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.
An excellent article which has certainly made me think. Just one comparatively minor criticism: the reference to Crimea.
There were international observers, all finding no evidence to suggest anything untoward had taken place; and we watched western TV channels showing mum and dad, children on shoulders, with baboushka all making their way, in celebratory mood, to vote. Since then there have been, to my knowledge, at least four opinion polls, carried out by respected western companies, which have all produced results in the nineties for joining Russia.
If you believe in self determination, be it in Tibet, Kosovo, East Timor, Crimea or Donbass, you have to go with the view of the majority, even if that is uncomfortable. If there is any doubt about the validity of a ballot the correct response is to call for a rerun under UN auspices.
I agree. Furthermore, The ethnic Russians in Crimea had noted what was being done to their compatriots in Donetsk and Donbass by the Kiev fascists, – they needed no urging or bullying to vote to rejoin (yes rejoin) Russia.
Walter,
I feel it necessary to point out Crimea happened well before any conflict started to emerge in the Donetsk and Donbass regions.
It was definitely a false flag.
In 2011, when the British Government was all in favour of ardent young jihadis going off to Libya to overthrow the monster Ghaddafi, Channel 4 did an admiring report on a Mancunian/Libyan teenager who’d gone to Libya to fight (his face was pixilated out):
https://www.channel4.com/news/the-teenage-libyan-rebel-from-manchester
Forgive me if this has already been posted.
Incidentally, I’ve heard it reported (though can’t locate source) that Brfitish security services allow ex-jihadis back into the country (perhaps having let them exit in the first place) because we are both on the same side in the Middle East. Anyone know if this is true?
It appears they do, but under ‘control orders’.
From the much circulating article that goes some way to disputing Craig’s assertion that it is not ‘remotely likely that the British state is implicated in the attacks’:
‘Control orders were introduced as part of counter-terrorism legislation drafted in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings.
They allowed authorities to restrict the activities of people suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities by requiring them to remain at a registered address for up to 16 hours a day, subjecting them to electronic tagging, limiting their access to telephone and internet communications, and banning them from meeting or communicating with other people deemed to be of concern.
At least 50 people were subjected to the measure with at least 12 Libyan exiles among them.
Control orders were replaced with Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), which allow authorities to impose many of the same restrictions while limiting their term to two years, in 2011.
The Home Office told MEE it did not comment on individual cases. It said that TPIMs were a robust and effective means for dealing with terrorism suspects who could not be prosecuted or deported.
It said that arrangements involving the police, the Home Office and the Security Service (MI5) had been put in place in 2011 during the transition from control orders to TPIMs to ensure that national security was maintained.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488
Certainly applies to Anas Al Liby aka TUNWORTH who was allowed to go there in the hope of assassinating Gadaffi, and come back when he was aiming to replace him with something worse.
After the subway bombing in Madrid by Islamists, the Spanish electorate properly blamed Aznar’s conservative government for supporting the Iraq invasion that produced the blowback, and turned them out of office. Can the British electorate be similarly sensible?
Np.
The Spaniards were particularly pissed off because British intelligence had wrongly told Aznar that the real threat then was in the U.K.
The Brits are the worst followers of their leading spooks.
I lived in Madrid at the time. It was probably slightly more complicated than that. The Spanish government initially blamed ETA. I remember it being a weird morning at work not just because of the sombre atmosphere in the city – no car horns being used for example, but because my Spanish colleagues were following Spanish media reporting government sources blaming ETA, whilst I was following updates on the Guardian that was saying it was Islamic terrorism (there’s probably an interesting media/propaganda experiment in there somewhere). Of course the Iraq war was the reason for this – it was politically better for the PP for it to have been ETA. But in terms of the election I’m not sure it was simply Iraq that changed the course of the outcome, but the PP’s lying and use of such an horrific atrocity for political gain. I’m sure that is what would have pushed more people to vote against the PP.
” But in terms of the election I’m not sure it was simply Iraq that changed the course of the outcome, but the PP’s lying and use of such an horrific atrocity for political gain. I’m sure that is what would have pushed more people to vote against the PP.”
_____________________
That is absolutely correct, Riverman.
Contrary to Lysias’ assertion, Aznar’s defeat had nothing to do with anger at Spanish involvement in the Iraq war.
As Riverman said, Aznar’s lying about the origin of the terror attack in Madrid helped him lose the election. Hence Lysias’ hope about the British electorate being “similarly sensible” is otiose because the UK govt is not lying about the origin of the Manchester attack.
Both factors — both the Iraq war and Aznar falsely blaming ETA — played a role in the results of that election. And the reason Aznar blamed ETA was to deflect attention from the Iraq war.
That is mostly incorrect. The Irak war played no role at all in the defeat of Aznar’s party and falsely blaming ETA was merely the cherry on the cake of the Spanish electorate’s dissatisfaction with the Popular Party’s years of government. Furthermore, it is not the case that Aznar blamed ETA in order to deflect attention from the Irak war; that is because, as said, the Irak war was not a factor in the election and its outcome.
The Middle East Eye on the link between Libyan jihadis and MI5:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488
Hi,
this piece has popped up on the Indy,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attack-father-son-innocent-suspect-suicide-bomb-a7753581.html
what rather grabbed my eye is that towards the end they state that the boys father currently works as …
“He is now the administrative manager of the Central Security force in Tripoli.”
so if the Tripoli Government is the UN installed puppet government housed withing the Tripoli Naval Base who exactly hired the alleged bombers father and what is the significance of his job role?
I’ve been deeply suspicious of what is going on in Libya of late primarily because so little is being reported about it in the British media,
The bomber’s father was a long time anti Gaddafi militant and returned to Libya in 2011 to take part in the coup and ongoing power struggle.
It seems likely the family will have had many interactions with the security services.
I recall the Saudis issuing some very thinly-veiled threats prior to Blair dropping the Al Yamamah fraud inquiry.
Excellent post. What do you make of the intelligence leaks to the US media, though? Seems deliberately aimed to rupture intelligence sharing. Do you agree? If so, any idea who might be behind it?
The U.S. security services are doing whatever they can to discredit Trump.
It is rather the case that President Trump is doing whatever he can to discredit his high office.
This discussion is so lacking in facts, relevant anecdotes and reasonable speculation to be taken seriously.
For example, there is often a contradiction between what official randomly say, and what they do on their jobs, like saying things like never supporting terror while on their jobs they are making Muslims et al. into terrorists by acting as if most Pakistanis, Afro-Britons and immigrants from the Caribbean are likely terrorists or their supporters.
“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”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk%27s_Bar_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings
The involvement of MI5 and the Garda Siocana in the Omagh bombing and the awful story of the Birmingham Pub Bombings, and many other sad cases would belie the above quote. UK forces have routinely acted in violence against their citizens, sometimes proactively, sometimes through wilful inaction.
A worse case was the sabotaging of that Chinook helicopter at the Mull of Kintyre where the intelligence hardliners on the IRA killed the peacemakers on board. thinking they were supporters of the Provisionals
Nice to hear from you again, Eoghan. How are you?.
oh but surely that was “pilot error”?
That is only conclusion that British investigators finally reached it WASN’T.
All very interesting Craig, but you’re still painting Jeremy as some sort of paragon of peace-making when, as I pointed out yesterday, he voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement which Hume and other genuine advocates of non-violent political engagement had (at risk to themselves) fought so hard for.
You had no view on that, but are here today trotting out the same line on Corbyn’s ‘peacenick’ credentials. And yes, Blair’s lot were selling arms to Saudi too, I’m aware of that disgraceful fact, but that’s a separate issue. Do you have any comment on Corbyn’s support for the IRA killers?
Corbyn wasn’t the only one confused about what was really going on in N.I.
What about Ian Phoenix, Deverell, Fitzsommons and the other 29.victims?
Confused? Jesus Christ.
He was quite confused too, as was RUC’s Fitzsimmons.
Please Trowbridge, I’m waiting for Craig’s response.
Jim, it’s very difficult to believe anything from you when you continually post from Dan “bomb em all” hodges and his daft right wing screed “Labour uncut” more managed establishment “left” that is 90 degrees right of centre but tips it’s hat to social justice issues providing they don’t interfer with the government’s dirty little secrets.
Let’s have a look at Mr Hodge’s amazing political insight eh?
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/09/21/david-miliband-has-won-says-dan-hodges/
Genius.
Are you Jim “Henry Jackson” Murphy?
Incoherent drivel. Any chance of you answering the question re Corbyn’s, er, ‘confusion’?
Your view of what was going on in NI is the view given by msm.
But it was all a lot more complicated than that.
it’s quite difficult to answer questions which are premissed on nonsense.
Herbie :
So it’s the ‘MSM’ lying about Corbyn’s attempt to stymie the Anglo-Irish agreement? That didn’t happen at all? Thanks for the clarification, how could I have been so gullible?
I’m saying it doesn’t matter.
Corbyn was onside for the only Agreement that did matter.
Doesn’t matter to you maybe, I’m sure there are relatives of those murdered in the next decade of sectarian violence who might disagree. Disgusting apologism for Corbyn’s effective advocacy for continuing that violence to try and get the settlement he thought was the only ‘right’ one. The guy’s a deeply unpleasant individual behind that cuddly exterior.
The solution arrived at was the only one workable,
That’s the point.
No point arguing for that which wasn’t going to work, as even Hume concluded in the end.
No, the point is that Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and the rest of the ‘Stop the War’ ( Christ the irony) lot played no part in the final settlement, unlike the revisionist drivel they are trying to spout now about their ‘contribution’.
Look, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’ve obviously got this Tory talking point to beat Corbyn, and as per usual it’s based on lies and half-truths and hoping no one knows what was really going on.
People like Corbyn and Benn etc were instrumental in pushing things forward towards what became the GFA.
For example, Thatcher and Major were resisting that direction.
Clinton in the US was supporting it and bringing in from the cold those who would make the agreement possible.
Benn, Corbyn etc were doing precisely the same thing in the UK.
And Hume in the end fully supported that approach.
So, your account is simply wrong.
No, it’s entirely correct and you are talking garbage.
The historical record bears me out. These are simply facts, and widely reported in media at the time.
But carry on.
Amusing to see just how poor the Tory talking points are.
And how stupid their supporters are.
The conflict in NI would still be going on today had the Tory thugs had their way.
Stop trying to move the goalposts, it’s disingenuous and dishonest. We’re talking about the Anglo-Irish agreement here not the GFA.
Corbyn refused to vote in support of the AIA. That’s a fact, however you try and wriggle out of it.
No point supporting what won’t work.
Obviously.
Hume was wrong and Corbyn was right.
And Hume’s wrongness is shown in his having to move towards the position adopted by Corbyn and others.
The only workable solution.
Which part of Corbyn refusing to vote for the AIA can be construed as ‘bringing the IRA into the fold’? , or in any way a vote a purported man of peace would make?
A man of peace wouldn’t waste time supporting something that would have continued the misery. That’s the AIA.
He would support something which would bring things to peace. That’s the GFA.
