Blowback And The Incompetence Theory

Blowback And The Incompetence Theory



Amidst a rash of terror attacks in Canada, the general public is once again witnessing a discussion playing out in the mainstream media as to the solutions and appropriate responses to international Islamic terror. As usual, these solutions and responses involve the bombing, invasion, or general destruction of a country in Africa or the Middle East, always one which was conveniently placed on the hit list of the United States, NATO, or Israel.

During the course of this discussion, as with terror attacks of the past, the public is also being subjected to a discussion of the nature and causes of such terrorism in the first place. In the pro-war camp, the answer is simple – “They hate us for our freedom.” In the anti-war camp, the answer is also simple – “blowback.”

Obviously, the pro-war argument can be dismissed out of hand due to its imbecilic nature and the fact that it is nothing more than a pathetic propaganda narrative aimed at Americans with far too much bravado or fear and not nearly enough intelligence. Indeed, if terrorists hated America for its freedoms it is unfortunately the case that they could have stopped hating America a long time ago.

The anti-war camp, however, while its aims may be well-meaning (or not) will argue that such fundamentalist terrorism is the result of the United States and its allies having relentlessly bombed a number of countries in the past, engendering hatred, and thus perpetuating a cycle – simply put, more bombing begets more terror.

These are now the responses being introduced into the discussion yet again after a number of terroristic killings of Canadian military soldiers by Islamic fundamentalists.

Canada, according to the “blowback” camp, is simply reaping the seeds it has sewn for taking part in the NATO destruction of Iraq and Syria.

Predictably, the alternative media has soon followed behind the blowback proponents who are usually mainstream individuals – commentators, theorists, “journalists,” hosts, politicians, “activists,” etc. – as an attempt to use the alleged credibility of the speaker so as to bolster its own anti-war case. Unfortunately, the blowback position is not only fraught with problems and inconsistencies, it is entirely a cop out.

To argue that terrorist attacks like 9/11, the London 7/7 bombings, Boston Bombings, and now the Canadian shootings among others are the result of bad American policy is to find oneself arguing a timeline of “who started it” that does not exactly match up with the theory or a cause-and-effect scenario that does not always match up the cause with the effect or the regions in which the cause and effect have taken place.

Blowback proponents must subsequently find themselves arguing against any comprehensive response to terrorism beyond simply ending all current foreign engagements and hoping that extremist sentiment finally settles down and dissipates over time. For those who have died in terrorist attacks in the past and those set to die by them in the future, such logic is bound to ring hollow. The argument to simply pull back, hope for the best, and expect a “cooling down” period to take its course is weak indeed.

Most importantly, however, proponents of the blowback theory, regardless of their good intentions, essentially act as cover-up artists for the world oligarchy. Like 9/11, “incompetence theories,” blowbackers are forced to admit that such terrorist organizations are organically organized in response to some perceived injustice. Even blowbackers who are able to admit that groups like al-Qaeda were actually created by the United States intelligence community are subsequently forced to acquiesce to the idea that it is an organization that was abandoned by the U.S., mishandled, or otherwise no longer under the control of the West.

This argument, of course, fundamentally misses the facts surrounding situations like 9/11, 7/7, the 1993 WTC bombing, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. 

Indeed, attempting to understand any of the crises mentioned above without understanding that NATO, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, GCC, and other allies not only created but funded, directed, trained, armed, and continue to control these terrorist organizations, is an exercise in futility. That is, such an approach is an exercise in futility if one’s goal is to determine the truth surrounding the situation.

For this reason, blowback theory is generally pushed by “gatekeepers” for the establishment. The purpose and method of the gatekeeper is to act as one of the last buffers against an individual’s potential to discover the true nature of the conflict. The gatekeeper must present criticism seen as hard-hitting, unpopular, and cutting edge while, at the same time, not going so far as to reveal the actual nature of the situation. The gatekeeper cannot allow the ardent follower to get too close to reality. Thus, when the ardent follower begins to introduce relevant facts into the discussion that question even the gatekeeper’s narrative, the gatekeeper typically responds with catcalls of “conspiracy theory.”

The blowback superstars include a small number of politicians but especially include individuals like Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald, two individuals who have repeatedly assailed the 9/11 truth movement despite their inability to adequately address the inconsistencies in the official story or provide adequate solutions to any problem they are forced to address.

Blowback theory presents the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 7/7, 9/11, and other terrorist attacks as a response to Western aggression and thus completely covers up the fact that these attacks were entirely orchestrated by the very governments who claimed victimhood by them after the fact. Blowback theory presents the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria as an organic creation that appeared due to American interference in Iraq. Blowback theory attempts to portray al-Qaeda as a group that was created (if the theory proponent is even moderately honest) by the U.S. which has come back to bite us.

The truth is that “blowback” has very little, if any, historical precedent.

It is also the truth that “blowback” is nothing more than intellectual gatekeeping, regardless of who espouses it. If one wishes to discover the hidden hand behind international terror, he need look no further than Washington, D.C., London, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv. He may begin looking at the myriad of inconsistencies surrounding virtually every terrorist attack that has occurred in the Western world within recent memory, a search that will lead to precisely the same locations.