Joe Quinn
Sott.net
It's been an interesting few days in the world of geopolitically-relevant terror attacks and 'Trump vs. the Deep State' (both of which are far from mutually exclusive).
First we had the St. Petersburg attack where some young guy from Kyrgyzstan with no history of violence decided to detonate an IED on a train, killing himself and 14 innocent civilians. Russian police apparently found the DNA of Akbarzhon Jalilov, who had lived in Russia for a number of years, in the metro carriage where the explosion happened, and on a second unexploded device at another metro station. Of course, this doesn't mean that Jalilov acted alone or was the 'mastermind' of the atrocity. As I have hypothesized on several occasions, anyone naive or manipulatable enough to carry a backpack, given to them by someone else, to a specific location, can become an instant unwitting 'suicide bomber'.
So who might have been Jalilov's accomplices? According to the Western media, somewhere near the top of the list is Putin himself. The BBC had no problem in theorizing that the bombing was "some kind of attempt to distract attention from calls for a corruption investigation and calls for President Putin himself to step down..."
[...]
Oh really? Do go on, BBC correspondent. What exactly do you mean by the bombing being an "attempt to distract"? Are you really suggesting that a state (in this case, Russia) would go so far as to carry out a bombing that kills its own civilians and then frame a 'Muslim terrorist' for it in the interest of redirecting public attention towards some specific narrative? If so, that sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory, and a dangerous one too. Much more talk like that and we might have to revisit the narrative around the 9/11 attacks, or the London or Madrid bombings! New York Post columnist John Podhoretz echoed that sentiment by noting that it was "interesting that the bomb blasts in Petersburg come so hard upon the demonstrations."
Read more
Sott.net
It's been an interesting few days in the world of geopolitically-relevant terror attacks and 'Trump vs. the Deep State' (both of which are far from mutually exclusive).
First we had the St. Petersburg attack where some young guy from Kyrgyzstan with no history of violence decided to detonate an IED on a train, killing himself and 14 innocent civilians. Russian police apparently found the DNA of Akbarzhon Jalilov, who had lived in Russia for a number of years, in the metro carriage where the explosion happened, and on a second unexploded device at another metro station. Of course, this doesn't mean that Jalilov acted alone or was the 'mastermind' of the atrocity. As I have hypothesized on several occasions, anyone naive or manipulatable enough to carry a backpack, given to them by someone else, to a specific location, can become an instant unwitting 'suicide bomber'.
So who might have been Jalilov's accomplices? According to the Western media, somewhere near the top of the list is Putin himself. The BBC had no problem in theorizing that the bombing was "some kind of attempt to distract attention from calls for a corruption investigation and calls for President Putin himself to step down..."
[...]
Oh really? Do go on, BBC correspondent. What exactly do you mean by the bombing being an "attempt to distract"? Are you really suggesting that a state (in this case, Russia) would go so far as to carry out a bombing that kills its own civilians and then frame a 'Muslim terrorist' for it in the interest of redirecting public attention towards some specific narrative? If so, that sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory, and a dangerous one too. Much more talk like that and we might have to revisit the narrative around the 9/11 attacks, or the London or Madrid bombings! New York Post columnist John Podhoretz echoed that sentiment by noting that it was "interesting that the bomb blasts in Petersburg come so hard upon the demonstrations."
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment