The news from Manchester continues to horrify as each individual tragedy gets confirmed in all its heart-rending detail.
In my two posts in the immediate aftermath of the Manchester bombing, I concluded:
If it was a home made bomb, it was a remarkably powerful one. It would be very unusual for a lone terrorist to be able to make a bomb this powerful. It is hard to think of any incident where an individual acting entirely alone has successfully done that.
It has become plain that the reason the critical warning has been declared (which is British for State of Emergency) is that the security services believe such a powerful portable bomb almost certainly requires organisational support to build it. I was subject to accusations that I was secretly suggesting that this attack was perpetrated by the British state, in order to influence the election. It is undoubtedly true that the timing of the attack is remarkable – it came as Tory poll ratings were plummeting, Theresa May had just made the screeching U-turn or pretended U-turn on social care, and then appeared totally out of her depth in the Andrew Neil interview, destroying her “who do you trust” narrative.
In fact, nothing I wrote can in any way be construed as indicating I thought that the British state was implicated in the attack. For the record, I do not think it is remotely likely the British state was implicated in the attack. I knew a lot of senior people in the security services, and a few in special forces, and there is not a single one I suspect would do this kind of thing, or not actively seek to stop it if they came across it. I simply discount the idea.
But the election is the elephant in the room. We cannot pretend this has no impact on the election. Historians will look back at how this did or did not affect the course of the election.
I have a number of concerns. The first is that I argued that the Russian referendum in Crimea was not legitimate because you can’t have a free and fair election with troops patrolling the streets. I still hold that view about the Crimea, and I have real concerns about proceeding with the election during, in effect, a state of emergency.
The second point is that, because I rule out a British government false flag, that does not mean that I rule out the idea that the timing of the attack was an attempt to affect the course of the election. It seems very likely that it was timed to affect the election, especially when you consider that an attack from the same kind of jihadists occurred in France just before their recent election.
You would have expected an attack with such a sophisticated bomb to be part of a pattern of more or less simultaneous attacks using similar technology. That is what the security services did expect; hence the “Critical” warning. The fact there has so far been only one attack suggests to me that it was brought forward quickly to a target of opportunity due to the snap election.
There are many non-British state and non-state groups which might wish to influence the election. Remember that the very definition of terrorism is violence with a political objective. If it does not have a political objective it is not terrorism. Let me make this observation. The ideology of virtually all “Islamic” terrorism stems from Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is fundamental to the very foundation of the rule of the Saudi royal family. Every known jihadist terrorist group, including ISIS, Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda, has received funding from Saudi Arabia. Here is a fascinating article by MI6’s Alastair Crooke on Wahhabism and the “duality” of the superficially hostile ISIS/Saudi relationship. Everything we know about Salman Abedi is consistent with this influence.
Jeremy Corbyn has continually criticised Saudi Arabia’s appalling human rights record and its devastating attacks on civilians in Yemen. Corbyn has vowed to stop arms supplies to Saudi Arabia. By contrast, Theresa May and her ministers have repeatedly visited Saudi Arabia and positively kowtowed to its rulers, and looked to increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Who do you think the Saudi ruling class, the World’s leading sponsors of terrorism, wish to win the General Election?
Furthermore a key part of the Saudi sponsored Sunni terrorist surge is support for Al-Nusra and the other jihadist rebel groups fighting to overthrow Assad in Syria. I do not support Assad, but neither have I ever thought it remotely sane to support a violent conflict to overthrow him and replace him with jihadist head-choppers. Yet the British establishment, and especially the Conservative Party, has been gung-ho to bomb Syria and help the jihadists to replace Assad.
Who has stood against the bombing of Syria and against British military support for the Saudi/jihadist agenda in Syria? Jeremy Corbyn and the SNP.
I have no doubt whatsoever the jihadists would try to influence the election, and try to influence it against Corbyn. As the great journalist John Pilger said yesterday of this possibility that ISIS are trying to influence the election against Corbyn and the SNP:
“They know how to intervene in public discourse every day and in politics every day. So that suggestion may well have a great deal of validity.”
Security issues traditionally play well for the right in an election. At time of attack there is a tendency to rally to authority figures. Rather than a very inadequate politician under fire, the Prime Minister has been able to appear in an entirely unchallenged setting as a figure of patriotism. Let me be 100% clear. It is not that May has done anything wrong; it is just that these effects are what the terrorists are probably counting on.
So in our hearts we must never forget the unfortunate victims of this bombing, so young and with so much talent. We must remember the horribly maimed as well as the dead, and ensure they receive all the support they need. We must condemn without ceasing the disgusting violence that destroys so many lives.
But we must also do something very difficult. We must press in our heads a reset button. We must remain entirely rational in considering the political choices before us, and not allow the incident to affect – in any direction – our political calculation on how to vote. Otherwise that is a major victory for the terrorists.
“It is also excellent how many Manchester people are reacting against those trying to use this to promote racial or political agendas”
Has it struck you that as well as Murdoch and the Tories that not a few of your “far left” commenters might just fall into this category?
The furthest ‘left’ commentator on this site is bevan and he’s an intellectual socialist who’s about 45 degrees left of centre. ResDis is State-left which means he’s about 45 degrees right of centre but tips his hat to social justice issues.
You really haven’t got much of a clue about my politics. I put “far left” in inverted commas as I am more than aware that perspectives about what constitutes left or right vary. Lets just say that ordinary people usually place me on the centre left and certainly with fairly liberal tendencies – as for Bevin I would definitely place him 180 degrees left of centre which of course means that he is pretty near to meeting those going the other way- hence his fondness for Trump and Putin and his bashfulness when it came to Madame Le Pen, a sort of modern day red-brown alliance guy.
Vimes & Laguerre
Your two posts are the sort of posts that I, if were the Moderator, would delete on the spot. Resident Dissident makes a fair point for which there is in my opinion ample evidence throughout Craig’s blog. The immediate response from Vimes & Laguerre is neither to ask Res Dis for evidence for his suggestion nor to dispute the presence of far-left followers but, rather, to loose off a couple of silly ad hominems.
It is allowing such comments at the very beginning of a thread which brings the blog into disrepute. In my opinion.
I agree 100%. The people pulling the strings in these atrocities have an agenda. A Corbyn led Labour government acting on principles and not for short term pragmatic benefit is the last thing they want.
I have misgivings about the national outpouring of grief for the victims. I don’t think it helps them because they know it is often insincere, exaggerated and transient. They will live with their loss for the rest of their lives. We will soon forget. It is only a matter of time before their tragedy is hijacked for yet more encroachment on civil liberties and bombing of other innocents. And so the cycle continues.
100% correct.
You might rule out a British false flag but I certainly don’t. I know enough about the British role in the Miami Showband massacre, and about the activities of Operation Gladio to know this is exactly the kind of thing the state would do.
Craig
“You might rule out a British false flag but I certainly don’t. I know enough about the British role in the Miami Showband massacre, and about the activities of Operation Gladio to know this is exactly the kind of thing the state would do.”
_____________
There you go – a good example of what I mean.
@ Habbabkuk May 25, 2017 at 10:31
Do you ‘.. know enough about the British role in the Miami Showband massacre, and about the activities of Operation Gladio to know this is exactly the kind of thing the state would do.”?
Is not that a perfectly valid comment?
No, it is not because it assumes UK complicity on the Miami Showband massacre. You seem to be using one conspiracy theory to validate the existence of another conspiracy.
Habbabk,
—————
No, it is not because it assumes UK complicity on the Miami Showband massacre.