And given that Hume was ultimately forced to agree to that new direction then that shows that Corbyn and others were correct in their analysis and Hume was previously wrong.
And so it came to pass.
So your interpretation of Corbyn’s refusal to vote for the AI agreement so hard fought for by Hume is that ‘it obviously wasn’t going to work’, and Jeremy was a major contributor to the GFA alongside Hume and Clinton et al? Where is evidence for this contribution? The Irish Times article on Hume makes no mention of Corbyn in these efforts.
I’ve told you a number of times now.
Corbyn and Benn etc role was to bring Republicans in from the cold. hosting them at Westminster and so on.
Clinton’s role was to do the same in the US.
Hume’s role was to finally recognise the necessity of this approach.
The enormity of Hume’s change in direction is attested by the destruction of his own party to that end.
I’m still looking for any evidence that Corbyn and McDonnels hosting of IRA members at Westminster and celebration of their ‘armed struggle’ is seriously seen by anyone as being an important contributor to the GFA. Has Clinton for instance made any public statements of thanks for Jeremy’s stalwart efforts? Has John Hume thanked him for the same? Have any of the major players in the GFA negotiations thanked Jeremy for his vital contribution?
“I’m still looking for any evidence that Corbyn and McDonnels hosting of IRA members at Westminster and celebration of their ‘armed struggle’ is seriously seen by anyone as being an important contributor to the GFA.”
How do you think Adams and co moved from being media demons to grudgingly accepted as partners for peace?
Ask Jonathan Powell
Powell comes later.
We’re looking at the period from 1988 onwards.
I’m still waiting for Clinton’s public or private statements of thanks to Jeremy for his vital role. Or any statement of thanks from any of the other major contributors.
The problem with that is that the people to whom you refer are jonny-come-latelies.
They’re hardly going to thank Corbyn etc for being right when they themselves were wrong.
Corbyn was consistent throughout and his analysis is that which triumphed.
There used to be a concept in US politics “pre-war anti-fascism”
That was a bad thing.
But post-war anti-fascism was fine.
There’s something similar going on here.
Everyone eventually caught up with the analysis which Corbyn and others presented, but which was resisted strongly at the time.
They can’t easily thank those who were consistent throughout because it would show up the fact that previous mainstream policy was wrong.
You have lied about Corbyn’s reasons for refusing to vote for the AIA :
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/
His rationale was nothing to do with thinking the agreement was likely to fail, and everything to do with his belief that the conditions didn’t meet his criteria re: the border and ultimate success for the united Ireland the IRA were murdering to try and achieve. You know this, but lie. Why?
You’re becoming ever more and more ridiculous.
The AIA was simply not going to work because it didn’t address the problem. As simple as that.
And tested in the laboratory of reality we see that it didn’t work. Couldn’t work.
Corbyn knew this. All sensible people knew it.
Alternatively, Corbyn and others laid the groundwork for bringing Republicans into the political process, and they did this against much opposition and abuse from the usual suspects.
Corbyn was right then and he was still right as the rest of the usual suspects jumped aboard the good ship peace with varying degrees of dignity.
Corbyn’s only crime was that he was correct in his analysis when it was considered almost a crime to posit the correct analysis.
Stop evading the point I’m making, which is about your lie.
You don’t have any points.
You have only invention, fantasy and ignorance..
The AIA simply didn’t address the problem. That’s it. No more than a cosy arrangement between the political classes of UK/Ireland which sought to pretend they alone could put a lid on things.
If you trace Corbyn’s involvement from the earliest days you’ll see that he has been consistent, up to and including the GFA and beyond.
By contrast most of the other players have been inconsistent.
They’ve had to change their minds.
To the position Corbyn adopted all along.
My point was that you lied about Corbyn’s rationale for not signing up to the AIA. Why did you do that?
It’s a non point.
You’ve simply invented it.
The AIA is no test of anything but failure, because it didn’t address the problem. It wasn’t meant to.
That’s why Corbyn couldn’t support it.
In sum, your only complaint really is that Corbyn should be condemned for not supporting the wrong path, even though everyone else finally fell into agreement with him.
That’s how mind-numbingly stupid you Blairite and Tory critics are.
And why Corbyn is the right man for the job.
So I invented Corbyn’s commons statement on his rationale for voting against the AIA? Hmm.
And invented your argument that his rationale was to do with the proposal’s likelihood of failure. Hmm.
Corbyn’s position in the piece quoted is that he thinks the AIA won’t work. As I said.
He gives his reasons for thinking it wouldn’t work.
And he was right.
It very straightforward, you see.
It only becomes problematic when you’ve got a load of lying media, Blairites and Tories twisting words to mean what they want them to mean.
Still, it’s amusing to watch.
Jeremy Corbyn’s statement to the Commons :
“We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the twenty-six Counties, and for those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason”.
It couldn’t be clearer Herbie. You are a liar, sorry. Nobody is ‘twisting his words’.
“Jeremy Corbyn’s statement to the Commons :
“We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the twenty-six Counties, and for those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason”.
Right.
So Corbyn thinks this solution won’t work.
He gives his reasons for this.
And he was as right back then as he is today.
So much so indeed that now everyone agrees with Jeremy.
Those things which were excluded from the AIA are now included in the GFA.
That’s why the GFA can work where the AIA hadn’t a hope.
Simple enough.
Nope, his clearly stated rationale is nothing to do with whether or not he thinks it won’t work. It’s that he doesn’t like the fact his goal of a united might be compromised. Stop lying.
“We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the twenty-six Counties, and for those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason”.
So that’s Corbyn’s reasoning why the AIA won’t work. He’s simply stating the reality that without these elements it won’t work
And history has proved him correct.
As I say it was a cobbled together nonsense which attempted to exclude the plebs. It wouldn’t have worked even if you were against a united Ireland.
And to the extent that these elements were covered in the GFA, obviously everyone else involved came to agree with him in time.
It’s a bit like arguing some stupid solution to Syria that excludes a major group.
It’s obvious it isn’t going to work unless you kill off or otherwise contain the major excluded group.
‘Without these elements it won’t work’?
What elements would those be then. You seem to think a united Ireland has been achieved. Last thing I noticed was that it hasnt.
But I hope, as someone with an Irish Catholic background myself, that someday it does.
“‘Without these elements it won’t work’? What elements would those be then.”
The elements Corbyn mentioned in the quote above.
“You seem to think a united Ireland has been achieved.”
A satisfactory agreement towards it is envisioned in the GFA. That’s the point.
The element he refers to is a united Ireland, which you said Corbyn had been vindicated as holding out for by the success of its achievement.
In case you hadn’t noticed Ireland is not united, and yet with the border still in place there has been relative peace for decades. No thanks to Jeremy Corbyn.
I’m still waiting for Clintons fulsome eulogies to Jeremy’s vital role in securing the success of the GFA.
“The element he refers to is a united Ireland, which you said Corbyn had been vindicated as holding out for by the success of its achievement.”
Didn’t say that.
What I’ve been indicating to you about the AIA versus the GFA is that the latter offered a pathway to UI.
And it offered inclusivity.
You’re simply on a Corbyn-bashing exercise.
And very poorly armed.
Like all the rest.
Corbyn’s a saint compared to the trash you support.
It shows in you, you know.
All your little twists and turns.
The border is still in place, and yet there have been decades of peace. Where in that fact is any vindication of Corbyn’s purported success in achieving ‘these elements’, which is exactly what you claimed. And your quotation of the Commons statement is inaccurate, read the original again.
And I’m still waiting for any evidence of Clintons publicly or privately expressed thanks to Jeremy for his vital role in securing the GFA.
Or from any other of the major players.
The history books must surely be full of indexed references to his heroic role?
Off to bed now Herbie, goodnight.
“The border is still in place, and yet there have been decades of peace”
That’s because of the GFA.
The parties are reasonably contented with it, and the conditions in which violence emerged are no longer there..
Anyway, it’s more like the border between Norfolk and Suffolk these days. Though getting dodgier since Brexit.
Had Corbyn and others in the Left not rehabilitated Adams and Co into the public political process, then someone else would have had to do it in order to make the GFA possible.
The problem had always been that Unionists just said “you don’t expect us to talk to terrorists”. And that was difficult to answer whilst media was still demonising them.
You just couldn’t move on until this problem was dealt with.
Corbyn and the Left created a space for Adams and Co to make their case, answer questions etc and gradually show to the public that they weren’t quite the demons media had made them out to be.
That and the Clinton visa and subsequent mass US media attention created the conditions where Unionists were forced more and more to question their refusal to negotiate with Republicans.
This is the beginning of what ultimately became the GFA.
Still not in bed, God I’m knackered! This online arguing is not healthy ?
I know you’re convinced of Jeremy’s vital contribution to the successful attainment of peace in a non united Ireland, which is the result of the GFA, but are there any references in any respected written histories of the Troubles which concur with your beliefs? With particular reference to public or private expressions of gratitude from, say, someone like Clinton?
I’m happy to be proved wrong.
I thought this was a pretty unarguable case, albeit from someone you might not like for his ‘right’ political credentials. Putting aside any personal dislike of the man you may have though, tell me where he’s wrong.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/
Bed. Please God don’t let me look at this monstrous device anymore.
“I know you’re convinced of Jeremy’s vital contribution to the successful attainment of peace in a non united Ireland, which is the result of the GFA, but are there any references in any respected written histories of the Troubles which concur with your beliefs? With particular reference to public or private expressions of gratitude from, say, someone like Clinton?
I’m happy to be proved wrong.”
You don’t need someone else to validate Corbyn’s contribution, particularly those who condemned his early contribution whilst subsequently following it.
No.
You need to think for yourself.
And the facts are, and the historical record shows, Corbyn and his friends on the Left were way ahead of the Blairs and Clintons who later trod the path Corbyn laid.
Surely it’s obvious.
Don’t let your Corbyn-hatred make you completely illogical.
it’s obvious that what Corbyn and the left were doing in the 80s, with much condemnation from media etc, was what became the norm for the mainstream in the late 90s.
And it paved the path to the GFA.
Two main objectives.
1. Make Adams and Co less stinky. Humanise them.
2. As Adams and Co are getting a bit better PR, then politicians and media can better push the Unionists to negotiate.
This has to be done and accomplished before you get close to anything like the GFA.
Someone has to do it.
And the facts are that Corbyn and his friends on the Left were doing it from the 80s on.
That dark period where Thatcher and Fitzgerald thought they could simply freeze the nuisance out. That’s the AIA.
There’s a reason Noam Chomsky is rather taken with Corbyn.
Lack of style, and loads of substance.
Jim,
Lets not attempt to rewrite history here. You brake into another mans house and occupy it, expect a reaction. You would have to be a moron to blame the home owner for protecting his property.
Corbyn supports reuniting an island, a Country, divided by an imagery line imposed on it after a sham referendum occurred that makes the annexation of Crimea look like a model of democracy. It was completely illegal only backed by the gun. Catholics were barred from voting in it. Mobs made sure they stayed away. The whole thing was organised over a few weeks. Just because a lot of time has passed does not make an imposed border legitimate.
