As the first agitation caused by Boston marathon event is coming down, the question of what really happened is coming to the fore. Internet users were attentive enough to pay attention to the fact that some pictures were clearly a part of staged show. But these voices are barely heard as yet. Looks like a consensus is reached on making precise what the occurrence was. The definition is imposed on the world. Some recall the euphemism of anti-terror coalition… John Kerry talks about vigilance. He says the interaction with other countries in anti-terror fight is a «vital component of US foreign policy».
But there is something that makes hold back the desire to join the choir of voices which started to chant the good old song of Moscow and Washington having common interests. Some questions related to «technical details» of what happened in Boston make one pose. The ongoing slaughter initiated by terrorists in Syria (and in Libya before that) is an example to remember. It has resulted in the death toll of thousands and threatens to produce a booming echo in the Russian Caucasus. Another thing that makes one stop is the «Russian trace» found while investigating the Boston terrorist act, the version picked up by the US media without hesitation and still being imposed on audience.
The statements coming from Moscow saying the Tsarnaev brothers hail from Kyrgyzstan and have no relation to Russia whatsoever produce no effect. Probably they will not be given attention to. There are different interpretations of the concocted stories being surfaced telling that one of the brothers allegedly had a Russian passport. Another invention says Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed in shoot-out with police, went to Russia for a few months in 2012. They say that on January 12 he took a flight from John Kennedy airport in New York to the Moscow airport of Sheremetyevo and came back taking the same route on July 17…
The Jamestown Foundation accumulated information on the brothers’ biographies. It findings prove that the brothers hardly had any connection with former Chechen militants or any other region in the North Caucasus. Indeed, a lot of things need to be made clear here. It all makes think the perpetrators acted under someone’s control. If they acted under someone’s guidance, than the question about who did it and how it was done is not relevant anymore. If they acted on their own, then the explanation boils down exclusively to the realities inside the United States, the land where the people are proud to possess arms freely and cannot resist the intent to give vent to emotions by pulling the trigger while facing psychological problems. What happened in Boston could be a purely internal affair, if not for an attempt to make maximum political gains, like it was after September 11, 2001. After the attack against the Twin Towers the focus of US foreign policy shifted to Afghanistan, then Iraq. Now it looks like Washington intends to test Russia…
NBC 4i came out with the Russia's Chechnya Has Seen Decades of War, Terror report on April 19. It said, «Russia has relied on Kadyrov, a ruthless former rebel, to bring a degree of stability to Chechnya in recent years. But the Islamic insurgency has spread to neighboring provinces, with Dagestan – sandwiched between Chechnya and the Caspian Sea – now seeing the worst of the violence. Militants launch daily attacks against police and other authorities». (1) A little juggling with notions and sequence of events – and the issue for discussion is launched to go around. They will not let it off the radar screen for sure and will go on asserting that the Russia’s Caucasus is a breeding ground for vigorous separatist movement.
«Russia's Chechnya has long terrorist connections» – chimes in the USA Today, instilling the vision that Russia is not capable of exercising control over its own territory. It adds, «Militants from Chechnya and other restive regions have targeted Moscow and other areas with bombings and hostage-takings for more than 20 years. The republic is predominantly Muslim and has waged two wars with Russian security forces since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991». (2) The USA Today omits the fact that the organizations, banned in Russia, act freely on the soil of the Western countries, mainly in the USA and Great Britain. The edition keeps mum about it.
According to the first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia Damir Muhetdinov, the cult of violence inevitably affects the people, who live for many years in the United States, so it’s peculiar how one can see a Russian trace in the Boston tragedy. Still the Western information mainstream sticks to this, rather unusual, interpretation. They start to use the Boston story to point the finger at Russia; the idea behind it is to make it look like the source of immediate threat to the United States.
Russian ‘Alpha’ Special Forces team-veteran and Vice-President of its International Association, Aleksey Filatov, believes, «We hadn’t seen a terrorist attack on US soil for 12 years. This may have led to a relaxing of efforts on the part of the US agencies. On the other hand, however, American society has long been harboring a feeling that, while they live in relative peace, their soldiers are coming home in body bags. The people themselves feel discontented with the fact that they don’t come in contact with the much propagated threat of terrorism while that takes place. The White House has recently been countering this dilemma by announcing their withdrawal from direct military confrontations with terrorism on foreign land, instead opting for a less involved financial and training backing they now offer to foreign governments in their own fight against terrorism. All of a sudden, we get this terrorist attack for which no one claims responsibility… this begs the question, «what will happen next?» I think American society will eagerly change their mind again, choosing to view the last 12 years of peace and quiet as credit to the security services and agencies that protect them. The agencies come out as having shown that active involvement of US forces in the fight against terrorism abroad works, basically. So, I think that President Obama and the White House may need to go back on their promise of a lesser, direct foreign involvement, and instead revert to sending troops abroad once again, spending big sums on operational costs and so on. We know for a fact that Americans show this incredible potential for bonding in the face of adversity. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who will be willing to disagree with anything the US president says or does next regarding terrorism». (3)
…I remember the early 2000s. They tried to make us believe that such a sophisticated operation as the air attack against the Twin Towers could be organized and controlled by Bin Laden from Tora-Bora caves using cell phone. It is good to realize Russia is not Afghanistan.
References:
