In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Garry Kasparov declaims:
Paranoia is my birthright, as it is for anyone born in the Soviet Union. But the official Kremlin story line is already a shambles. In one of the most surveilled cities on earth, where you can be arrested in 30 seconds for whispering “no war,” the terrorists continued their attack for more than an hour and then simply drove away.
The FSB, Russia’s state security service, claims to have arrested four suspects near Ukraine, at one of the most fortified borders in the world. Or did the suspects actually drive to Russian ally Belarus, as that nation’s ambassador to Russia said? Considering the amount of materiel and preparation required to do so much damage to a venue the size of a small village, it’s odd that the terrorists would suddenly turn into bungling amateurs by carrying their Tajik passports and heading to a militarized border.
Every official statement from the Kremlin and its propagandists will be a lie, with a few half-truths tossed in. It’s a control reflex of the security state of which Mr. Putin is a product. As I often say, I believe in coincidences, but I also believe in the KGB.
He then asks a very interesting question:
How did the U.S. know? Was it sources in ISIS-K or, as I suspect, moles in the FSB?
and suggests a “false flag” operation on the part of the FSB.
He does raise a good question. Why should we trust American intelligence’s explanation? They’ve lied with some regularity to Congress, the American people, and the president over the period of the last 70 years. As Mr. Kasparov suggests it appears to be “a control reflex of the security state”.
At this point I have seen the following explanations for the terrorist attack in Moscow:
- ISIS in Khorasan
- Ukraine (both official and rogue operation)
- a “false flag” operation by the FSB
- the CIA or MI6
Who do you trust? Who do you believe?
Mr. Kasparov goes on to lament:
It’s a cowardly new world order. The White House is busy telling Ukraine where it can’t shoot and telling Israel where it can’t hunt terrorists. Instead of providing leadership to unite democratic allies against dictators, Mr. Biden’s administration puts limits on America’s allies to protect America’s enemies. You don’t have to wonder what Taiwan and China make of America’s descent into passivity.
Republican obstruction of aid to Ukraine is despicable, but Mr. Biden can’t use it to excuse his own politicking and inaction. America has the largest military arsenal known to man, but it rusts in warehouses while Ukrainians die. Harry Truman had to face down Stalin and said the buck stopped with him. Mr. Biden says the buck stops with Speaker Mike Johnson. Donald Trump threatens isolationism in speeches and social-media posts; Mr. Biden is making isolationism a reality by refusing to stand up to dictators or to his own domestic opposition.
Mr. Biden retreated from Afghanistan, and Russia invaded Ukraine. He retreated from Ukraine, and Hamas launched a war against Israel. Weakness invites aggression.
concluding by asserting that Putin is “suspect #1” for the terrorist attack.
What bothers me is the extreme confidence with which our media are asserting that they know just what happened. At this point I honestly have no idea.
Update
The editors of the Wall Street Journal are confident that the attack was perpetrated by ISIS-K:
To all the other security risks in the world, you can add the return of Islamic State as a killing machine. Russians were the victims on Friday as gunmen attacked civilians at a Moscow concert venue, killing at least 133. ISIS suicide bombers killed more than 80 in Iran in January, and no one should doubt that the jihadists are looking to target Americans sooner or later.
When did the US tell Israel where it cant bomb or shoot? They attack where they want and we continue to support them. We tell them it’s a bad idea or ask them to not attack some places but we dont do anything to impede them, only help. Also, yet another person who thinks we should have stayed in Afghanistan forever? Just another 50 years and we could have turned them into Sweden.
Just curious, if the House is unwilling to fund aid just exactly how is Biden supposed to support Ukraine?
Steve
Beats me. I think the House should fund Ukraine.
I also think we should be exercising more oversight to ensure that our aid is used properly. I think we should have been doing that all along.
And don’t blame me that there were no good alternatives for Afghanistan. I opposed “boots on the ground” there for just that reason (among others) from the very beginning.
Please don’t fall for Kasparov’s (and many others) “false flag” conspiracy-mongering.
The evidence that this attack was ISIS is about as conclusive as it gets.
The same goes for the idea of the Intelligence community lying. It’s naive to think a lie on this scale wouldn’t be leaked. Then there’s the question of why the US would lie and say it’s ISIS instead of Russia. What would be the purpose of doing that? There isn’t any – quite the opposite. The opportunity for the Biden Administration to show the attack was a false flag would weaken Putin and the Russian government – it would be a boon.
Added to that is that the warnings originally came out and were made public a couple of weeks ago, which means the intel on this was widely disseminated in the community.
I don’t believe every word of Kasparov’s op-ed. Here’s a sample of some of things I agree with:
and
I don’t know whether Biden does but I think we should. Outright Russian defeat would be an enormous risk.
And
Regardless of what steve has said Sec. Blinken has, indeed, ” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>told Israel NOT to invade Rafah.
and
That’s just a sample.
I also believe that our intelligence agencies lie to the Congress, the American people, and the president. “Slam dunk”? They don’t know who destroyed the Nordstream pipeline?
I don’t know who was behind the terrorist attack in Moscow and I honestly don’t see how anyone without insider connections can be confident that they do. Why are you so confident in the official U. S. explanation? I think there are legitimate reasons to question it.
I’m confident for a bunch of reasons:
– ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack shortly after it took place on their official media outlet.
– More importantly, ISIS then provided information, including videos filmed by the perpetrators (I would not recommend watching these) during the attack, that they could not have or could not have gotten from anyone but the attackers. These were also published through official ISIS channels.
– What we know of the biographies of the attackers
– The MO fits an ISIS-style attack
-Multiple US intel warnings in the previous few weeks, which were passed to Russia. Post-attack intelligence reports confirming the same. The lack of any contradictory intelligence from any other nation suggesting something different.
– Putin today confirming it was ISIS, although in a way that still tries to tie it to Ukraine.
What is the evidence for alternatives? If it wasn’t ISIS, then who was it?