77
Russia’s FSB accuses concert attack suspects of having Ukraine contacts
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
77 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2300 readers
107 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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 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
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.
Source for your conclusion the announcement was fake?
https://t.me/rybar/58423
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Where was the outdated message template posted then?
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 (deliberately) targeting the Zionist entity, and oh yeah, Wikileaks who have never gotten something like this wrong directly saying that the CIA created ISIS:
Edit: Oh and then you also have this:
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 in short succession. 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. And they would have free reign to do this once they had completely cleared the Middle East. Anyhow, for the Arab Spring the CIA 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.
Where color revolutions wouldn't work they would either resort to bombing or dirty war via CIA created jihadi proxies.
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 found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
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.
@cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
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.
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.
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 narrative that the West is trying to get its proxies to construct in an attempt to obfuscate the real culprit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.