where to start…. so, today i saw a novara media video where dr walker is speaking on reece mogs podcast (!?)… michael is trying to say something like “what are you talking about culture war shit for, they set up a terrorist attack!“
reece mog is just like “do you think regime change is a *good* foreign policy?“
ok, well they are on short form soundbites, so its difficult to get the point across, so lets unpack that exchange. novara covered to recent disclosures surrounding the machester bombing, with a detailed analasis of both MI5 and MI6 involvement in basically grooming the terrorist that conducted the machester arena stadium bombing. while reece mog wanted to compel his guests to talk about how the security guard didnt stop the suicide bomber through fear of being racist, there isnt such an excuse for why the intelligence services didnt stop the attack, dispite having sent the man who performed the attack to lybia to train to fight in a british regime change war. that was not searched on their return from the active warzone, to his father that was such a prominent terrorist militant as to have been on a watch list before his son was born, so that he was infact essentially a known entity his entire life, and because of this had been approached by MI5 and encouraged, and facilitated, to participate in terrorist activity under the consent of the british foreign service. they sent him off to train to fight on behalf of british regime change in lybia, and when he returned with a detonator switch, wasnt even searched at the airport.on his way back from a warzone where he was sent to train basically as a terrorist by the british state. so when he then goes on to conduct an act of terrorism in the UK, how can we look at all the evidence we have, and *not* conclude that this attack was coordinated to a large extent, or at least, not prevented despite adequate opportunity - by the UK armed services and intelligence apparatus.
so we can ask why? if we are going to conclude they knew about the attack in advance, and did a significant amount to precipitate the attack itself by how they interacted with the eventual culprit. why? we could ask the same thing about 9/11, or the deep water horizon oil spill. why were these things not prevented if foreseeable? there is some “they had too“ logic, which is quite difficult to contend with, as there is some incomprehensible time travel paradox at the heart of it. but basically, a simple pattern emerges. for those events not precluded, they are maximally decorated. they attach peripheral components to the scenario which benefit various objectives or agendas. the same could be said about the current war in Ukraine. no party involved could have prevented the inveitability, and all parties can be assumed to act towards the situation in a way where they can construct parts of it which they benefit from. mostly putin in this case, but also america and nato.
so, back to the manchester bombing, and also recalling a similar thing happening in paris. mass killings in europe as a result of muslim extreemism. this should start to build an indication as to the allegation, that these terrorist incedents were permited or facilitated because of the consequences in laying precedent for an anti-musilm response, such that lead up to brexit. a migrant crisis from the war in syria even, a political convenience for the likes of nigel farrage. but would they really go to these lengths, of basically importing a terrorst family and treating them in such a way that results in an inevitable mass casualty incedent on home soil. seems like a bit of an own goal to say the least, but then, just how callous are the entities in question. could the consequence of the attacks in laying precedent for overseas regime change really be of such value as to cause the terrorism to actually be enacted by the home nation!? the same analysis would surely then apply to the twin towers, where we can look at consequent policy changes like the counterterrorism measures that lead to basically the blanket unveiling of the dragnet surveillance apparatus by snowden, under the patriot act.
so either its an inevitable situation that cannot be avoided, which im sure is what they would like you to think. or it is a future which could have been prevented, but wasnt, for various reasons. but when it comes to failing to prevent, or actively facilitating mass casualty events on home soil. the state are killing its own people in a dastardly cryptic way. this is one of the reasons we cant really have the time travel conversation easily. it would require us to accept the true horror of the reality that we actually contend with, and the scarily sinister nature of the forces in question.
No posts