That’s not even getting into the near apartheid treatment of the nationalist community that was responsible for the reigniting of hostilities known as ‘the troubles’ in the ’70s.
Point the blame at the appropriate people; the UK Government and decades of military adventurism on foreign soil.
Maybe then you will come to appreciate why some countries across Europe are targeted while others are not.
You seem to be unaware that it’s Corbyn & McDonnell et al who have been trying to re-write their history on this issue. I’ll say it again, Corbyn actively opposed the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement. How does that compute as in any way being an advocate of peace? John Hume was a titan in his decades long attempts to try and negotiate a peaceful solution in Ireland. Corbyn is a hypocritical joke in comparison.
This is nonsense.
Hume’s nationalist solutions were not going to work.
That’s why even he in the end conceded to the Republican faction, dumping his own party in the process.
The forces against him, and they were international, were simply too great.
Humes nationalist solutions? What does that even mean?
Here’s some reading for you on Hume :
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/john-hume-the-politician-who-made-peace-possible-1.2469785%3Fmode%3Damp
Herbie :
You may notice that Jeremy ‘peacenick’ Corbyn gets no mention as a non-violence advocate in the struggle for a solution.
I don’t need any reading on Hume.
I simply say again to you that Hume concluded that those who argued the case Corbyn did were proved correct.
That’s the bit you keep leaving out.
Herbie :
Please provide some evidence for that ludicrous assertion.
Had you the faintest clue about the NI conflict you’d know all this already.
It was much discussed at the time and Hume much abused for it.
Anyway, it begins here:
“11 January, 1988
SDLP leader John Hume meets Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams for the first time.
John Hume believed that private discussions with Gerry Adams could draw the IRA towards putting down its weapons, creating an opportunity for talks and a peace process. Taking place in secret, the talks were slow going over the coming year and took place amid continuing IRA violence. Hume’s strategy was to tie Adams into accepting the principles of self-determination for all, including recognising the rights of the unionist community.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4072261.stm
From that period on Hume is effectively destroying his own party, the nationlist SDLP, in order to allow Republicans to make the necessary deal.
Clinton in the US assisted in this process by providing a visa for Adams (bringing him in from the cold)
And Benn and Corbyn etc pursued the same policy at Westminster.
Thank you for providing evidence that John Hume was continuing his decades long efforts to try and negotiate a peaceful solution. Now where in here is any answer to the question of Corbyn’s vote against the Anglo-Irish agreement or evidence of Hume’s agreement with Corbyn’s stance on this?
The above is the moment when Hume realised that Republicans had to take things forward.
So obviously he agreed to that.
Clinton’s role in the US, and Corbyn, Benn etc role in UK was to bring Republican leaders in from the cold.
And obviously Hume agreed with that too.
All part of the new choreography towards the GFA.
“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”
…and thus spoke the British establishment. Not a word of it is false and not a word of it is true. Oh don’t the British love to bask in their own sense of cleverness.
As other people have pointed out on here Manchester was a center of Libyan exiles most of whom were strongly opposed to Ghadaffi and a lot of whom were opposed to him on religious grounds. Around the world people with such views provide the necessary conditions for the incubation of radical jihadists. All of this is obvious and so obvious that even the British security services would have been aware.
However the British loathed Ghadaffi (maybe for good reason) and were prepared to overlook any flaws in their chosen partners who they used to destabilize and assist in the overthrow the Libyan regime.
This is not a false flag or something perpetrated at the request of the security services. This is simply that the security services failed in their duty of care to those who pay their wages. So obsessed were they with their geo strategic plans and aims that they never paid any attention to the risk of collateral damage. They did not pay any attention because they did not care.
They cover themselves by relying on reasonable people to write reasonable things that make no sense. The bulk of the population are too busy eating burgers or looking at their own oh so beautiful reflections to actually pay any attention to the meaning of words.
or looking at their ‘Smart’ phones and bumping into other people on the pavements.
From one of the exhibitions of the marvellous sculptor May Ayres.
http://www.mayayres.com/may-ayres-war-of-aggression16.html
From the same exhibition, God’s Wars, 2011, this is Blair. He has two faces and on the plinth on which he kneels are some of the dead babies and children that were killed in his wars.
http://www.mayayres.com/GodsWars/23.jpg
A newer work is this one of Theresa in the Stuff Happens exhibition.
http://www.mayayres.com/stuffhappens/21.jpg
May was crowing about Abu Qatada.
Strong and Stable my Arse!
Yeah yeah the British secret services would NEVER do anything dodgy and we know this because Craig Murray the gatekeeper vouches for these wonderful fellows………….
Well let me tell you something Mr gatekeeper
At the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland in October 1993, the British Secret Service had infiltrated the IRA and had scores of double agents operating. One of them deliberately set the timers on the bomb in the Shankhill Road to detonate early so that civilians would not have an opportunity to escape after the coded warning was given. The bomb killed 29 people. Other tactics employed by the British Secret Service involved not passing on bomb warnings in order to maximise civilian casualties, thereby turning public sympathy against the IRA.
But so long as Craig Murray vouches for them they must be stout yeomen. MI6 also protect paedophiles.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shankill-road-bomb-ira-double-agent-deliberately-set-device-to-explode-prematurely-a6833581.html
And the protection (and promotion) of pedophiles helps to explain why MPs do what they’re told to do.
I think Craig is aware of the things that happened in Ireland 24 years ago. Though I don’t simply trust him totally I consider him more seriously than just imagining based on what things where like then.
He has a lot more connections in the state than I do. That said it’s still good to consider these facts.
Gatekeeper?
Find some evidence this incident is the same because assurting is no use without it.
What people don’t understand about the NI conflict is that the greater part of it was in fact a deep state conflict within Britain itself.
Similar to the nationalist/globalist tensions which are still with us today.
Thanks, guess there are parallels.
Don’t trust Westminster britnats.
Not including 9/11 and 7/7, but the explanation for “how can the state do it”, is they don’t! That is perhaps beyond the patsy, no one is killed as the well played narrative is not matched by the footage shown. This allows the operatives to do their duty with a clear conscience, with any dissent or impartial investigation suppressed with emotional tributes to the victims.
@ Dave May 25, 2017 at 16:00
State ‘False Flags’ are controlled and planned by sociopaths, and have no qualms about killing innocents; in fact Gladio operatives were advised to do just that, and did, as did the CIA-controlled Contras.
’53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
That’s just more of less acknowledged ones.
Some want to blame Muslims for the killing and some want to blame the state, but no killings are needed when you have wall to wall coverage by the MSM with no questions asked enabling the public to be manipulated with a formula story without the need for corroboration and without actual victims it makes it easier to stage further events to maintain the narrative in the public mind just using a few key words.
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.
These are the thoughts of the torch bearer, the light that can save us all from giving up to the ghost of fear. In this ugly ‘top dollar’ world there is always an individual price to pay for exposing complicity. The Borg machine has collective tentacles revealed by the grand-son of a rear admiral, a major conduit in a state critical infrastructure. The Five eyes machine is like money, all pervasive, wall-to-wall, inescapable and it’s actions masked by proxy, proxy operatives wielding proxy terror.
I carry the consequences for tickling the dragons tail, albeit the state modified my path-ways from an early age allowing me to fight back.
‘Manchester Attack as MI6 Blowback’: VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 25 MAY 2017
http://www.voltairenet.org/article196455.html
‘…According to Scotland Yard, the attack on the crowd leaving the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, 22 May, has been perpetrated by Salman Abedi. A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the mutilated corpse of the ‘terrorist’.
This attack is generally interpreted as proof that the United Kingdom is not implicated in international terrorism and that, on the contrary, it is a victim of it.
Salman Abedi was born in the UK of a family of Libyan immigrants. He has travelled to Libya several times in the last couple of months, with or without his father.
His father Ramadan Abedi, with whom Salman lived, is a former officer in [Gaddafi’s] Libyan Intelligence Services. He specialised in the surveillance of the Islamist movement, but two decades later has failed to notice that his son has joined Daesh (IS).
In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfiltrated by MI6 and transferred back to the UK where he obtained political asylum. He moved in 1999 to Whalley Range (south of Manchester) where there was already resident a small Libyan Islamist community.
In 1994, Ramadan Abedi returned again to Libya under MI6’s direction. In late 1995 he is involved in the creation of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a local branch of Al-Qaeda, in conjunction with Abdelhakim Belhadj. The LIFG was then employed by MI6 again to assassinate Gaddafi, for a payoff of £100,000. This operation, which also failed, provoked heated exchanges within British Intelligence, leading to the resignation of one David Shayler.
Other former members of the LIFG have also lived at Whalley Range, including Abedi’s friend Abd al-Baset-Azzouz. In 2009, this last joined Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and became a close associate of its chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In 2011, al-Baset-Azzouz is active on the ground with the NATO operation against Libya. On 11 September 2012, he directs the operation against the US Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, assassinated at Benghazi. He is arrested in Turkey and extradited to the US in December 2014, his trial still pending.
Nobody pays attention to the fact that Ramadan Abedi has linked LIFG members to the formation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and, in 2011, he takes part in MI6’s ‘Arab Spring’ operations, and in LIFG’s role on the ground in support of NATO. In any event, Abedi returned to Libya after the fall of Gaddafi and moves his family there, leaving his older children in the family home at Whalley Range…..’
‘….Daesh has claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, but without describing Salman Abedi as a ‘martyr’. After the assassination, Ramadan Abedi has declared his opposition to jihad in a telephone conversation with journalists. He has also claimed that his son had intended to spend the month of Ramadan [beginning 26 May] with him in Libya and that he is convinced of his innocence….’
Well, well, yet another Spook ‘agent’ and his son; this is beginning to smell even worse.
Remember CIA agent who was uncle of the (innocent) ‘alleged’ Boston bombers?
Many other cases of the ‘alleged perps’ of attacks having links to (and not only ‘known to’) the ‘Security Services’.
Graham Fuller was the CIA official related by marriage to the Boston bombers. Quite an important guy in the CIA. Google him.
Fuller is also the guy who got Gulen admitted to the U.S., over State Department objections.
I heard that there was to be a minutes’ silence for the Manchester victims but nothing for the Yemenis butchered by the Saudi head-chopping perverts with the collaboration of the British state or Syrians butchered by American Caesar with British state connivance, Palestinians butchered by the occupation or Libyans butchered by the RAF on behalf of American Caesar.
Such hypocrisy.
Some heartening comments. ^^
Need rest but gona leave this one here. https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/867089772308824065
Laters peeps.
The conclusion then is that ISIS wants the Tories to win. So hands up who wants to be on the same team as ISIS?
One who is on the side of ISIS?
“Israel quite openly backing al-Qaeda in Syria. Interview with former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkjQQh2hol8
“I do not think it is remotely likely the British state was implicated in the attack”
As it stands there is a dead suspect who has been identified because his bank card was found at the scene. Hours of CCTV footage appears to have gone awol. This stuff is getting tedious.
In a “false flag” attack it is not necessary that the government of the country hosting the atrocity is the party responsible.
