack and transferred £2,500 to his younger brother Hashim in Libya, who is accused of knowing about the attack in advance.

Abedi might have gotten some cash from ISIS. But still, how stupid are we Westerners, to support those who are trying to murder us?

Professor Anthony Glees, director of Buckingham University’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, said: “The British system makes funds readily available to jihadist students without checks on them. There needs to be an inquiry into this.”

No wonder the terrorists hold us in contempt. It is easy to ridicule the Brits, but the real question is: given the fact that it is not possible to talk honestly about terrorism, Islam, welfare, education, or a number of other topics, is there any way a Western welfare state can reform itself to stop supporting its most bitter enemies?