Is the Manchester bombing really "blowback"?
I've long had issues with the common presentation of blowback. Writing about this for the first time in 2014. Following up again in 2016. And, here we are again!
The term blowback ORIGINATED with the CIA.
"Blowback” is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran"It is claimed that "blowback" is a metaphor for the alleged unintended consequences of the US government’s international activities that have been kept secret from the American people.
This term blowback can of course be applied to the alleged unintended consequences of any intelligence agencies covert activities
The fact that it was the CIA that created this term for what they claim are 'unintended consequences" is a huge red flag.
How do we know the consequences were unintended?
Because the CIA tells us so? Should we take the CIA at it's word?
Are they known for their honesty? Or their deception?
When considering blowback, as an alleged unintended consequence, we have to consider the real possibility, in fact the likelihood, that the term was coined as a deception.
It's quite interesting to observe that the concept of "blowback" and the creation of NATO stay behind operations/covert ops aka Gladio sometime after WW2 very nearly run in sync with each other. As does the very creation of the CIA itself, after WW2(in cahoots with MI6)
1- WW2 ends
2- CIA created
3- CIA/MI6: Stay-behind armies
4- CIA coined term "blowback", made public in 1953, most probably as an obfuscation for intelligence agency covert irregular ops.
As explained twice previously the term blowback is circular reasoning-
Both literally and figuratively speaking. I expect that was why the term was created. It was intended as a type of circular reasoning- to explain away an actual occurrence. And as a metaphor. A figure of speech. Blowback.
Blowback, as commonly touted by the lying war mongering media, is always presented in this fashion: unforseen consequences from previous actions Emphasis always on the “unforseen” Unforseen- defined as not anticipated or predicted.
Is it sensible that the Manchester incident could not have been foreseen or anticipated?
It is not. Because it has plenty of precedents.
Blowback very often walks hand in hand with incompetence.
If we as individuals undertake behaviours repeatedly that cause harm, can we claim blowback as the excuse? Obviously not! So why do we not only believe but continue to make excuses for those we allow to lead? When are we going to hold the 'leaders' accountable? Why do we continue to excuse their abuses?
Blowback is a logical fallacy. Blowback assumes the conclusion in it's premise.It's a closed loop which shuts down any questioning.
The claim of blowback should be employed judiciously and looked upon much more critically as an answer to the why of some thing happening. Guess that explains why I stay away from blowback as a routine fall back response!