AFAIK there has been no mention of the events on Sunday 30 January 1972 in the Bogside.
The Saville ‘inquiry’ followed. More whitewash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
Milord Hutton who went to conduct that other whitewash 30 odd years later, the ‘inquiry’ into Dr David Kelly’s unnatural death, represented the MOD at the Saville Inquiry.
That is how the rotten system works in this country. It stinks of corruption and protects the vested interests of the state. Papers closed for 70 years and so on.
‘On 30 March 1994, as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, he dismissed Private Lee Clegg’s appeal against his controversial murder conviction. On 21 March 2002 Lord Hutton was one of four Law Lords to reject David Shayler’s application to use a “public interest” defence as defined in section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989 at his trial.
Lord Hutton represented the Ministry of Defence at the inquest into the killing of civil rights marchers on “Bloody Sunday”. Later, he publicly reprimanded Major Hubert O’Neil, the coroner presiding over the inquest, when the coroner accused the British Army of murder, as this contradicted the findings of the Widgery Tribunal.
Hutton also came to public attention in 1999 during the extradition proceedings of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet had been arrested in London on torture allegations by request of a Spanish judge. Five Law Lords, the UK’s highest court, decided by a 3-2 majority that Pinochet was to be extradited to Spain. The verdict was then overturned by a panel of seven Law Lords, including Lord Hutton on the grounds that Lord Hoffmann, one of the five Law Lords, had links to human rights group Amnesty International which had campaigned for Pinochet’s extradition.
In 1978 he defended Britain in the European Court of Human Rights when it was found guilty of torturing internees without trial. He sentenced 10 men to 1,001 years in prison on the word of “supergrass” informer Robert Quigley, who was granted immunity in 1984.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Hutton,_Baron_Hutton
Still extant aet 86 whereas the good do indeed die young.
And what will the MSM do to probe the underlying causes of terrorism in this era of instability? Not a lot! You guessed right! People are just not allowed to debate certain issues on a national platform because our leaders are up to their necks in all the shit.
Our state is merely a vehicle for a few from which they can make lots of money and while most folk know it in their hearts they don’t put the pieces together to form an overall view of how things actually work and in what way it affects their lives.
To me, the right wing thinkers and promoters rely on people’s ignorance of issues and they also know how to manipulate those ignorance’s to their advantage. I’m never surprised these days when intelligent people come out with outrageous ideas. I’m also quite comfortable in explaining to them why I think they are wrong and never fail to remind them that in a large part their view has come from high up because they want to plant certain ideas into the public consciousness. Explaining how they do it helps and it’s good to see the penny drop.
Saying that when sitting amongst a group of folk voicing certain opinions it’s sometimes better to say nothing.
One thing is for sure, I probably have a long way to go before I could get a greater understanding of how things are and then being able to articulate them also is another thing. I think my eyes were opened just a little when I went to see Mark Thomas in a theatre in Glasgow about 18 years ago. If only enough people like him were high up in our political arenas.
“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.”
You are ignorant of why those troops were there. Earlier, several coachloads of Crimeans were returning from the Maidan to Crimea. Their convoy was stopped at a place called Kherson by a gang of Neo-Nazi thugs armed with shotguns and baseball bats. The driver of the lead coach was killed by a shotgun blast fired through the windscreen of the coach. The occupants of the coaches were dragged and and beaten by the Neo-Nazis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9mODhVNeM
The Russian military intelligence legally in Crimea (the treaty allowed 35,000 Russian troops, with 2,000 there at the time) disabled the military encrypted links between Crimea and Ukraine forcing the Ukrainians to resort to open communications which were then monitored. The Russians learned of planned attacks using NATO-trained Ukrainian troops in Feodosia (including members trained as forward air controllers) and plans to send more Neo-Nazi thugs to take over the Crime parliament building to preven functioning of the legal government. The Crimean repsonse was to use their equivalent of the Territorial Army to guard the Parliament building. This video shows the take over. The armed people are wearing makeshift mixed military outfts not used by the normal Russian forces. They allowed the staff on duty to leave the building for their safety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUH-A3IF3h0
The Russian troops sole duty was to appear on the streets to maintain order (no effort required there) and to remove Ukrainian troops and Neo-Nazis from military bases. This was done largely through negotiation. There were two exceptions, once where a group of Neo-Nazis at a base refused to go quietly (they were given the 4am flash-bang knock on the door treatment and set back to Ukraine) and some others on a Ukraine vessel who were dealt with. The Ukrainian military was in close communication with the Russian military and of the 20,000 in Crimea, 16,000 accepted Russian offers to join the Russian forces at same rank and priveleges with 4 times the pay. The other 4000 were allowed to return to Ukraine.
The full story (click setting to enable English captions)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t42-71RpRgI
Well done. An accurate synopsis of events.
Re Craig’s comment, 30 LGBT troops outside No. 10 and Buck House is not exactly martial law is it.
Some are obvious, merely on photographic analysis. I’ve not really looked at Manchester yet, but this is incredibly suspicious. Draw your own conclusions re why real Manchester Firemen were not allowed to attend until 90 minutes after the event. I am not surprised they are furious. They would naturally be among the first ones there.
“Firefighters have spoken of their “shame” after being held back by bosses from helping victims of the Arena bomb.
No crews arrived at the scene until 90 minutes after the 10.33 attack.”
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/firefighters-infuriated-after-were-stopped-13087703
The critical threat in this country comes from the prevent policy and our allegiance with Saudi Wahabists, from political parties totally undermined in their aims and mandates from voters, by split loyalties to one or other state, anchored deep in our main parties, foreign agendas that are bearing down on to our foreign policy and domestic laws.
This could easily manifest itself in a totalitarian state that uses the armed forces and police as its arbiter.
back to campaigning. What about the tax havens everywhere, not just on Malta and Gibraltar, how do we reign back tax probity in this country with an unstable and weak Government as such, unable to carry out their policies, caving in to poll ratings, failing to keep their mettle in massively important negotiations, whilst wrecking what little public services there are.
If someone could reciprocate this link with an investigative report on the Cayman islands and or Jerseys tactics on how the dreaded exchequer was bypassed by x firm, and or bank/ or any other establishment filthy rich individual that has not paid their fair share of tax, that would be great….
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/malta-the-european-union-s-very-own-tax-haven-a-1148915.html
Excellent piece. If only a MSM outlet reprinted it and enlightened a few morons.
Looking at the collage of all the victims rotating on the Guardians landing page stirs raw emotion. RIP.
I wonder would there be much of an appetite for military adventurism abroad from the British public if the innocent victims, men, women and children in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and beyond, killed on a daily basis due to British foreign policy, were displayed 24/7 on every news outlets home page. Collateral damage I believe is the term.
I’d imagine being confronted with the honest reality of the death and destruction being unleashed in their name from their elected officials would change minds pretty fast.
Never gonna happen though is it; 63 children killed in Aleppo in one day alone this week by the ‘moderate’ rebels. Another 30 people drown off the Libyan coast yesterday (only made possible by Cameron and Co). No one bats an eye lid. Pass the bucket.
It was exactly 4 years after Lee Rigby to the date.
The practice was a year before. The similarities are obvious.
Crisis Actors Rehearse Terror Attack in Manchester, UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOnnVspx8g&t=0s
Check out the Fireman’s blog. You don’t have to register to read it.
https://en-gb.facebook.com/STUKFS/
One of the child victims attended a school, where one of our long term friends works
I was hoping to visit my sister in Stepping Hill hospital today, but other events have prevented this.
Craig Murray is right to ask these questions. Maybe this time we will get some answers.
Tony
The US has apologised for “leaking” pictures of the detonator and what looks like a partial piece of a rucksack, presumably belonging to the terrorists Salman Abdeli.
However how did US intelligence come by these photographs in the first place? Sure it’s pretty common for intelligence agencies to share data, in attempts to thwart attacks. But by releasing those images especially the one of the detonator, which could be used by a particular group, you are giving them advanced notice that vital information has survived the blast.
The tracing of the whereabouts the detonater has been in recent times is, I suppose is one of the next crucial steps in finding any accomplices.
However I’m under the impression that no bomb making equipment was found at Salman Abedi’s abode.
It’s my belief these “leaks” were politically motivated and sanctioned, from near the top, and are deliberate. The US security authorities have long warned, and been frustrated, about the “soft underbelly” of extremism in Europe, and particularly the UK. It’s meant to demonstrate that the UK authorities have been lax in dealing with Moslem extremism, even if this embarrasses the Tory government, and that this softly-softly approach is damaging US / UK relations. There are just so many wheels within wheels. There is apparently a network of Libyan extremist sympathisers in the Manchester community, and this is also related to the fact that UK (and US) have previously used such extremism for their own ends, such as in deposing Gaddafi, and the attempt to deal to Assad in Syria, so that some of these people have actually been supported by the UK government and its agencies. These leaks are a way to force the British authorities to have to defend themselves, and not be allowed to cover up this destructive relationship. Of course, this is hypocrisy in the extreme, as the US has been doing exactly the same, but so far they seem to have managed to ensure it’s others that suffer the consequences. But who really knows?
That is quite possible. But it could equally it could be that the Americans are trying to compromise the British police inquiry by introducing trumped-up evidence and/or alerting the accomplices.
I suspect that the leak and subsequent mild telling off of trump by may could be a stunt to counteract the negative electoral effects of that handholding moment.
French customs officers failed to impound weapons in the boot of a car driven by known terrorists shortly after the Belgian or French terror events. It takes about 20 minutes to get from Manchester airport to Whalley Range.
Mrs May’s backside is half a metre open. Nobody believes the government narrative about terror any more, except Craig.
A sure sign of State sponsored ‘false flag’., is when the media are all aligned with the ‘story’. The story of the Manchester atrocity is of a lone suicide bomber, with a nail bomb, who detonated his bomb in the foyer of the Arena.
Nowhere in the media have I seen reports of military grade explosives or suggestions this was a sophisticated assembly.
The ‘deliberate’ leak from the US press, regarding the bomb ,does not pass the ‘smell’ test, and appears to be a deflection. The very quick identification of Salman Abedi as the bomber is also not credible. If he was carrying and detonated the bomb ,there would have been little of him left to identify.
There are many questions unanswered, Who built the bomb.? Where was the explosive sourced.? Was the bomb detonated remotely and not by Abedi.? Why detonate in the Foyer and not in the packed Arena for greater effect.?
And of course the final question, Cui Bono, who benefits.?.Terrorism always has a political motive or monetary gain.
Jeremy Corbyns statement that he would suspend Arms exports to Saudia Arabia, most certainly discomfited many State actors and weapons manufacturers with their Foreign policy agendas in the Middle East.
Tariq Ali reflects on what is going on:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/24/tariq_ali_manchester_bombing_is_part?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=d1bc21dc85-Daily_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-d1bc21dc85-191484457
May wants to “defeat terrorism”. It’s a conscious ploy.
Terrorism is a methodology.
Ask, first, what the motive was, and in what larger circumstances it arose.
Then ask how the world might be made safer.
Thank you.
Excellent, as usual.
And not cartoonish like trump.