Watched by MI5 with Ties to NATO-Backed Terror in Libya – What Does It All Mean?
Another day, another conspiratorial crime. In this case, the public was witness to yet another known wolf terror attack allegedly carried out by an ‘ISIS-inspired’ individual who, as with numerous other cases, was under the gaze of MI5. The man named in the Manchester attack, Salman Abedi, has also been tied to a terror group supported by NATO in Libya during the operation to oust Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.
QUESTION: Is the Manchester attack simply blowback from security operations gone awry – or is it more likely that this latest terror event provides further evidence of complicity on behalf of West in the ‘War On Terror’ era?
Though many are still unsettled in the wake of the Manchester arena bombing – key questions have emerged following this latest act of terror in the West.
NOTE: It’s hard not to ignore the political circumstances and timing surrounding the apparent tragedy in Manchester, as it arrived on the heels of a monolithic arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion dollars that will total $350 billion over the next 10 years. The questionable arms deal has also dovetailed US aspirations for an ‘Arab NATO‘ headquartered in Saudi Arabia, the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world.
Additionally, rather conveniently over the past week, al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra aka al-Nusra Front, officially changed their operational name (now dubbed Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or HTS) to secure its removal from terror watchlists within the US and Canada.
It’s also worth mentioning again, as previously outlined by 21WIRE, the Manchester Arena attack appeared to have been ‘uncannily timed’ as it coincided on the same day as the OSCE-wide Counter-Terrorism Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria.
In what is a clear military ramp up following the Manchester attack, there have been US-led coalition airstrikes supposedly targeting ISIS in both Syria and Iraq that have killed 121 civilians in the process. The strikes have led to increasing tension that will also place external pressure the Russian-led Astana Peace Agreement in Syria, while continuing to benefit the strategic movements of ISIS in Syria, as recently described in detail by 21WIRE.
Considering the political backdrop outlined above, let’s examine some of the suspicious aspects linked to the recent Manchester arena explosion, while also providing historical context and comparative analysis to get a bigger picture of the events that have unfolded…
‘SUBLIMINAL SIGNS’ – Some researchers and analysts have already noted the numerological synchronicities associated with the Manchester attack on May 22nd. This significance has been echoed during many past attacks in the UK, including the recent London attack near Parliament Square. (Photo Illustration: Shawn Helton @21WIRE)
The Manchester Attack
On May 22nd at 10:50pm GMT according to the official timeline, an apparent ‘explosion’ at US pop star Ariana Grande‘s concert at Manchester Arena cascaded across mainstream media and social media alike.
Adding to the confusion, early reports then stated that there were two ‘loud bangs’ supposedly heard as Grande’s concert was coming to an end after an encore and that “police said the explosion took place outside the arena catching people as they exited, also triggering chaos inside the venue. U.S. officials said initial reports indicated that some of the injuries might have been caused by a stampede of concertgoers.”
Sometime after the first wave of reports, the official story then reflected that an explosion took place inside the foyer of the Manchester Arena.
By 11:15pm roads were closed around the area, while security shutdown and evacuated London’s Victoria train station. Keep in mind, all of this happened within 25 minutes of the initial terror event. This was followed at 12:43 pm where some 60 ambulances responded according to the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust, transporting the injured to the Manchester’s Royal Infirmary Accident & Emergency Department.
This case has also seen its share of eyewitness testimony that conflicts with details from the official story, as one mother, Emma Johnson, was at the top of the foyer protected by glass waiting for her young daughters noticed a suspicious man with “risen bits” under his clothing and as the alleged perpetrator also wore a “bright red top in the crowd with a grey panel down the front,” according to her statement.
What transpired after the US leaks of the Manchester terror incident appeared to muddy the narrative, as the story quickly changed from lone wolf status to that of a ‘larger network’ while the bomber was seen on CCTV with dark clothing, not matching the description above. Also interestingly, like so many other major terror incidents, as pointed out by recently by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, was the discovery of the purported terrorist’s ID on his dead body.
Since 9/11 this phenomenon has been going on with regularity, specifically with high-profile terror acts in the West. It’s as if terror criminals can’t leave home without a license or passport prior to committing an atrocity – a curiosity that only lends to questions of staging.
Another concern about the events surrounding Manchester, were the reports that the bomb was“…one the most sophisticated set off in Britain since attacks by the IRA.”
In fact, it had a ‘remote detonator’ which is simply explained away as if the attacker was unaware of the feature. That may be, but a good point to make is that the bomber did not have to be at the scene upon detonation. This information for some is explained away because of an attacker’s radical religious views, however, as we’ve seen before during other events, some apparent terrorist’s are found not to strictly adhere to those views even around the time of an attack. This evident prior to 9/11 and after 2013’s Boston bombing.