Socialist Fight Condemns the Manchester Arena outrage

7

27/05/2017 by socialistfight

 

 

Socialist Fight Statement 23-5-17

 

Socialist Fight condemns the barbaric act at Manchester Arena committed by 22-year-old Salman Ramadan Abedi, who was born in Manchester of Libyan descent. We extend our sincerest sympathies to the relatives and friends of the 22 young victims, one only 8 years old, Saffie Rose Roussos, and hope the 59 injured make a full recovery or at least that there are no further fatalities.

 

Islamic State have claimed responsibility for the suicide bomb and said the bombing in the “shameless” concert arena was “in revenge for Allah’s religion, in an endeavour to terrorize the [infidels], and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims”.

 

We understand that the source this violent outrage is not in the warped mind of the individual or directing group that committed the outrage. What caused him to become so deranged that he believed murdering young girls would in any way redress the wrongs he sees committed against his people in Muslim lands? These victims had no more responsibility for what British or US imperialism do to civilians and defenders of Muslims lands than the victims there, running into millions now over the past few decades.

 

Nor could terrorised civilians in Britain, the USA, France or Germany succeed in persuading Theresa May, Trump, Hollande or Merkel to cease being imperialist and stop the War on Terror. On the contrary, these bombings will only be used as an excuse to escalate that War, causing even more outage and more terror bombings in the imperialist heartlands when millions of civilian fatalities in the Middle East are dismissed as ‘collateral damage’. They too have fathers and mothers, sons and daughters who mourn just as bitterly as the bereaved and relatives of the injured of Manchester are mourning now.

 

In March 2015 Physicians for Social Responsibility, who count Nobel Prize winners in their members, published a study that concluded that the War on Terror since 9/11 had cost at least 1.3 million lives “but the real figure might be in excess of two million”. [1]

 

We say without hesitation that the imperialist politicians who condemn this outrage today are themselves as responsible for those Manchester deaths as those who committed the outrage. Just as surely as they are responsible for the millions of deaths in the Middle East. The Islamic State death cult would not have emerged without the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as Tony Blair, who went to war on Iraq with George Bush with the conscious deception that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, himself admitted in a CNN interview in October 2015: “Of course you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.” When asked if the Iraq War was “the principal cause’ of the rise of Islamic State, he said: “I think there are elements of truth in that.” [2]

 

And that is without looking at how the CIA funded and organised the Taliban in Afghanistan against the USSR, Al Qaeda, and maybe even Islamic State in the beginning. Similarly, the Israeli Mossad funded Hamas to pit them against Yasser Arafat’s secular Fatah movement; curiously Israel only bombs Assad’s Syrian Arab Army, never Islamic State, Al Qaeda or the Free Syrian Army.

 

Notes

 

[1] Physicians for Social Responsibility, Body Count, http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

 

[2] Jethro Mullen, CNN, October 26, 2015, Tony Blair says he’s sorry for Iraq War ‘mistakes,’ but not for ousting Saddam, http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/25/europe/tony-blair-iraq-war/index.html

7 thoughts on “Socialist Fight Condemns the Manchester Arena outrage

  1. The WSWS claims that the unimpeded travels of the perpetrator proves he was an asset of the spy agencies. Do you have an opinion of their reasoning? [I have no basis for evaluating, but I think that those with conspirativist tendencies underestimate the existing degree of bureaucratic incompetence.]

    Like

    • mike martin says:

      There are more articles on wsws.org today. Strong if circumstantial evidence that Abedi was given considerable latitude. Points strongly to him being an asset in Libya. As for UK probable I think that the “authorities” were either watching him to see what contacts he developed or simply did not think he was up to no good. Either way they took the risk and it amounts to criminal responsibility. However, short of a pile of sworn confessions you can always comfort yourself with the thought the wsws dreamed it all up.

      Like

      • stephenrdiamond says:

        “However, short of a pile of sworn confessions you can always comfort yourself with the thought the wsws dreamed it all up.”

        That’s a very SEP-like comment. Why in the world would I find it “comforting” that he’s not an asset. Crazy comment.

        Let me repeat what WSWS said: “the *only explanation* for him being able to remain at large for so long is that he was a *protected asset*.”

        Now, you say “As for UK *probable*…” You apparently don’t care that WSWS presents the appearance of truthtelling when they are really inculcating sectarian shibboleths – positions on matters of *fact* that distinguish them from the “fake left” even if they the positions are hyperbolic and realy only conjectures (probable).

        [This sectarian self-worship was fully expressed in he Hanson-Novack frameup.]

        Like

      • stephenrdiamond says:

        WSWS is so tied to its insular factual commitments that it has failed to perform the basic political duty of defending leakers of classified information against prosecution.(http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/07/leak-j07.html) Here, Julian Assange has shown greater political consciousness than SEP.

        Like

  2. mike martin says:

    Is it too much of a “conspiracy theory” to suggest that people cultivated as assets in one context ( e.g. creating havoc in Libya) become a menace nearer home? An asset for one department of the state becomes a liability for another. Bureaucratic considerations apart does anyone take responsibility?

    The risks of “blowback” from foreign wars are well known. From using Afghan mujaheddin to murder soviet aid workers in the 1970s to 9/11, the fallout from one intervention provides the pretext for the next. Those who take the risks don’t face the consequences.

    Like

    • stephenrdiamond says:

      What I’m suggesting might evince a conspirativist bias is this:

      Given Abedi’s connections and his travel movements leading up to the attack, the only explanation for him being able to remain at large for so long is that he was a protected asset—part of a broad network of operatives utilised by Britain and the US to conduct their nefarious operations in the Middle East. – http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/26/aren-m26.html

      If the WSWS comrades can really discern false flags so reliably, then this kind of precise exposure is excellent propaganda. But, if as I suspect (again, I’m not an expert), the likelihood that Abedi is a CIA asset, rather than an ordinary Wahabi terrorist, is not only well below the certainty claimed by WSWS but even below 50%, then they are cultivating sectarian shibboleths.

      That I think SEP has a conspirativist tendency isn’t based on its claims about Abedi being an asset. (Obviously, that would be circular reasoning.) WSWS has shown definite conspirativist tendencies in its accusations against Hanson and Novack (the later which was so weak they had to drop it). I don’t have the technical background to evaluate many conspiracy theories directly. (Some conspiracies certainly exist – take the Reichstag fire.) But I followed the accusations against Hanson, and it was a conspiracy theory in the worst sense of that questionable phrase.

      [Moreover, maybe 30 or 40 percent of WSWS’s regular commenters are 9/11 truthers.]

      Like

  3. stephenrdiamond says:

    You condemn this terror attack – but pointedly refused to condemn the 9/11 WTC attack. I agree with the distinction, but (if I understand you correctly) it’s one I’ve never seen articulated (except by me, and I lacked the courage of my convictions). Perhaps I don’t correctly understand you. I base the distinction on the 9/11 attacks being directed against (what is now widely called) the deep state. If this is right, it means the correct position to take on the 9/11 attacks was to *defend* al Qaeda against retaliation. On some days I think we have the “war on terror” linger on because of the failure of the left to point out that certain kinds of blowback are justified despite being completely unsupportable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

WRP Explosion