On Tuesday evening I appeared on Porkins Policy Radio via American Freedom Radio to discuss the recent Manchester bombing and attack in London. Listen below!
We covered alleged Manchester bomber Salman Abedi’s links to British and NATO backed Islamic terrorism in Libya against Gaddafi, including his father’s membership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (whose MI6 commissioned terrorism dates back to the 90s), and the issue of control orders being lifted that allowed Abedi and others to travel freely to Libya for the 2011 conflict.
Despite this broad collusion, obvious monitoring and an alleged tip-off from the FBI that Abedi was planning to turn his terrorism on the UK, we’re told that the 22-year-old somehow slipped through the net. This absurdity was justified by the claim that there are 23,000 ‘jihadis’ in the UK, 3,000 that pose an imminent threat, and the security services are therefore too swamped and underfunded to protect us – playing in to the alt-right media’s superficial narrative that Islam is taking over Europe and the state is failing because it’s too soft and overwhelmed, not because it is helping to engineer the terror threat itself.
I drew parallels with the 7/7 London bombings, where two of the alleged terrorists were known by the police and security services, tailed, had vehicle and phone records noted, and were bugged and photographed in the months prior to attacks, but ‘slipped through the net’ because this only represented 0.1% of their overall surveillance program – a statistical absurdity.
We then dove in to the Manchester arena attack itself and evaluated whether the official claim that Abedi was mostly a ‘lone wolf’ who carried out a suicide bombing makes sense.
It doesn’t.
In the hours before killing himself he is caught on CCTV casually buying tuna, almonds, air fresheners, and scouring pads. Aside from the unlikelihood that tinned tuna and almonds would be anyone’s final meal, would a terrorist care about cleaning their flat before killing themselves? If it was to cover his tracks why would he also take his bank card so he could be identified at the scene? If the cleaning was to hide evidence implicating a wider cell, why are we told he was a lone wolf?
No CCTV shows Abedi traveling to the Manchester arena or inside the arena, and no eye witnesses describe the bomber wearing dark clothes and a rucksack as we’re shown in CCTV stills that black-out his surroundings (certainly not eye witness Emma Johnson who describes a man in a distinctive red top with ‘risen bits’ under it).
We then discuss the strange testimony of former military police staff sergeant Darron Coster (on scene to collect his son) who says he immediately “guessed it was a suicide bombing” and identified Abedi as the bomber, despite victims also dying, losing limbs and being severely injured. He “tried to close the doors” because he could “see the suicide bomber’s body” which was “halfway inside” the doors and “didn’t want anyone seeing that” (as opposed to the umpteen other gruesome sights and the fact that those doors opened to the arena where hundreds of other people would be leaving from). He eventually “closed the doors” – possibly insinuating that he tampered with a crime scene.
Drawing from diagrams based on leaks to the New York Times, we consider whether Abedi’s body (as a suicide bomber) could realistically even end up in or the other side of the arena doors, when the alleged blast center was further away and many other people seemingly crowded him.
If his torso and head were intact (he was supposedly identified by facial recognition technology), a suicide bombing via vest or rucksack on his back seems unlikely. This coupled with the revelation that the bomb was very sophisticated and the device was setup so it could also be detonated remotely, how do the authorities know it was Abedi that pressed the proverbial button in the first place?
Next we explored Abedi’s family’s direct comments to the media and second-hand comments alleged by other sources, and how they don’t match. The US claims Abedi’s family warned the authorities of his extremism in the months prior to the bombing, but in the immediate aftermath his father says his son couldn’t have done it and forces are working to make Muslims in the west look bad. After his family were arrested in Tripoli, Libyan authorities say his mother admitted to receiving a farewell phone call and his brother Hashem knew everything about Salman’s plot. His sister says that if he’s the culprit, it was probably because he was angry at the west killing children in Syria – odd since Assad, ISIS, and rebels have all killed civilians and the conflict is not about the west simply invading like Iraq, for example.
How can we reconcile a family who were worried that their son could carry out terrorism, who then didn’t think their son carried out terrorism, who then knew their son was about to carry out terrorism and seemed to support it, who then weren’t sure he carried out terrorism (but if he did it was because of revenge for Syria) – a family who had ties to NATO and MI6’s terrorism in Libya?
Who’s playing who? Who’s covering-up what?
We then delve in to the pre-election London bridge attack, which in a Galdio-like effect has prompted support for Theresa May to rise in the polls and might seal the right’s victory in the election. May has also exploited the attack to further her internet spying agenda (which failed to prevent it in the first place).
Once again the London attackers were known to varying degrees and tied to groups like Al-Muhajiroun, which was used in the past to funnel extremists to the Balkans for Blair’s first dirty war.
Ultimately, when the deep state has been commissioning Islamic terrorism for proxy wars since the late 80s and creating the conditions for it to thrive, and people seemingly connected to this policy keep-on attacking us amidst unfathomable levels of ‘intelligence failures,’ and all political parties pledge further support or funding to the police and agencies involved – at what point do we start talking about Gladio or ‘false flag’ terrorism?
