Manchester, Libyan Blowback, and Corbyn's Heresy
Earlier this week UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech that was almost universally considered to be political suicide.
And speaking in London, he will say the West needs an effective response to ISIS that “fights rather than fuels terrorism”.
He will vow that a Labour government would change the UK’s approach – signalling British troops would be brought back home.
“We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror’ is simply not working,” he will say...
One senior Tory said: “This speech is offensive, insulting to those who have sacrificed their lives abroad defending us at home and totally out of touch with the mood of the country.”
...But an ex-Labour frontbencher told the Sun: “It’s clear he’s making a link between the efforts of our troops and Manchester.
“This weak and warped world view only gives comfort to Britain’s enemies. Patriotic Labour MPs will be appalled .”
Why would Corbyn say this?
What could have possibly inspired him to say that the Manchester suicide bomber had something to do with UK foreign policy?
Corbyn may not have given details on the connection, but there is a direct link.
MI6 appear to have funnelled foreign fighters with suspected links to al-Qaeda from the streets of Britain to Libya. Salman Abedi and members of his close family, who are now arrested, were among these people. Abedi would go on, it is alleged, to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).
Yes, that is as bad as it sounds.
Abedi was an MI6 terrorist asset that came home after being trained in the arts of terrorism.
Three quarters of all foreign fighters in Libya came from Manchester.
Game, set, match. Corbyn wins.
But wait. It gets even worse.
During Gaddafi's reign, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, MI6, sponsored a group of mujahideen who had recently fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets. They were to assassinate Gaddafi himself. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was allegedly given $160,000 for a failed assassination attempt in February 1996, in which several bodyguards were killed. MI6 had strange bedfellows while they propped up the group - Osama bin Laden was also reportedly financing the group at the time.
When the so-called "war on terror" began, however, the LIFG was swiftly proscribed. The fact that they denied any formal alliance with Osama bin Laden was irrelevant to British authorities. In 2004 MI6 arranged for an exiled LIFG leader, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, to be transferred into Gaddafi's torture dungeons, with the Libyan intelligence chief saying, "This was the least [the UK] could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built in recent years".
In 2011, however, following the Arab Spring, the LIFG was suddenly back inside the British tent.
So the spooks at MI6 funded terrorists, betrayed them, and then supported them again.
Who could have guessed that this would go poorly?
Not Home Secretary Amber Rudd who said Corbyn's statement was "outrageous".
Not Defence Secretary Michael Fallon who said Corbyn was "wrong to link foreign policy to terror", ignoring the fact that UK's Libyan policy was terror.
So why the phony outrage by the UK political elites?
Guess who was Home Secretary when the UK was exporting terrorism to Libya? The current warmonger in chief, Theresa May.
And as Home Secretary, May attended a total of fifty-five national security council meetings on Libya, between March and November 2011. Yet that council’s report [pdf] on Libya fails to flag up any implications for domestic terrorism in Britain.
David Cameron’s intervention in Libya was carried out with no proper intelligence analysis, drifted into an unannounced goal of regime change and shirked its moral responsibility to help reconstruct the country following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, according to a scathing report by the foreign affairs select committee. The failures led to the country becoming a failed a state on the verge of all-out civil war, the report adds. The report, the product of a parliamentary equivalent of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, closely echoes the criticisms widely made of Tony Blair’s intervention in Iraq, and may yet come to be as damaging to Cameron’s foreign policy legacy.
It concurs with Barack Obama’s assessment that the intervention was “a shitshow”, and repeats the US president’s claim that France and Britain lost interest in Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown. Cameron has refused to give evidence to the select committee. In one of his few reflections on his major military intervention, he blamed the Libyan people for failing to take their chance of democracy.
For now the establishment is attempting to use the "How dare you!" method of dealing with Corbyn's statement of truth/heresy. However, it doesn't appear to be working.
Home Sec Amber Rudd says connecting UK foreign policy + terrorism is "outrageous". But 66% of voters disagree with her + back Corbyn's view. pic.twitter.com/lFAqqFrLAq
— C4 News FactCheck (@FactCheck) May 26, 2017