9/11 – Hand of Moscow

Tags

9/11, active measures, Afghanistan, analysis, Arab, Central Asia, Chechnya, conspiracy, coup, disinformation, espionage, FATF, Felshtinsky, fsb, Georgia, GRU, guerrilla, intelligence, Iraq, Islamist, Israel, kgb, kremlin, Litvinenko, Middle East, moscow, New York, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, politics, russia, September 11 attacks, spetsnaz, subversion, Taliban, terrorism, terroRussia, Thierry Meyssan, U.S.A, ussr, war, Washington, World Trade Center

After a long sleep, my Website is coming back to life with this lengthy post on 9/11 events.

This is my translation of little-known old article written by an Ukrainian journalist Konstantin Berkovets (a.k.a colonelwheeler) in 2011 – long before the Revolution and subsequent russian invasion. Nevertheless, it’s still worth reading as few pieces of independent analysis challenging numerous Kremlin-made fakes which spread through Internet like contents of burst sewage.

This translation is edited and enhanced with my comments and links.

BTW here is another worthy piece on the same matter.

An unprecedented and unique act of terrorism in the history of mankind – these are quite common words to characterize the events of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington. Indeed, the number of victims, estimated in thousands and material damage, estimated in billions of dollars, is striking. And many other things more too. But one can recall other events – both natural and man-made disasters and, more appropriate as an example, malicious actions of some people that caused commensurate, or even greater casualties and damage. There were tragic and rather scandalous events. Also there were attacks on other highly protected objects. What gives the reason to consider September 11 attacks really unique? Only one thing: an unprecedented resonance. For a long time 9/11 has become almost the only subject of political life of the whole world and main topic in mass media.

But having a clear designation of this essential feature of 9/11 events of September 11th and leaving secondary issues aside, we’ll have to make a paradoxical (at first glance) conclusion that this “truly unique” terrorist act is NOT so unique…

Exactly two years before we observed events in Russia which strikingly stand out with similar features: those “extremely loud” cases, became almost one and only subject of internal politics and brought far-reaching consequences about. Events in Russia have caused war in Chechnya. And September 11 attacks have caused invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, apartment house bombings in the cities of Buynaksk, Moscow (twice) and Volgodonsk, and similar bombing attempt in Ryazan. Thus the main feature, an extremely traumatizing influence on public opinion, both in the USA and in Russia, is equal. Events in both countries were the direct reason for involving of both countries in wars.

There are other, not so fundamental similarities, like attacking civilian infrastructure — residential buildings in Russia and a business institution in New York. (Of course this doesn’t apply to Pentagon, but shouldn’t New York be “enough”?)

If, God forbid, we had more examples of such terrorist attacks, then everyone would automatically put such events in a single row. As belonging, quite obviously, to one category. Just two examples are not so obvious due to the characteristics of human memory.

Can a similar handwriting be seen? Yes, of course. Maybe an attempt to investigate one of these terrorist attacks will “unexpectedly”help us to understand the other? For a few minutes, let’s leave the question who is behind the bombings in Russia and briefly transport ourselves to America.

“Alternative Versions”

Different people who distrust the U.S. administration provide the public with plenty of information on 9/11 events with their conclusions, based on their own information, as well as official one. Those people have active civil position, cause questioning authority means protection of democracy and freedom. But it doesn’t make them immune from criticism. Some of those people provide conspiracy theories about involvement of U.S. government agents in 9/11 terrorist act and even support it with some statements. But let’s say frankly, speculative thinking should not be used. All versions must be rational and “promising”.

How would the American (or of any country with developed democracy) administration act, facing 9/11 events? Just the same way as George Jr. Bush’s one, trying to minimize own responsibility by bureaucratic reasons.

How would any administration act, if a country is attacked by an adversary who cannot be fought back? It doesn’t matter what is at its disposal – solid evidence or just reasonable suspicion. If the country behind 9/11 attacks is Russia? A third world country. But with nukes. And for this reason alone, there is no way to deal with such a country as with Afghanistan. Obviously, the administration will hide what it knows from the public. A career is everything for an official. And to admit being powerless means guaranteed resignation. And the follower of such an official will accuse him, among other things, of starting a new Cold War, and who would want to accept such an accusation?

In alternative 9/11 investigations, a significant place is taken by criticism of official explanation of WTC towers collapsing. But here we didn’t find anything really worthy to debunk an “official version”, which gives rather satisfactory technical explanation. However, the rest of “official version” doesn’t deserve even the time spent for studying it.

Everyone who watches TV knows what “Islamic terrorism” is. Usually setting off some crude IED, always with large percentage of “failures” caused by incompetence and indolence of terrorists. 9/11 can’t stand in this row – we saw nothing like this made by Islamists either before or after 9/11.

Works that study 9/11 from the position of criticism of the official version exhaustively disprove the involvement of Arabs in this terrorist attack. We ourselves see, on the one hand, poorly-made fake official videos, and on the other, an inexplicable “inability” to catch bin Laden for 10 years. The consequence of those actions is making human tragedies only worse – thousands of Americans still don’t know what really happened to their loved ones, they didn’t receive anything to bury.

One of well-known alternative version works is a book “9/11: The Big Lie” by Thierry Meyssan. Leafing through it, one can feel an atmosphere of 60-70s Eastern Bloc. It is full of moldy Soviet propaganda cliches. By such a repertoire, it’s not hard to identify even a specific organization that’s been repeating those words for decades with mouths of its numerous staff.

That is “Service A” of First Chief Directorate, KGB (“A” stands for “активные мероприятия”, active measures), currently SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service, служба внешней разведки). Which specializes on disinformation and influencing public opinion in Western countries. Defectors characterize the majority of its staff as “people dumped from all other services”. Meyssan’s book is “prudently” silent about USSR and Russia. A notable exception is the author’s complaint to bin Laden, expressed from a Soviet position. That bin Laden was fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan.

The common Westerner perceives the Cold War as a historical event, two decades away in the past. And because of his subjectivity, he is inclined to attribute a similar attitude to middle Russian. However, it’s very wrong! Unfortunately, Western MSM “had mercy” upon common man’s mind, keeping silence on almost nationwide rejoice of Russians caused by attacks on the United States. And today, the average Russian with his sick medieval “patriotism”, longs for destruction of the United States, seeing them as the main obstacle to Russia’s imperialist policy. He sincerely considers his impoverished, nuke-wielding country a superpower equal or even superior to the U.S. He doesn’t want to know about a better quality of life in the United States, doesn’t believe it and has an only counterargument “Death to America!” (Just like that!)

Meyssan’s “The Big Lie” features embarrassingly anachronistic Stalin’s thesis about the powerful military-industrial complex of U.S. and its lobby, which are responsible for 9/11. Allegedly they staged to “get profitable orders”. Is it so?

Before the events of 9/11 U.S. had a plan to deploy the missile defense system of a truly new generation. Against which Russia persistently objected. After 9/11, the United States was drawn into the war in Afghanistan – costly by any measure, carried out with outdated methods. So its military-industrial complex has never received a truly extremely advantageous order for the newest missile defense system, and Russia was satisfied with it.

After the release of his book, Meyssan gave numerous interviews. And very noticeably, he kept retelling it with adding almost none of new material. This is typical when the “author” simply didn’t write “his” book and just reads it several times to remember the material provided by someone else. And of course, doesn’t do anything to develop the topic of the book himself. (And somehow, Meyssan’s pro-russian attitude seems to perfectly coexist with his support of so-called LGBT! Seriously, there is nothing strange about it since Kremlin has plenty of lackeys on both conservative and liberal scenes).

“The Soviet (Russian) trace” is not seen in the works of many other authors of “alternative versions” either. But there are assumptions, or even statements that either American government staged 9/11 to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or it was some kind of a coup d’état . It’s not difficult to notice the conspicuous connection with apartment block bombings in Russia as the origin of this version. The Kremlin has been convicted of those bombings. And these charges have been fully proven with the exception of legal formalities necessary only for the court.

One of typical actions of Kremlin propagandists is an absurd explanation well illustrated by the following example – Moscow responded to accusations of aggression against Georgia like that: “The US invaded Iraq, and why we can’t invade Georgia? You use double standards!” Lack of slightest logic in such responses is shocking, but that’s exactly what the Moscow keeps saying all the time. A simple scheme of russian answer is “we were accused of apartment block bombings, and to that we’ll similarly accuse the American government of staging the 9/11 attacks.” And logical flaws are evident here. The most important difference is that Moscow needed a war in Chechnya, but Washington didn’t need a war in Afghanistan! It was Moscow who needed it.

