I don't think it could be anyone but Ukraine. This was too sloppy an attack to be directly perpetuated by a major superpower and it's far too destructive and ambitious for a branch of ISIS.
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
And of fucking course none of the western involvement will be made public, unless the West makes it public. Gonna make it too hard to get some sort of deal some of the Kremlin libs are still hoping for, won't it. The worst ~~CIA~~ American diplomats in Russia will get is another rude comment by Medvedev on Twatter and Telegram.
The kinds of statements that people like Maria Zakharova and Margarita Simonyan (editor of RT) have been making recently do indicate that they are ultimately pointing fingers toward the West. But international diplomacy is a delicate business and political considerations have to be taken into account. It is rare that the Russian government makes direct official accusations, and for good reason: they want to leave the door open to negotiations, that's not a lib thing it's just what you do in geopolitics.
There is no agreement NATO countries don't break and I sure shit won't root for economic integration back with Europe. There should be no door for negotiations with terrorists. And these are fucking terrorist states.
Especially no negotiations about nukes. Let them shit themselves in the night over uncontrolled Russian nukes, I don't give a fuck.
Unfortunately international diplomacy is just not that simple... Even if Russia knows that they can't trust any deal with the West they have to at least be seen making an effort, acting as the "adults in the room". That's how they maintain their reputation with the global south as a reasonable, rational and trustworthy partner. China does the same thing. And this has been a successful strategy at winning the rest of the world over to their side.
Yeah, let foreign intelligence agencies arrange terrorist attacks in the country for diplomacy with the global south. Great. I'm pretty sure the likes of Lavrov could sell expulsion of western diplomats to the global south fairly easily anyway.
The only real explanation for this festival of cuckoldry I see is that Kremlin just deadass still hopes to make everything the way it used to be in a few years.
The US also orchestrated bloody terrorist attacks in China through their Uyghur jihadi proxies and China did not directly accuse the US. They are playing the long game.
Kremlin just deadass still hopes to make everything the way it used to be in a few years
I don't think so. Perhaps that was the case at first but by now they seem to have resigned themselves to a more or less permanent break with the West. They have reoriented their economy toward the east and i see no indication of any intention to turn back to how things used to be. In fact a lot of Russian officials have said as much. It's just no longer necessary. The West isn't the only game in town anymore. In a multipolar world you have options.
The US also orchestrated bloody terrorist attacks in China through their Uyghur jihadi proxies and China did not directly accuse the US. They are playing the long game.
They have cause to. China can actually weaponize their economic connection with the US. Doesn't work that way for Russia at all. The main loser of the "sanctions" is the EU.
I don’t think so. Perhaps that was the case at first but by now they seem to have resigned themselves to a more or less permanent break with the West. They have reoriented their economy toward the east and i see no indication of any intention to turn back to how things used to be. In fact a lot of Russian officials have said as much. It’s just no longer necessary. The West isn’t the only game in town anymore. In a multipolar world you have options.
Maybe if our government wasn't kicking so hard while reality is dragging it towards industrialization. They still want to sit on a pipe and get fat. And the world isn't so multipolar with that perspective. China And India will buy, but you better believe they will also capitalize on Russia having a very short list of available markets.
This sounds to me like a covert attempt by the US to escalate the situation further by trying to destabilize Russia, an attempt to force their hand, which would create a possible justification to pull more European NATO troops (French, presumably?) into Ukraine. And I word it this way because NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine.
Considering the fact that the absolute ghoul Lindsey Graham visited Kiev recently, and also the fact that he and other US representatives called upon Kiev to up the people-snatching efforts, urging the fascist junta to speed up mobilization law adoption – this looks to me like the US is worried that the AFU is heading towards collapse, and that they believe it could happen sooner than they would want, thus endangering the upcoming presidential elections, and the only way they could postpone this is to get Europe involved. By the way, we have several videos circulating the Internet – one is from Romania, and there are dozens of tanks and other heavy machinery that are presumably being moved to the Ukrainian border. Some of these tanks are American. Not to mention the fact that the US embassy issued a warning, urging American citizens to refrain from spending time in crowded places, and the ass-toad-in-chief Vicky Nuland blabbering about "nasty surprises".
There are certain things that do not make sense to me. Firstly, Russian sources claim that this was a carefully planned operation. Which isn’t hard to believe – we’re talking getting into Moscow (heavily armed with military-grade assault rifles, flammable liquid, perhaps even explosive devices), getting past security, staying there unnoticed until the right moment (and that’s amid the warnings that the US embassy issued to American citizens), killing a whole bunch of people in cold blood, burning the place down, and getting out successfully. All of which these pieces-of-shit-dogs, whoever they are, succeeded at doing, by the way.
And then we get videos, published by Russian law enforcement operatives – we see a stuttering mess of a terrorist, trembling like hell and barely standing on his knees, saying he was promised a “hefty” pay of around half a million, up to 1M rubles (which is around 7-8K USD, if I remember correctly) by some (allegedly) unknown person who contacted him over Telegram. This is the same person, apparently, who hours ago slaughtered innocent people like it was child play.
It looks very much like the operation you could expect Ukrainian Nazi terrorists like Budanov would conduct. Also – there’s the fact that the men were supposedly trying to reach the border with Ukraine near Belgorod (which is strange, given the fact that there are still border clashes going on AFAIK, RU military/security services presence is guaranteed – why go there? You’ll almost certainly get caught). But aside from the obvious bloodthirst of the fascists in Kiev - do they really not have any sense of self-preservation?
This alone doesn’t mean, however, that Ukraine was behind the attack – rather Ukraine was an obvious escape route, since it is the closest ally and US/CIA puppet, a destination point you take off to if you wanted to escape Russia quickly. Which brings another question to mind – why escape? If the operation is indeed carefully planned, would it not be easier to hide inside Russia, or at least cross the border later, elsewhere, and not in a haphazard way, on the same fucking car you supposedly came to Crocus in the first place?
But there's also western media outlets who, one after the other, starting to parrot claims of "ISIS taking responsibility", which sounds like a very obvious attempt at deflecting blame from Ukraine.
Adding to the picture, there’s been a statement by Dmitry Peskov not long before the terrorist attack, who stated that “we cannot allow a hostile state, hellbent on taking Crimea, the Donbas and other new territories, to exist”, or something of that ilk. Which is an ambiguous statement, as it could be interpreted in at least two ways – either this Ukrainian state is transformed, all this bullshit about NATO and taking Crimea etc. wiped off from the Constitution (which would probably necessitate a regime change, which would be very based), or this Ukrainian state is to be dismantled altogether. IDK, maybe the US monsters are starting to realize that Russia is getting tired of playing with the Nazis, and the only way to buy time is to escalate further.
supposedly trying to reach the border with Ukraine near Belgorod [...] why go there? You’ll almost certainly get caught
Russia is a big country where you can potentially stand a chance of evading capture at least for a while. Its border with Ukraine is also quite long, and that border is more porous than you think. It is not impossible for a handful of men to manage to cross it unnoticed through some of the more wooded areas.
saying he was promised a “hefty” pay of around half a million, up to 1M rubles [...] by some (allegedly) unknown person who contacted him over Telegram
Terrorists lie. Don't take anything they say at face value. The terrorist who assassinated journalist Vladlen Tatarsky also initially tried to lie and claim less knowledge and involvement in the plot than she actually had. The trial eventually revealed otherwise. This is why i always say, wait and see. Don't jump to conclusions based on preliminary reports.
Its border with Ukraine is also quite long, and that border is more porous than you think. It is not impossible for a handful of men to manage to cross it unnoticed through some of the more wooded areas.
I mean, yeah... Still, there was a freaking car chase! You would expect a certain level of stealth from these motherfuckers. The car was tracked with cameras and drones. Whatever they were trying to do - I'd bet on the Russians capturing them asap.
Terrorists lie. Don’t take anything they say at face value.
Absolutely, agree. It's just that... I just expected a cold stone-face motherfucker, not someone in complete disarray
ISIL claims responsibility
This is false. The alleged ISIS announcement has already been identified as a fake. However it should be noted that this narrative was put out in a coordinated fashion by western media almost immediately after the attack in order to get ahead of the story.
So far what is known is:
-
the terrorists were offered a substantial amount of money for the attack through a Telegram contact
-
the terrorists were provided with weapons through a cache set up by a well organized network
-
the terrorists were apprehended while frantically trying to reach the Ukrainian border
The fact pattern does not fit the MO of ISIS, this was not a suicide attack, it was meticulously planned and organized by a professional agency with substantial resources complete with a getaway plan for the terrorists.
I don't want to say anything more than this for now because this is not the time for speculation, we have to wait for all the facts. We will learn more in the coming days and weeks.
My deepest condolences to those affected by this heinous crime.
This is false. The alleged ISIS announcement has already been identified as a fake.
The only evidence I've seen of anyone proposing why it's fake is based on a telegram post that focused on fairly subjective counterarguments.
the terrorists claim they were offered a substantial amount of money for the attack through a Telegram contact
- the terrorists claim they were provided with weapons through a cache set up by a well organized network
- the terrorists do not claim affiliation with ISIS
They confessed that a "priest" contacted them while he was learning from religious education videos online. This is entirely within the MO of Isis for recruiting. Also, they weren't really offered a bunch in compensation, if I recall correctly they were promised a million ruble, which is only a little over 10k USD.
the terrorists were apprehended while frantically trying to reach the Ukrainian border
I mean, is there really another border that's closer and as porous? The only other legitimate option would have been Kazakhstan or maybe Georgia.
The fact pattern does not fit the MO of ISIS, this was not a suicide attack
It's actually pretty rare to see suicide vest attacks outside of the middle east. High explosive material is a lot harder to come by and transport outside of the region, and you don't really want to be caught with one while you're on route. Plus within these organizations, they typically only have a couple people whom actually know how to build them without blowing themselves up.
Having a contact already in Moscow purchase a few black market rifles doesn't require substantial logistics. And from the videos I've seen from the scene, things were a madhouse, and security forces were scarce. It appears as if they just got back into a car and started driving. Not exactly a grand escape.
I don't really have a hard time believing this was a legitimate attack from Isis. The Russian security apparatus is already busy, and has less eyes on their prior spheres of engagement. It's not like Isis doesn't have or hold a grudge against Russia, theyve been battling them in syria for years now.
As i said, i don't buy it. And regardless of what we think, the only thing that matters is what the Russians think, and they aren't buying it either, neither it seems are the Russian media or the official investigators. They will decide which party they hold ultimately responsible and they will deliver an appropriate repsonse to that party in due time. The fact that intermediaries were used to try and insulate the real organizers of the attack from blame may work for escaping legal consequences in international courts, but they will not save them from Russia's retribution. The West can point the finger away from the real perpetrators as much as they want, Russia is not impressed.
As i said, i don't buy it.
I mean everyone is free to make their own assumptions, I just don't really see any logic behind your claims.
the only thing that matters is what the Russians think, and they aren't buying it either, neither the Russian media nor the official investigators.
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.
The West can point the finger away from the real perpetrators as much as they want, Russia is not impressed.
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.
There is also no evidence that it was ISIS, unless you take a terrorist group at their word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I specifically said to ignore the evidence. I just want a rhetoric that actually makes any kind of logical sense.
Everyone who is intellectually honest and not feigning naivety knows who was behind this.
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.
ISIL claims responsibility
The Afghan arm of ISIL/ISIS – known as the Islamic State in Khorasan Province or ISIS-K – has claimed responsibility for the attack via the Telegram channel of Amaq, a media outlet affiliated with the group.
Yeah nice try, i don't buy it. It's not the first time they've claimed responsibility for attacks they had nothing to do with. Al Jazeera needs to stop feeding into this false narrative that the West is trying to get its proxies to construct so as to obfuscate the real organizers of the attack.
Sorry but at this point we have a clear enough picture of the attack that you'd have to be either stupid or lying to still insist that it was ISIS.
The fact pattern does not fit the MO of ISIS, this was not a suicide attack, it was meticulously planned and organized by a professional agency with substantial resources complete with a getaway plan for the terrorists.
I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion since ISIS have previously carried out non-suicide attacks before in this same manner - like the Bataclan theater in Paris, back in 2015.
Source for your conclusion the announcement was fake?
Thanks. It’s a link to Telegram channel post by Rybar. They are saying the official Telegram channels of ISIS-K have not made any official statements.
Where was the outdated message template posted then?
Where was the outdated message template posted then?
You'd have to ask the western media outlets which have been circulating this alleged ISIS confession that question.
Regardless, even if some official ISIS channel did come out and claim the attack, a) we know that ISIS is controlled by CIA and Mossad so they can just get the order from their handlers to go ahead and falsely claim it; it means nothing. And b) the apprehended perpetrators of the attack have not claimed to be acting on behalf of ISIS, and it's not that we should take them at their word but that is just not how ISIS followers behave. They want the world to know it was ISIS. They also want to become martyrs, they don't typically try to make an escape.
Out of curiosity, can you recommend anything linking ISIS and CIA/Mossad?
I always thought that made sense to me so I believe it but I don't really have anything to support that.
I mean you have Jake Sullivan telling Hillary Clinton in an email that "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria", you have ISIS fighters getting medical treatment in "Israel" and not one ISIS attack ever targeting the Zionist entity, and oh yeah, Wikileaks who have essentially never gotten something like this wrong directly saying that the CIA created ISIS:
So arab spring was a front to replace leaders with leaders more loyal to the west? Its been ages, I don't remember what came first
Exactly. Some of the people who were involved in top level discussions years before the "Arab Spring" events kicked off have since come out and said that the plan was to topple several regimes in the Middle East that the US was looking to get rid of. I don't have the interview on hand where this was said but maybe someone else remembers and can link it. In essence what they planned was to get rid first and foremost of regimes that were left over from the cold war as former Soviet allies, all within the span of a few years. They would take out Libya and Syria and work their way up to Iran. Imo what was unsaid is that the logical conclusion of this chain points directly at Russia. I believe they always wanted to eventually take another stab at taking Russia apart with a Chechen-wars-like conflict. Anyhow, for the Arab Spring they prepared the ground with their NGOs very thoroughly. They were training color revolution operatives on how to employ social media and other destabilization methods years in advance.
Edit: here is the clip where a US general talks about the "seven countries in five years" plot. CGTN and Al Jazeera have also reported on this.
I mean you have Jake Sullivan telling Hillary Clinton in an email that "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria"
Did you mean to say ISIS or am I missing something?
No, the email from 2011 said AQ. At the time the groups that would eventually become ISIS were not yet branding themselves as such and were still just an outgrowth of Al Qaeda. But it's the same thing as if they were to say ISIS today.
Ooh, I see what you mean! Thanks for the information and clarifying!
This is very helpful.
Also interested. I’m admittedly very ignorant and have not researched that claim at all. Good sources summarizing the arguments for CIA and ISIL links are appreciated.
All I know is the Syrians have said that ISIS commanders have been whisked away at the last moment as their forces closed in by what could only be US military helicopters among other things like the US sending aid to "moderate rebels" which always ended up in ISIS hands.
Definitive links that aren't just claims are going to be hard to come by. The western press wouldn't even air those so finding anything English speaking will likely be a challenge, just the same if anyone has anything I'd also like to see it.