—————
From Wiki –
——-
their minibus was stopped at what appeared to be a military checkpoint, where gunmen in British Army uniforms ordered them to line up by the roadside. At least four of the gunmen were serving soldiers from the British Army’s Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) but, unbeknownst to the band, all were members of the UVF. While two of the gunmen (both soldiers) were hiding a time bomb on the minibus, it exploded prematurely and killed them. The other gunmen then opened fire on the dazed band members, killing three and wounding two. It is believed the bomb was meant to explode en route, killing the band and framing them as IRA bomb-smugglers, and possibly leading to stricter security measures at the border.
Two serving British soldiers and one former British soldier were found guilty of the murders and received life sentences; they were released in 1998. Those responsible for the attack belonged to the Glenanne gang; a secret alliance of loyalist militants, rogue police officers and British soldiers. There are also allegations that British military intelligence agents were involved. According to former Intelligence Corps agent Captain Fred Holroyd, the killings were organised by British intelligence officer Robert Nairac, together with the UVF’s Mid-Ulster Brigade and its commander Robin “The Jackal” Jackson. The Historical Enquiries Team, which investigated the killings, released their report to the victims’ families in December 2011. It confirmed that Jackson was linked to the attack by fingerprints.
——–
Conspiracy theory? I suppose the British Government acknowledging and apologizing for colluding with these sort of loyalist death squads was all fantasy, eh?
You’re very quick off the mark to insult and dismiss the victims of British backed atrocities as ‘conspiracies’, aren’t you? Any thoughts on Bloody Sunday? You probably lay blame with the pregnant woman and the priest murdered no doubt?
Shameful behavior but expected from a supporter of apartheid.
Habbabk
————-
It is believed the bomb was meant to explode en route, killing the band and framing them as IRA bomb-smugglers, and possibly leading to stricter security measures at the border.
————
That certainly sounds like a ‘false flag’ to me.
I too have studied Gladio, I therefore have no choice but to agree with you, I’ve read Ganser Daniele, and thereafter spent many many hours researching the Stay-Behinds and the very many frightening and disturbing ways in which the Right-Wing have successfully – and repeatedly – subdued and derailed any and all spontaneous Left-Wing socialist revolutions in Europe. Of course, yes, in violent forms; the 1969 Milan Bombing in the Piazza Fontana being a prime example. That bombing, originally attributed to “Left-Wing anarchists” – despite later being proven to be a plot by the Far- Right Neo-fascist organization Ordine Nuovo, in an horrific, and largely successor attempt to undermine a socialist revolution – is just one of a long stream of such vicious and violent attacks, that horrifies and dismays anyone who cares to do some research.
But violence is by no means the only method used to manufacture political consent for extreme Right-Wing policies that are worse than destructive to 95% of almost any country’s population. There is a second body of literature, which makes a slightly different point from the specific techniques that Gladio perfected. This concerns the way in which people can be made to react in certain collective ways, as a result of cleverly constructed psychological stimuli. The first major theoretician of this approach was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, whose book “Propaganda”, written as far back as 1928, said that it was entirely natural and right for governments to organise public opinion for political purposes. The opening chapter of his book has the revealing title – “Organising chaos” – and Bernays wrote:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised opinions and habits of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
The text continues: “We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Bernays said that, very often, the members of this “invisible government” (see Cercle Pinay, below, for example) do not even know who the other members are. Propaganda, he said, was the only way to prevent public opinion descending into dissonant chaos.
I dare say that many of you will have stopped reading, by now, but for those of you who have not, there is one final arena that you may well wish to consider; a distinct “strategy of tension” in Europe has ever been devised and implemented by an extremely well-coordinated and deeply devisive think-tank, originally known as the Cercle Pinay. Pinay (a former French primeminister) formed an international right-wing propaganda group which brought together serving or retired intelligence officers and politicians with links to right-wing intelligence factions from most of the countries in Europe. Their purpose… the destabilisation in Europe of any and all socialist uprisings through a whole panoply of rightwing/parallel intelligence and propaganda agencies.
It is these, and many more, insidious forms of manipulation that we must yet today contend with. Occasionally an individual arises who wishes to put an end to such subterfuge, Jeremy Corbyn shows all the signs of being such, however he has an uphill struggle in wading through such repeatedly tried and tested methods of manipulation. I’m routing for him, I support him all the way, but I will be very surprised if his brand of honesty and integrity are “allowed” to flourish.
@ Paris May 25, 2017 at 11:06
Gladio was set up shortly after WW!! by the CIA, who organised so-called ‘stay-behind’ forces in many European countries, to act as guerilla forces behind enemy lines IF the Soviet Union rolled over Europe. The core of it were Nazis and Fascists, who were protected from War Crime prosecution by the US and other governments. They were armed, trained and supplied with state-of-the-art weaponry, communications, and explosives (and of course money). Different countries’ Gladio forces trained with each other.
When the Soviets did not attack Europe, the Gladio forces were used instead for a ‘strategy of tension’, bombing and machine-gunning innocent, uninvolved men, women and children. Brabant supermarket shootings, Bologna train station bombing (85killed, over 200 injured), and many more. In the ‘Years of Lead’ in Italy, I believe approaching 700 people were murdered.
Though Daniele Ganser’s book is good, a more thorough book, including Gladio’s spread to the Juntas and Death Squads of Latin America, and the Vatican’s role, is ‘Operation Gladio’ by Paul Williams.
@Paul Barbara
Thanks for your response, Paul. I don’t disagree that later Gladio authors expounded further of Daniels’s thesis, and yes, certainly they have expanded upon his work, – often perhaps in a format much easier to digest, I might add, since Daniels’s book looses a lot in it’s rather poor translation – however I mention him purely because this was my own personal introduction into a deep, and often fraught “secret history” for which I had previously been completely unaware.
Similarly, in respect of Bernays, the Cercle Pinay, and the Destabalisation of Europe, and as well, as you mention, the role of the Vatican… I suspect in respect of the Vatican “Rat Lines”, P2, Roberto Calvi and the Vatican Bank, the “top secret” Allied contingency group conceived by the first Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles… and so it goes on… the purpose of my post was simply to highlight the very many politically disruptive measures that are, and have been throughout time, implicated in right-wing political domination.
I ask only that folks consider the possibilities that “democracy” is not what it seems.
Barbara
“The core of it [ ie, Gladio ] were Nazis and Fascists, who were protected from War Crime prosecution by the US and other governments.”
________________
That is absolute poppycock.
Submit your evidence for this conclusion then.
@Habbabkuk
I am currently at work, I will respond later to your question.
But look, the twin purposes of my post were to highlight another point of view, and to stimulate research in those who have a mind to it, there is enough information given as a starting point for any who are willing to seek. I doubt that you are one of those.
The definition of terrorism, violence to further a political objective, means war is terrorism and illegal under the 2000 anti-terrorism act. The glorification of terrorism is illegal and yet we are getting wall to wall terror coverage and hate crime is a perceived hostility towards those with protected characteristics including religion and yet it appears a religion is being blamed for the attack. In effect the Government and MSM are breaking the law in their response to Manchester.
This is a genuine question. I entirely accept and agree that this is not a false flag incident.
But do you think that if Theresa May thought she was going to lose the General Election unless an incident like this helped to boost her popularity and interfere with a Labour rolling train, that she would be capable of initiating it, if she thought it was practical and that she could remain undiscovered? Thanks. John
I think that is an excellent question. And my answer is that I think around 90% of our parliamentarians are indeed capable of initiating such an act. And Ms May is one of them.
This thought disturbs me greatly. The world of power is indeed hard to understand.
Have you ever actually met a Parliamentarian? Most of them are perfectly ordinary people who happen to have a seat in Parliament. If you don’t believe me, go along to an election hustings and decide for yourself whether the people presenting themselves to the electorate are potential mass murderers.
I suspect your response tells us much more about you than it does about MPs. That is, that given the opportunity, you would indeed be tempted to unleash a false flag operation that killed lots of innocent people.
