this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2310 readers
10 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean everyone is free to make their own assumptions, I just don't really see any logic behind your claims.
Well, of course. No modern government would let any tragedy go to waste. Governments will always utilize any terror attack to direct public support towards their immediate aims, even if it's completely unrelated. Everyone knows this, which is part of the reason it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the west to be involved, it's just more fuel for the fire.
Right, but is there any logical rhetoric, let alone evidence that supports your theory?
The explanations I've heard so far rely on western intelligence to either be incredibly stupid, or to be incredibly effective at playing 4d political chess. And I have yet to see any theory that rules out the possible motives or ability of a legitimate attack from Isis.
I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities for the US to set this sort of action up, I just don't really see the motive. I mean, if this was about the Ukrainian war, and striking fear into the hearts of the Russian people, wouldn't it have been more effective to hire Russian partisan or Ukrainians?
There is also no evidence that it was ISIS, unless you take a terrorist group at their word. And there is a lot about the attack that is highly inconsistent with the ISIS MO and that would have been beyond ISIS capabilities to pull off.
If you're looking for rock solid evidence that will hold up in court you're probably going to be disappointed. But governments don't need that level of evidence to draw conclusions and to take action against the perpetrators.
There is no point debating this further. Everyone who is intellectually honest and not feigning naivety knows who was behind this. Some of those responsible have already gotten their just deserts, courtesy of a Russian missile. The rest will in due time.
I would say there's not enough evidence to come to a definitive conclusion, but there is still plenty of evidence. They were islamist from an area with a lot of Afghan migrants, they were speaking Pashtun, they claimed they had initially been contacted by a priest in a way common place for Isis recruiting, and all this prior to isis claiming responsibility.
How so? Their MO changes based on locality and available resources. In areas where weapons are hard to come by they tend to use knives. In places they can arm their agents with rifles they do so. The only other time there's been a confirmed Isis attack in Russia, it was fairly similar. Gunmen shooting up soft targets.
I specifically said to ignore the evidence. I just want a rhetoric that actually makes any kind of logical sense.
Seems like making that claim is intellectually dishonest..... How do you know? What line of reasoning leads you to make that claim with any degree of certainty? What possible motive would they have?
I'm not making any claims, or even refutting the fact that it very well may have been the west. However, I have not heard anyone make any rhetorical claims or claims backed with enough supporting evidence to make any definitive conclusions.
If you do have a rhetorical based motive that could logically explain why they would back this attack, I would genuinely like to hear it. So far, it doesn't really make any geopolitical sense to me.