How many regularly vote to bomb other sovereign countries?
What’s that got to do with it? On the very rare occasions when Parliament has “voted to bomb other sovereign countries”, it is because MPs are persuaded it is the least bad option. The vote has been taken publicly after agonised discussion. There really is a world of moral difference between that and secretly plotting to murder lots of people for one’s own selfish ends. There have certainly been MPs who might have done that, not least perhaps the Sinn Fein representatives of whom Jeremy Corbyn has been so fond.
I am afraid I think that is pretty naïve. No doubt numbers of MPs agonise over such a decision. In my opinion there are a great many MPs in Parliament who are much more interested in their own careers than they are in who is going to die at their hands. If the Government wishes to bomb country X, and they will be noticed in the wrong way if they vote against the Government line, they will vote for the Government line. I think that has quite a lot to do with it, actually.
Are you seriously prepared to deny that there are large numbers of MPs who are prepared to vote in whichever way the whip requires of them?
“[S]ecretly plotting to murder lots of people for one’s own selfish ends” appears to me to be an exceedingly good description of Blair’s actions over Iraq. No doubt you would argue Blair is a perfectly ordinary person. I do admire your goodhearted faith in our MPs.
By the way, I have met several Parliamentarians. That does not alter my opinions in the least – reinforces them, actually. J
Go through their registers of Interests on They Work for You (aka Themselves)and see how many have visited Saudi Arabia, paid for by the hand choppers of course.
Prince Charles, looking more gormles than ever, performing the sword dance there.
Work it out.
Eric,
Would you like to instruct Readers and Posters how many of these ‘normal Parliamentarians’ happen to have close alliances with Israel via the extensive Israel Lobbying machine that exists in the UK and also, please instruct how many Parliamentarians we now have left with Arabist sympathies, namely, support for Arab secularism and the Palestinians. Your comment is a ‘straw man’, one that absolves Parliament and the MSM from this tragedy in Manchester and continuing tragedy in North Africa and the Middle East.
Chris – I don’t know which MPs have links with Israel or how many have Arabist sympathies. Why should I? But I really don’t believe for a moment that either Parliament or the MSM are even the slightest bit responsible for the tragedy in Manchester.
I agree with John Spencer-Davis though that too many Parliamentarians vote unthinkingly as the whips tell them. An instructive (if off-topic) example was when many Tories voted for Keith Vaz to serve on the Justice Select Committee. The sort of silly game-playing that seriously damages the reputation of Parliament, among those who take any notice of these things.
Oh ok, I accept I exaggerate when I say 90%. Perhaps I should just say ‘a sizeable number’. They can’t all be bad.
I’m not suited to being in a powerful job, so the question is moot. One never can really tell how one will react to a crisis, or what decisions you’ll make at that level. I’d be hugely surprised if I was tempted to unleash such an operation, but who knows what madness power brings to a man? Avoid at all costs, I say. Perhaps I’m getting more anarchist in my old age.
@ Hieroglyph May 25, 2017 at 07:42
And there are spooks, police and ‘Special Forces’ who would comply (as in Princess Di assassination).
You are definitely onto something JS-D. It could easily have been organised by Mays string pullers, its always been that way.
I said, explicitly, that I do not believe that this is a false flag incident. What I find rather frightening is that I do not find it in the least implausible that if the Government thought it could get away with staging an incident of this kind, and if they thought it was the only way to stop them being chucked out in favour of a serious socialist government, then they would have no hesitation in doing it. I regret to say that that is my honest opinion. Fifty, sixty years ago 99.99% of people would have rejected that as an unthinkable thought. Not any more. That’s part of Blair’s legacy, I think. J
Craig refuted such an idea in the article, I think the CIA is alot more powerful with wider interests than any UK agency. It would also be an unfeesable quick turn around for a gaff and slump in the polls. the motivations for 9/11 had a much longer lead time.
“I do not support Assad, but neither have I ever thought it remotely sane to support a violent conflict to overthrow him and replace him with jihadist head-choppers.”
It seems to me that there was a window – probably between 2011 and 2014 (i.e. before Russia commenced its intervention) – when it would have been possible to oppose both by supporting the Free Syrian Army. However, since the collapse of the FSA, with the result that a large number of its members are de facto or actual members of Daesh, that window has now closed, and we are left to choose between two unpalatable options: Putin-backed Assad, or, as you put it, “jihadist head-choppers”.
Do you agree?
That window never really existed, or rather only existed in heads in Washington and London. The videos from as far back as 2011 show clearly that the rebels were highly religious, much more so than the average Syrian population, as I have known them. They had their women dressed up in niqabs with veils. You never saw that in Syria before the war. Of course, I was ridiculed for noticing that, with the implication, what does it matter the way women get treated? But it is central. Only not what Washington and London wanted to see.
@ Alex B May 25, 2017 at 07:21
The ‘Regime Change’ programmes were planned long before the so-called ‘Arab (Soros) Spring’.
Just as in Libya and Iraq (and in Serbia and Afghanistan) the stated lies for intervention were just that, blatant lies.
And two British planes were alleged to have been shot down in 2005 by Iraqi forces whilst airdropping arms to IS (as was at least one weapons-supplying US helicopter). So, no, not everyone regards the ‘Jihadist head-choppers’ as ‘unpalatable’.
‘Former French Foreign Minister: The War against Syria was Planned Two years before “The Arab Spring”: http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-french-foreign-minister-the-war-against-syria-was-planned-two-years-before-the-arab-spring/5339112
‘Global Warfare: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”: http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166
‘2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”:
https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
“A December 13, 2006 cable, “Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006,”1 indicates that, as far back as 2006 – five years before “Arab Spring” protests in Syria – destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck,at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In the cable, Roebuck wrote:
We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.”
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
“You can’t understand the conflict without talking about natural gas
By Maj. Rob Taylor
Much of the media coverage suggests that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the Alawite (Shia) Bashar al Assad regime is defending itself (and committing atrocities) against Sunni rebel factions (who are also committing atrocities). The real explanation is simpler: it is about money.
In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.”
http://armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/
We must condemn without ceasing the disgusting violence that destroys so many lives.
This doesn’t read clearly.
It does to me, It would be wrong to put a comma after ceasing, but to have the alternative meaning would need a comma after condemn.
I would have written, ‘we must condemn unceasingly the disgusting violence…’
But my command of the language is poor.
“We must unceasingly condemn…”
‘Unceasingly, we must condemn…’
@ mog May 25, 2017 at 07:55
But you did bring up an excellent point; whilst ‘we’ condemn ‘atrocities’ perpetrated against our country or that of ‘our’ allies, ‘we’ (the government and MSM) perpetrate and beat the drum for ever more brutal assaults on other peoples.
You don’t have to be a hypocrite or even a sociopath to be a politician, but it helps!
how about turning it around to, “our condemnation of the disgusting violence must continue, unabated” ?
Brilliant article BTW. I see what you mean about the commentards.
It does to me. I don’t understand your statment
I agree with mog. I think the following works best:
We must condemn without cease the disgusting violence that destroys so many lives.
Craig
“I went on a course in the FCO at the Fort where we learnt about terrorist bombs and got to blow things up”
This surprises me. Why would a diplomat receive explosive s training? Is this common?
I think they often sent me on courses to get rid of me for a while 🙂
No, it was a serious question. I’m geuinely intrigued. Why do diplomats get explosives training?
And the fort is the SBS in Pompey right?
Yes. My main memory of the course is being instructed to stamp hard on a piece of semtex on the concrete floor to demonstrate how stable it is.
I think they were trying to get rid permanently!
Come on. Please explain why diplomats get explosive training. What’s the thinking behind this?
‘Now referred to as No.1 Military Training Establishment by the British Army,[11] it is occupied by the Ministry of Defence.[11] In his book The Big Breach, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Fort Monckton is now the Secret Intelligence Service’s field operations training centre,[12][13] where both basic and advanced field training is given to SIS personnel.,[14] as well as providing liaison training with others services including the Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Monckton
Or is that a blind?
I think it is about having enough background knowledge to deal with terrorist situations we were pretty likely to come across, and of course the personal/professional threat from terrorists.
Exactly.
Habbabk,
——–
Exactly
——–
So in between calling the blog owner a ‘fucking coward’ and questioning his level of expertise to offer his own personal opinion on the bomb and who might be behind it, you have now concluded he has had access to the relevant training to be in a position to pass judgement on such matters.
Will you now apologies to the owner?
Proposition seconded Ball.
All those in favour say Aye.
Vimes & Ball
Craig is exactly right about the purpose of the course he attended at the Fort.
You must really learn to read comments before you spout.
The Saudi link does make sense to me however.
The timing of the bombing of the Russian plane taking off from an airport with links to Saudi intelligence immediately after Russia started to attack Saudi assets in Syria was extremely suspicious.
I’m a scientist and I have been, on two separate occasions been specifically trained to use a variety of fire extinguishers to put out fires, including selecting the most appropriate extinguisher for the fire (when it doubt, use foam). I have pulled the pins on two extinguishers and put out fires in metal troughs with them.
The NIMR trained all of its scientific staff and a lot of the technical staff to do this. Because the nearest telescopic ladder unit able to reach the top floor of the Mill Hill building was a quarter way around the North Circular in Ealing.
The most our lab had to do was deploy a fire blanket to extinguish an alcohol fire in a plastic beaker. There is a fire blanket securely hung on the wall of our kitchen. Just outside in the pantry cupboard is a small foam extinguisher.
As a scientist I have also been trained in the safe use and disposal of radionuclides. Very hot ones, hot and short lived. I have also been explicitly licensed by the Home Office to experiment on animals.
“We must press in our heads a reset button”
NO.
This is part of the reality we live in. To expect that is just ridiculous. And it’s not your job to tell people what they should think or not.
Sorry but your reasoning is really messed up here imo. Unless you believe these attacks (or terrorism in general) happens in total isolation to the politics of this country. What your saying is people should not vote on what they think may reduce terrorism? How is that a victory for terrorists?
As to the other stuff I don’t know why you feel a need to defend yourself.
And thought I don’t imagine it was the state directly. I don’t just rule stuff out without evidence. There are many possible scenarios as we know from past experience, where bombs that could have been stopped weren’t.
Sigh…Get over yourself man.
Craig’s comment is an argument for what he thinks will reduce terrorism and an invitation to people to vote accordingly if they agree with him.
What? pretend like it didn’t happen?
I think people should think very carefully about how it may influence them. How it may have been meant to.
But isn’t there something to this 22nd business ? Should we assume it was to influence the election?
I don’t know.
“Jeremy Corbyn has continually criticised Saudi Arabia’s appalling human rights record and its devastating attacks on civilians in Yemen. Corbyn has vowed to stop arms supplies to Saudi Arabia. By contrast, Theresa May and her ministers have repeatedly visited Saudi Arabia and positively kowtowed to its rulers, and looked to increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Who do you think the Saudi ruling class, the World’s leading sponsors of terrorism, wish to win the General Election?
Furthermore a key part of the Saudi sponsored Sunni terrorist surge is support for Al-Nusra and the other jihadist rebel groups fighting to overthrow Assad in Syria. I do not support Assad, but neither have I ever thought it remotely sane to support a violent conflict to overthrow him and replace him with jihadist head-choppers. Yet the British establishment, and especially the Conservative Party, has been gung-ho to bomb Syria and help the jihadists to replace Assad.
Who has stood against the bombing of Syria and against British military support for the Saudi/jihadist agenda in Syria? Jeremy Corbyn and the SNP.
My emphasis – this is what I am referring to. And Craig’s assessment of the incident’s likely effect is that: Rather than a very inadequate politician under fire, the Prime Minister has been able to appear in an entirely unchallenged setting as a figure of patriotism. Seems likely that this is what Craig is asking that people try to put aside.
Maybe I have a little more trust in peoples ability to see. And perhaps enphasize the need to look all the more in this light. And the very fact of “putting it aside” in that way is clearly highlighting it in light of the current situation.
I think my point is it can’t be put aside, and if that’s what Craig means he is not putting it aside himself.
Fair comment.
Let me simplify.
Terrorist hopes for reactionary vote. (possibly) Rather that say you lot are too stupid to think about it and will vote bad as a result, how about we just emphasise this as a possibility for people to consider. ?
I did just that speaking to a friend, But lol, I’m not going to say put it out of your mind..
Come on.
Of ycourse you can’t forget it ever happened, using the mechanical metaphor of a button points to the impossibility of such a suggestion.
We do need to return to the issues as they are broadly important to the country, not those issues which are only important to those terrorists and their sponsors who wished to effect it.
Of course I can exhort people to think something. They don’t have to agree with me. Nobody is forced to read the blog.
craig,
No, but one or two seem to be employed to.
Anyone who has read about parapolitics has to let go of the simplistic binary of state versus non state action and actors. There is a large zone of overlap as documented over many decades.
Hi Craig
As usual very well written , as ex military myself your observations of the device are correct I saw automatically this was not shit and sugar , nor was it industrial explosives it was high grade military stuff, I ask one question where the hell did it come from , the mi5 observation and controle of chemical substances almost Compleatly rules out in my mind manufacture in the uk leaving only import via smuggling . If I was the powers that be in would check money white boat owner in the country and every freight ship and it’s crew that has entered our waters or sailed past . If the route has been through Europe with migrants who were not checked or searched because frontex were living in thair cosy offices instead of moving their arses this is very alarming indeed my theory goes that such explosives may have come into the country via magnetic boxes like limpet mines on ship hulls , a diver would not survive being chopped to pieces by the propeller of a moving ship so we are left with diver activity waiting to enter the estuary or port or collection in harbour , look for water loving Muslims with diving kit is my bet , thanks for your report Craig as usual I am thanks to you well and correctly informed
Peter. Yes. Hand-carried diplomatic bag is what occurred to me.
Like the soviet Czechs & Gaddafi supporting the IRA ( like Corbyn, oops… ) you mean?
So the hypothesis is military grade explosives smuggled into the country by Saudi Arabia (or a proxy) in the diplomatic bag,
Any evidence for this?
Adrian it does not mean the head of government of the state would necessarily know – or even the ambassador.
ADDENDUM to point 2/. (update)
“2/. The second point is that by writing that you opened the door for a number of commenters to pile in with hints (or even bald assertions), that this bombing WAS a false flag operation carried out by the British state”
_________________________
or by others.
Cf “Sean Nilibud” “So it was mossad then?” (08h31)
Worth remembering this from last month.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/german-soldier-spent-year-posing-syrian-refugee-arrested-suspicion/
Not to be entirely ruled out. But which states are so hostile to us that they would enable a diplomatic courier to carry explosives into the UK? (Genuine not rhetorical question.)
Its not hostility, its just looking after their own interests, only in another country. You know, like the western powers demonstrate all the time.
craig,
Strange to mention diplomatic bag. A Saudi Prince was arrested flying through Beirut not to long ago transporting tons of Methamphetamine from Pakistan to the troops fighting against the Houthi in Yemen. You would wonder what else they transport uncheck on their jets; certainly their abused house slaves for one.
Didn’t some of the Bin Laden family die in a plane crash at a private airfield near Manchester not to long ago. You would have to question the level of scrutiny and security checks being performed at such places.
Thanks for that extra link, Craig and Peter, so when the security services destroyed explosives the day after the event they were not trying to identify it anymore, like in the past, and one assumes that they know exactly who bought this batch of semtex, that if it was that kind of high explosive….?
I did not understand why they’d not retrieved it and had it analysed.
What I understand now is that Germany, with an election pending and far more refugees and transients in their country, should be aware of an agenda of understanding between political gain and international terrorist outrage, should be prepared for such an attack on civilians to keep them, in line with the neocon narrative.
That controlled explosion they had on the telly was actually the police’s explosives used to open the door (because booby-traps?) – they found no explosives there (or America would have leaked it by now). The news I watched at the time gave the distinct impression that it was a bomb they found, but no.
The gist of what you are saying is that you cannot imagine any of the people you know in the security services being in any way involved (either through deliberate negligence or active facilitation), yet at the same time, you can radily believe that predominantly foreign terrorist groups would undertake such a crime- and with intentional timing. Furthermore, you make the case repeatedly elsewhere that our deep state is effectively in coalition with these terrorist entities overseas, and quite willing to employ their sick ideology in service of UK’s own foreign policy aims.
I am sorry, but as a presumptive starting point in considering the Manchester attack, this just does not add up for me. Factor in the past precedent of orchestrated terror in the Cold War era, and even less so. Research the huge trove of evidence of collusion in Northern Ireland, look at the repeating patterns of ‘intel failures’ that dominate the back stories of 911, 7/7 and so many other attacks – I think it makes your argument of ‘no suspicion’ anecdotal and very weak.
May is reacting for sure, but she is not the only one who wants to keep Corbyn out of power.
How many people declared that ‘Corbyn would be a threat to national security’ when he became Labour leader? I can certainly imagine one of the many ultra patriotic rightwing nutcases in the world of security and intelligence being swayed by that argument and ‘loosing a file’ on Adebi, or ‘failing to follow up’ a couple of warnings about him.
Can’t you? Or are they all such upstanding fellows?
@ mog May 25, 2017 at 07:40
‘…Or are they all such upstanding fellows?’
The SAS training Pol Pot’s thugs springs to mind, as does their involvement with the Princess Di assassination.
If the British government thought it was the Saudis, do you think they’d say?, no>?, and…thus complicit in an act of war against the Britons.
So those bombs with equally sickening unprofessional ‘love messages’… {not that its a time for love}…are to be sent to the Saudis?
Your blog and opinionated perspective is appealing, because one also has many caste doubts determining specific factors of blame accountables..
Surely then the baroness knows something untoward.
‘right wing commenters’ There’s an euphemism.
Mmm…
I commented (my comment went undeleted) on that previous piece, that I was completely unable to see the point being made. I asked if I was supposed to understand there is some kind of conspiracy? And I said that If you had an hypothesis, you should say what it was.
I wasn’t the only person who thought it to be suggesting rather more than it was saying. Given your background I have to assume that was deliberate. That was precisely what I was supposed to think.
Having not said what you didn’t say however you can now roll back of course. With not a little indignation.
As the accuracy of what you did say however, despite your vaunted FCO training, it’s worth saying that you were wrong on two points. It looks as if was a nail bomb, and it looks as if it was set off in the venue.
Normally a fan of sorts, but not today.
That original piece would certainly have been a good deal clearer
Adrian there is nothing whatsoever in my earlier pieces than in any way claims this was a false flag by the British state. I challenge you to quote anything that tends in any way to that interpretation.
I stated it was not in the arena, and posted a photo of the arena. I said it was not because the flash of light was visible outside from afar. It was not in the arena it was in an open foyer area outside. Indeed it was a nail bomb, a very powerful one. I was indeed wrong on that, but right about it being too powerful to be homemade, which was the key point.
I was quite surprised at all the conclusions people jumped to on that post. Im not the most exacting reader (at all) but it did not lean to much of what I heard expressed.
Fair play for addressing the points anyway though.
Mmm…again.
I didn’t say that you had claimed this was a false flag, so i’m afraid you’re denying an allegation that I didn’t make.
I think you should really take some responsibility for what you write. The fact is both tin-hatters and anti-tin-hatters took you to be suggesting more than you said, and the tin-hatters who took that up, suggesting a false flag, BTL. You knew the tin-hatters would do that, and they went unchallenged by you. You are not a fool with words, and one can only conclude that you intended that they should.
Why?
What do you mean they went unchallenged by me. At 09.40 on 23 May I posted the following comment in the comment thread:
“I have never believed 7/7 to be a false flag attack. I think it was a wrong reaction to the appalling invasion of Iraq. I do not think, absent any evidence, that this is a false flag by the British state either. I worked at a senior level in the British state and you would not find people prepared to enact an atrocity against their own people on this scale. A false flag by another state or by a right wing group is not impossible. The most likely explanation is however a jihadist cell.”
So you allege I in some way encouraged people to posit false flag theories while at the sae time you admit that nothing I wrote suggested that. You say I did not repudiate such theories when I specifically did.
Ever since I became a dissident I have been smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” which is the state’s way to dismiss those with whom it does not agree. That is what you are trying to do here, by insinuating that I either said, or implied, or even failed to repudiate, a conspiracy theory. But wrong on all points.
I’ve found your comment. It’s an aside in response you made to a comment by Habbabkuk under a later piece, so one might think somewhat buried away.
It’s perhaps also telling that it was in response to Habbabkuk, who, so far as I follow these things is I think generally critical. Are you perhaps happier to acknowledge that 7/7 for example was not a false flag when dealing with an opponent, than to criticise fans who think otherwise? I think you are.
My perplexity stands. I didn’t see what you were getting at and trying to understand what it was, was always going to lead to a certain speculation. I read the insertion of suspicion, but I refused to go there. Others, not unreasonably really, did not.
Adrian = dunwich – I’m an occasional poster, and one PC remembers some earlier details.
Adrian/dunwich,
That’s pretty shady behavior right there. Zero credibility.
Ball, sorry it’s not. I occasionally post on Cif and the Independent as dunwich. I guess I have also done so on here. Early the other morning on a new machine and rather bleary I used my own name on, which that machine subsequently remembered.
If you think that is shady, you are beyond help.
A 2006 BBC documentary includedintyrviews with stalwarts of the British establishment claiming preparations for a coup against Wilson. This includes an intelligance officer, Brian Crozier saying the”top brass” were on board. SAS founder David Stirling acknowledges the existence of a plot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6v1VxB5Lss
Recently the Times reported a “senior serving general said the armed forces would take ‘direct action’ to stop a Corbyn”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11881873/Generals-talking-about-politics-should-remember-whos-the-boss.html
However unlikely to simply dismiss any possibility of collusion by UK state actors seems like an act of faith. We simply do not know.
There really is a world of difference between plotting a palace coup and blowing up a large number of teenagers on a night out.
Yes there is. A big difference.
Not really. Then was then, and now is now. What you would do has changed. And don’t forget that the bombing could have gone wrong – it might have been intended to kill few or none, but have a big bang. Only the guy set the bomb off in a dense crowd.
Can you really see little difference (in moral terms) between using underhand means to propel a politician to the sidelines, and setting off a bomb in a venue crowded with ordinary people on a night out?
There is a difference, but the groups (MI6/5) that were involved in the Wilson plots in the 70s were also, according to some, up to other things which were probably closer to equivalence (bombings, death squads, infiltrating the ira, setting up paedophile honey traps to incriminate people so they’d become assets, getting thatcher into power etc).
Read up on Colin Wallace and Lobster back issues. Or just watch Ken Loach’s film Hidden Agenda for a ‘fictionalised’ version.
@ Eric the Half Bee May 25, 2017 at 08:15
Indeed? Tell that to Pinochet (though he preferred the torture chambers and the Football Stadium). And the machine guns used to kill the head of the armed forces and his guards were supplied via the Diplomatic Bag by the CIA.
Phil
If Corbyn does get to govern he would be making a smart move if he used some of the money saved from scrapping Trident to increase the size and equipment of the conventional armed forces. In contrast to the Tories who have been cutting the conventional military budgets. That would disarm any coup minded generals and colonels. Arming to disarm you could say.
If the deep state isn’t British, then bombing Britain will be no different to bombing somewhere else, to achieve their goals. However it does mean they are “dumping on their doorstep” which is a sign of desperation. The Jo Cox event never worked to stop Brexit, hence having to up the anti and involve children to stop Corbyn.
I still think of the Boston bombing when it is said that the bomb couldn’t have been made an individual acting alone. The evidence put forward to suggest that it had to come from a master bomb maker seems to be that involved a circuit board which may seem complex but it’s basically just a switch. Teenagers and young adults regularly solder circuit borders while building computers or guitar pedals, it’s not difficult.
The example of Boston showed how easy it is to make a bomb. Any adult with a small amount of cash could have bought the components in a day and the triggering mechanism is easy enough to build and test. IED warfare has been ongoing for 15 years now, if a bomb can be built in Helmond province it can certainly be built in Manchester.
That is an Aunt Sally Stu. The Boston bomb was not nearly this powerful. I see no reason the Boston bomb could not be homemade. I see every reason this one could not.
How can you be sure?
The Boston bomb only killed three people but led to 16 people suffering amputations and i’d guess that the differences are due to the height of the bomb at detonation (primarily this), the density of the crowd and the response times of first responders.
Trigger, casing and projectiles are irrelevant to the power of the blast. It depends on the explosive material used which we will no doubt find out in due course. The 7/7 bombs were much more complex than Boston (which essentially just used material from fireworks).
Thanks to loose lipped yanks we now know it was the same kind of explosive used in the 7/7 bombings.
It doesn’t seem unlikely that someone could be trained to do this in Libya then assemble the materials and build it in Manchester.
Really even though seal team 6 operatives {USD special operations} where spotted at the run…?
Suppose they needed ‘expert advice/directions’
The leaked NYT report (immediately reproduced by the Sun, obviously) mentions the possibility that the ‘switch’ might be an e-cigarette. Which I think very likely.
‘Switch’:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/item-2.jpg?strip=all&w=694&quality=100
E-cig:
http://allvapereviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/55.png
There is perhaps a possibility that this would have formed part of the device, but I think this unlikely. Why use an extra lead-acid battery, as seems to have been done, when e-cigs have a perfecly good Li-ion battery, of similar capacity, built-in?
The Sun omits the e-cig possibility, sorry. Here’s the original article, which doesn’t.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/24/world/europe/manchester-arena-bomb-materials-photos.html?_r=2
They’re might!! sacrificing a few for the many. {they are the lamb, and a wolf in sheep’s clothing, all led by ‘shepard’ of course.}
The current world dominate leadership willing kills and is killing its own people for its/thee agenda, and humanity has become to weak to stop them/it, because humanity has learnt peace and harmony over war and terror.
So it was mossad then?
Whatever is going on with the UK-US intelligence spat? This seems very odd indeed to me.
I would guess that the first leak was just the usual chatter and the further leaks have been done with the intention of harming the Trump administration.
I think we can say with certainty that no one connected to Trump leaked those photos to the NYT!
Yes, I pondered that too. The FT is saying that this kind of info is held on a database used by government ordnance and explosives expertsin around 20 partnered countries. So there are other possibilities too though, including hacking of said database don’t you think?
The risk/reward of hacking a secure database to publish information without much value doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s far more likely to be security services feeding info to their pet journalists.
But it is not necessarily without value is it. If it can cause a spat between the UK and US services surely that is a plus for someone?
Subsidiaries don’t have spats with their owners….
Some security people in the USA will be happy to make the Trump administration look weak and tie this to ridiculous sharing of info with Russia scandal in the overall project of de-legitimisation. Some security people in the UK will be happy to see this dominating the coverage rather than speculation over their own failings.
Craig
If we can deduce that the jihadists will commit a terrorist atrocity to influence an election, and we know the jihadists and the British government share the same goal with regard to Saudi Arabia, then I would assume the two groups will have some way of communicating unofficially – you wouldn’t leave your allies’ actions to chance.
Is it not possible, even likely, that the British government in this way instructed or manipulated an attack by the jihadists. The employees you know, that British government wouldn’t. But I don’t think that’s the only face, or arm, of the British government. I don’t think it was surprised by the attack. To me it’s too tidy and convenient not to have been deliberately instigated.
A friend noted to me something i didn’t know (I’m not on a phone all the time) this thing about the 22nd, the anniversary of lee rigby, then she reeled of a load of other incidents with the same date number..
So it’s a critical election time, and the 22nd…WITHOUT assuming stuff (anything at all) i do wonder how this was not obviously seen as big risk due to all the other incidents . Again to me this emphasises (at least) the utter failure of security services in light of these historical incidents.
Yet Iv herd nobody say a word about it. Is it “conspiratorial” to say why weren’t large gatherings on this date crawling with security? And that it is a blatant gross failure.?
We seem to get the security (and the army) everywhere AFTER the incident.
Craig
“In fact, nothing I wrote can in any way be construed as indicating I thought that the British state was implicated in the attack.”
_______________________
That is correct. So why did I (and perhaps others) object to the last para of your post, which you cite in this one?
The reasons are as follows:
1/. Given past terrorist attacks, it is surely obvious that this attack could have been either a lone wolf attack or an an organised one. The first point is that no one – neither you nor the authorities – knew which it was at the time when you write. So your speculation was otiose: you would have done better to wait until matters became clearer (which they now appear to be).
2/. The second point is that by writing that you opened the door for a number of commenters to pile in with hints (or even bald assertions), that this bombing WAS a false flag operation carried out by the British state – something which you yourself now, with this new post categorically refute (your refutation is of course welcome). To put it crudely, you offered a number of the regulars the opportunity to use your blog as a platform for their misguided and sick obsessions and I find that a pity.
As far as your current post is concerned, your theme appears to be the following. You say that this attack was timed to influence the forthcoming election. Now, that may or may not be true – although one might think that if such an attack (such an attack, not this particular one) was the culmination of a plot involving an organisation then it must have been in preparation well before anyone knew that the PM would call an election at short notice. You then go on to say that the objective of influencing the election was to harm Mr Corbyn’s chances of winning and that this is so because Mr Corbyn is less friendly to Saudi Arabia than are the Conservatives (“I have no doubt whatsoever the jihadists would try to influence the election, and try to influence it against Corbyn”). In essence you are accusing the Saudi govt or bodies within the Saudi regime) of exactly the behaviour which you say (correctly) the British state would never contemplate. And, with that speculation, you are again – as with the para I deal with above- opening the door for a slough of comments from the usual suspects, all of which, directly or indirectly, seek to cast the UK govt as the ultimate villain of the piece. You are, in my opinion, again playing into the hands of the UK-and-West haters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re your comment about my motivation and that of some others (” These individuals always, whatever the subject, argue the UK government line against me”) : I think you’ll find we spend more time arguing against the zanier offerings of your followers than against you. Be that as it may, however, it raises the following question: why is it worse to argue constantly for the UK govt “line” than to argue constantly against the UK govt line, as a good number of your contributors do?
I often find myself questioning the actions of our government but, at the last count, I don’t think that automatically makes me a ‘UK Hater’ does it? I was simply brought up to question things! I read this blog because theories and possible explainations for stuff is discussed. It hardly seems necessary to argue ‘in favour’ of the government line, by definition it is already plainly in view. Why do you feel it so necessary to that here?
Steph
Thank you for your comment.
“I often find myself questioning the actions of our government but, at the last count, I don’t think that automatically makes me a ‘UK Hater’ does it? I was simply brought up to question things!”
__________________________
Fair enough. One can distinguish between simple questioners and UK-haters according to a number of criteria. These include content; accuracy when presenting facts/events; frequency of posting; tone and slant of comment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” Why do you feel it so necessary to [do] that here?”
________________
Several reasons, among which : to question and combat views which I deem to be wrong/unreasoned/malevolent/subversive/unremitingly negative (you will have noticed that few respond with reasoned argument, preferring rather to speculate in who and what I am and to dismiss me as an agent of the state or fascist or supporter of torture or whatever); to exercise my right to comment in the same way as many exercise their right to comment, on the MSM’ comment facilities, on the “govt line” allegedly peddled by those same MSM.
Well now, of course we all have the right to comment (for now at least!). But I am interested why someone who holds views which are largely reflected in the MSM anyway, would wish to spend so much time simply contradicting others who find what is outwardly presented often fails to add up. Why not just enjoy your life safe in the knowledge that you and ‘the establishment’ (sorry, can’t find a better term) are happily in sync? After all, the world view, as presented by our government and media, is your world. I can only assume that you fear speculation by others who are, in your words, wrong/unreasoned/malevolent/subversive/unremitingly negative, present some kind of threat to it which you must vigilantly resist at all times!
Yes, excellent point, Steph.
Their fear is in losing control of the narrative.
The usual controller of the narrative (msm) has now become so distrusted and despised for its obvious lies and warmongering that there are now teams of trolls running around the internet trying to plug the leaky dyke, trying vainly to patch Humpty Dumpty together again.
Without mass media control of the narrative there’s a real danger of democracy breaking out across the land.
And then the thieves who’ve been doing so well from neoliberalism and austerity may not do so well in future.
Good grief, very well said, and an incredibly thought provoking question!
Save for picking on particular posters and a tendency to divert the topic Habbs performs a useful role and is generally intelligent, well mannered and sometimes interesting. I understand why he complains that Craig has tacitly authorised the discussion of a topic which is clearly taboo, but at the same so what. It is to expected that he will raise such objections. No one knows the answer, but is in bad taste or wrong to discuss. What astonishes me is that the Trump Duterte tel leak in which Trump praises his handling of the drug problem is not front page news. To have a US president normalising and even praising the extra judicial assassination of non political domestic criminals is astonishing. I read the New York Review of Books. What a wonderful country America is in many ways, but to have elected as head a man, who says this. What is happening. How can some violence be normalised and other violence be invisible.
What a bunch of convoluted nonsense.
“why is it worse to argue constantly for the UK govt “line” than to argue constantly against the UK govt line, as a good number of your contributors do?”
Because most of the press is very right wing in the UK. And some of us think that’s an inherently bad thing. Not just that more of them are and we need some kind of “balance” but that being right wing is, FULL STOP, and it has hurt (or far worse) many people in this country and abroad. Like what just happened I’m Manchester. Not unrelated.
You don’t like it, GOOD. Your not meant to.
Want to argue against this?
“Israel quite openly backing al-Qaeda in Syria. Interview with former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy.”
In order to argue for the UK government “line” then you have to understand what it is.
I have no idea what that might be. Perhaps you have.
In recent years there have been a number of terrorist incidents around the world – there is no reason to suppose that this latest atrocity will be the last. No western government appears to have a plan to bring this epidemic to an end. Indeed certain western powers are actively conspiring with terrorists in Syria. A number of western powers are responsible for the comprehensive destruction of both Iraq and Libya – to what purpose? Because you don’t like the leaders? Can it be that elite loathing of Ghadaffi and Saddam was so great that a terrorist plague was considered an acceptable price to pay?
What is the rationale behind the current refugee influx. Why are no background checks made? Without information no-one has any idea who these people are. Any attempt to find out is immediately shut down by useful idiots screaming racist. Just because terrorist have a warped morality it doe not follow that they are intellectually stupid. There is plenty of evidence that both fighters and economic parasites can be smuggled in under cover of large movements of people. Look at the example of Cuba where Castro emptied the prisons and sent all Cuban criminals to the US. Now look at Florida today and see if you can spot any kind of consequences.
The ultimate government line is most likely to ensure that Saudi continues to recycle those petro $’s. From the perspective of the UK this means turning a blind eye to the massive infusions of money necessary to finance a network of radical schools and mosques. In due course this will likely lead to some form of civil war – something that the government seems manifestly unconcerned about as any expressed concern may lead to a slowing of the infusions of Saudi money.
So, unless you have evidence to the contrary the government line can only be deduced. Any attempt at deduction is likely to contain errors at the micro level. At the macro level there would not appear to be any plausible scenario whereby the government line is anything other than either crassly stupid or deeply nefarious.
Loony
You must ask that question of those who frequently make reference to the UK govts’s “line”
@ Habbabkuk May 25, 2017 at 11:28
You have a lot to say, or imply, against lots of folk; so why do you ignore James Dickenson’s post of May 25, 2017 at 09:32?
I’m sure he could provide you with a link if required.
Been provided. 🙂
Food for thought! Thanks ?
Alastair
If that was meant for me – it is difficult to get the verticals straight 🙂 – thank you.
It is unlikely that terrorists care one way or the other who wins any election in the UK.
There are plenty of bombs going off in the Philippines and Indonesia none of which seems to be of any interest to the UK electorate. Sure Corbyn says he will do things differently, but then so did Trump and look what happened to him. In the unlikely event that Corbyn is elected then he will do as he is told or he will be removed. Look at how Central Banks move in lockstep – this is the game, not some politician who no-ones cares about.
You have to get that Saudi money flowing back to the west and the UK has to play its part. All that the UK can do is to sell boats and tanks and planes. Oh it can do one other thing – which no-one talks about. it can watch Saudi money flood into the country to finance a network of extremist Religious schools and Mosques. No-one cares how many minds are corrupted to the point of destruction, only that those $’s are flowing back to the west.
There is a price to pay for being bone idle, self obsessed and totally devoted to the cult of mindless consumption. That’s right your lifestyle (which of course you totally deserve) can only be maintained by your state effectively conspiring with lunatics to finance a death cult version of Islam. If you don’t like the blood and bone of your youth being sprayed over the walls of concert halls start doing some fucking work and stop your orgy of mindless consumption.
There you go again. Your message when elaborated amounts to, “Consumerism is the real enemy and can only be countered by voting Tory.”
Interesting logic. Why don’t you draw out your reasoning for all of us too dim to understand? And perhaps address how continuing with Tory governance leads us toward a real long term solution down the road.
Let my try again.
Consumerism together with a self entitled mindset is a problem in that it is unsustainable and attempts to sustain it creates myriad other problems. It has nothing whatsoever to do with voting Tory, voting Labour, voting SNP, or not voting. Voting is irrelevant, and no-one cares.
Ask yourself how the policies currently followed by the west differ from those implemented in Zimbabwe. Next ask how come the consequences that were visited on Zimbabwe have not, so far, been visited on the west. The answer most likely has to do with the US military using its strength to maintain the strength of the US$. All major western currencies (including sterling) gain their strength via a close association with the US. This association can be most clearly seen through both the coordinated actions of western Central Banks and the coordination of military assaults on the “enemy of the day.”
Currency strength is also maintained via accelerating arms sales to anyone with surplus $.s and by inward investment. In the UK this takes the form of selling infrastructure like electricity distribution systems to foreign entities, selling high end real estate to the global elite and (very relevantly) accepting Saudi money to finance a network of radical mosques and schools.
All of this is both stupid and repugnant. Corbyn says he will do things differently. Current policy is designed to delay the day of collapse. Any significant state trying to break from this set of arrangements would, if successful likely trigger the total collapse of the west. Therefore Corbyn (if elected) will be stopped. Most likely he will be removed in some kind of internal coup. If those kind of attempts fail then the UK will be isolated by its western partners in an attempt to prevent the contagion spreading.
Politicians will do nothing for you. Any politician can be compromised. The only solution available is for people en masse to change their way of thinking and to free themselves from the chains of consumerism. The fact that they will not do this extinguishes all hope. It does not however absolve them from responsibility and it does not mean that each individual person is anything less than 100% responsible for their own fate.
No politician can save you. You must save yourself. If you cannot or will not do that then you will perish in the economic catastrophe that your lifestyles have made inevitable.
“Ask yourself how the policies currently followed by the west differ from those implemented in Zimbabwe.”
Are you referring to inflation here? The reason Zimbabwe has had problems printing money is because there are not enough goods to buy. The issue there isn’t the over supply of currency it’s the under supply of products
The reason we do not have these problems in the West is because the issue here is the supply of money (namely the hoarding of it by the super rich) and as QE and the continual creation of wealth via debt products has shown there is no chance of inflation by increased money supply while the real economy is still functioning.
Who could argue?
The key is, as you acknowledge the continued functioning of the real economy.
But what if the real economy has already stopped working? What if all that you see is a mirage projected by the power of the US military supplemented by a few real props created by the recycling of the petro $ to fund ongoing violence.
It is possible that this analysis is in error. It can be tested by looking around and seeking to identify elements of the real economy that exist at a sufficient scale to support the population. Ignoring commodity exporting states then outside of Germany, China and a few smaller states (Singapore etc,) I cannot identify the real economy.
With regard to the UK then most of the policy actions (selling infrastructure and wooing the ultra wealthy) seem to be consistent with the idea that the economy has already disappeared and its absence is being masked with smoke and mirrors.
We have an over abundance of food and energy in this country but as you will no doubt point out we rely on imports for that. It will likely take a shock far greater than 2008 to achieve behavioural change.
Consumerism should be opposed because it is environmentally unsustainable and is damaging to the physical and mental health of consumers. It should be opposed because it increases exploitation and unproductive work and the opposition should primarily consist of reducing exploitation and unproductive work.
Raging about individuals’ desires for a new car or phone is pointless. These are top down issues.
As I said, your only solution is to prefer status quo over any other action.
NO. My solution is for you to change the status quo and to change it through your own actions.
Your solution is to look to someone else to change it for you. They will not do so. You are responsible for saving yourself.
Jeremy Corbyn can and will be sabotaged at every step – just look at what has happened ever since he has been elected – from attempted coups to media smears. You, on the other hand are all powerful and you cannot be stopped. Free yourself and throw away the detritus of your material life. No media campaign can be made against you. You cannot be toppled from your individual sovereign right not to partake in an orgy of consumption. No-one can force you to buy garbage or to pay taxes to fund an empire of evil. You choose to do these things – and your choices are your responsibility.
As I’ve said three times now, your only contribution is to urge people not to vote for Labour with Jeremy Corbyn as leader.
Why?
Loony
Please tell me how I can choice to not pay taxes.
@phil – It is possible and I manage quite well and quite legally not to pay any tax. You have to be willing to structure your life in a certain way to achieve this outcome. It is easy although it may not suit everyone
@J – Either you have a comprehension problem or I am unable to communicate. I do not know how to make things any clearer. I cannot possibly support the maintenance of the status quo since I consider it to be totally unsustainable and in grave danger of near term collapse. (In fact it may have already collapsed)
I do not consider that any component part of the system is capable of effecting meaningful change. Therefore change must come at the individual level. If enough people elect not to fund the system then it will change, and the hope is it will change gradually and not all at once. If it changes all at once then at minimum millions will die and at maximum you are looking at a species ending event. Although my words may offer hope my underlying analysis is that we are well past the point of no return.
Loony
“I manage quite well and quite legally not to pay any tax.”
No tax at all? I am intrigued. Come on, spill the beans. Or do you just mean income tax?
“It is unlikely that terrorists care one way or the other who wins any election in the UK. ”
True but the people who fund the terrorists do.
I assume the Northern Powerhouse project, formulated by Gideon and Dave, and continued to be supported by May, will not be affected.
Northern powerhouse’ £556m boost described as missed opportunity
PM to announce investments in northern England but some question why Greater Manchester is getting largest share of funds
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/23/northern-powerhouse-to-get-556m-boost-amid-warnings-of-east-west-divide
‘Greater Manchester emerged as the biggest winner in May’s giveaway, receiving £130.1m compared with the next largest beneficiary, the Liverpool city region, which will benefit from £72m in investment.
However, the funding rounds prompted complaints from some councils, which questioned why Greater Manchester – long seen as the government’s favoured devolution champion – was receiving more investment per head than neighbouring regions.’
Where does all this money slosh around and where is there any accountability?
> … I … I … I … I … I … I …
You’ve worked out what’s really important in all this: you.
It’s a first person blog Jafner. It tells you what I think about thinks. The continuous use of “I think that”… “I believe that”… are actually qualifiers. They mark out that this is my subjective view and that you are entitled to yours..
.and what are the idiots doing leaking his identity?…”Was he a door-hop at the Libyan Embassy?” They’re being squeezed and it shows…. “We’re poor little sheep who have lost their way! Baah! Baah! Baah!” #Mercer #Trump #Putin #CambridgeAnalytica http://www.arafel.co.uk/
Thanks for this Craig, the more even small details the better.
Gaddafi did warn that if they overthrew his government, these terrorsit attacks would come to the E.U Cities.
Blair, then Cameron, May, and then the Blaites wanted to continue the bombing of Syria ( H. Benn’s Grand Speech For example )
Blood,- a lot of it – on their hands
” While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued western intervention in Libya and Syria.
” There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the US/UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the US/UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.
When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.*
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-bomber-was-product-of-wests-libyasyria-intervention/5591837
REGARDING the young victims
I have met the Missing Barra Girl 14 year old Eilidh MacLeod and her parents On Vatersay a couple of years ago, she was playing the pipes as the Ferry arrived at Castle Bay just two weeks ago.
Her friend 15 year old Laura MacIntyre has been found, and is being treated for serious injuries in a Manchester hospital.
Yesterday an Islands Group ( from Barra, and Vatersay ) started a a petition to help the Girls Families
in a little over 12 hours it’s been doing very well –
https://www.justgiving.com/campaigns/charity/voluntaryactionbarraandvatersay/vabvbarrafamilysupportcampaign
Again, Thoughts to all the Victims and Families
Brian,
Thanks. It is worth noting that my niece who was shot multiple times in the Tunisian terror attacks has received excellent medical care from the NHS but very little other assistance from the state. In fact, being unable work due to both physical and mental trauma she has been caught like so many others in the absolute nightmare of our punitive “benefits” system under the Tories.
Sorry to hear that, as if she hasn’t suffered Enough.
Exceptionally perceptive writing. I actually had a discussion early yesterday in which I proposed some of these theories myself…if only the “masses” would not only read this…but be receptive to it instead of swallowing wholesale the hard-right rhetoric churned out by MSM. It’s time for people to remove the blinkers from their eyes and see what evil is done by our government in allegiance with the truly evil Saudi Arabian state .
Doesn’t matter if he was acting on prompts from daesh or larger powers. Whatever the case he was used, and the event will continue to be used. The people who support an ideology or state interest with violence are insane, whether they be suicide bombers or arms dealers. Lots of loud braying about ‘our way of life’ but no talk of the price payed for it elsewhere. ‘Pop it till it flops’ as new u.k. national anthem?