Let us briefly consider most popular “alternative versions” and particularly, the motivation attributed to the persons responsible, according to the authors’ opinion, for the attacks of September 11. If we do not engage in speculation, then checking the “analytic evidence” we are obliged to operate with exclusively valid, nonsubjective criterias.

The first version – 9/11 was a tip of the iceberg, and beneath there was a putsch inside the Washington establishment. This version can’t hold against valid criteria at all. In case of a putsch, we would see the “purge” which is impossible to hide. The putschists just could not leave their opponents near the power, fearing revenge or even sabotage. BTW it stinks with russian mindset – with a viewpoint of eternal Russian tyrannical Asiatic authoritarianism and its traditional palace coups. They just don’t understand how a developed democracy works.

The second version – 9/11 was staged by U.S. government to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Here we also observe a paranoid attempt to paint the Russian situation on American soil (or like they say in Russia, toss it from sick head to the healthy one, валить с больной головы на здоровую). Russia needed the war in Chechnya, and that’s why the Russians were blowing up their own houses. The Americans did NOT need a war in Afghanistan, but nevertheless they attacked New York and Washington in order to find an excuse for that unneeded invasion. Are you surprised by this nonsense? Do not be – this is just Russian logic.

The third version – 9/11 attacks were beneficial to Israel, which had a goal of drawing the whole world, especially the United States, into the war against the Arabs with whom Israel has a long-term conflict. Because to argue with obvious benefits is a futile business, we’ll look for objective criteria that will help us to confirm or disprove this version. Here, too, everything is simple – there is nothing to confirm the fact that Israel had any direct benefit, from the consequences of 9/11. Arab-Israeli relations do not bear the imprint of the 9/11.

Is the Arab involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks believable? We’ve already recommended some researches of “alternative versions”. No, not believable. Is there any objective criterion for verification? Of course – we remember the “official version” of passenger jet crashing into Pentagon and its refutation in “alternative versions”. No passenger jet – NO Arabian trace! Though we won’t deny the possible participation of Islamic fundamentalists as low-level executors.

Thierry Meyssan, already mentioned above, explains lack of a passenger jet debris in Pentagon like “This attack could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel.”

Of course he (or better to say, his KGB buddies) is dishonest here – everybody knows the organization which has industrialized studying and use of terrorism. GRU, formerly “Main Intelligence Directorate of USSR”, now it’s “Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” – it has no differences from the predecessor besides its formal name. The same goals and methods.

Nobody other in the entire world has equal stubbornness in perfecting methods of “assaulting possible foe with methods excluding military force”. GRU’s arsenal includes portable rocket launchers, “behind-the-lines” attacks, using of captured vehicles and many other things.

By the way, nobody in the entire world except for USSR/Russia has such long-term conspiracy connections with militant and terrorist groups amongst Islamic fundamentalists. One must remember terrorist acts in different European cities in mid-2000s. (And now, several waves of more recent attacks, accompanied by blatant statements of Putin’s b#tches who don’t care about any cover for their plans anymore!) And scattered press reports regarding the exposed perpetrators, which remind us of already forgotten times of the Cold War, and contain the names of organizations controlled, or simply created, by the Soviets. There is no need to think that the long-standing connections of KGB’s “Service A” and the GRU are gone. No. Kremlin’s subordinate terrorist organizations are ready for use today – in those countries that dare to disagree with Kremlin.

Another “Unprecedented One”

And now let’s return to Russia, which we’ve left a few minutes ago. In police investigations, a “visual psychodiagnosis” plays a significant role. It’s necessary to evaluating the suspect in realtime, to make preliminary conclusion whether he’s lying or not, identify patterns and solve many other tasks. The result thus compiled is not some kind of “evidence”, but it helps to detect previously unknown information for its further verification by other methods.

In light of the foregoing, Putin’s behavior during his condolences speech on TV is spectacular. In cases of apartment block bombings in Russia and 9/11 attacks in the United States, the spectacular similarity of words and their “accompaniment”, like facial expressions, tone, even “response time”. No less spectacular is the fact that, he didn’t show similar behavior anywhere anymore. From checks of such “minor” facts, the search for serious evidence for the court should begin. (Or things like this photo, made shortly after the murder of Lech Kaczynski’s government by Putin and his lackey Tusk).

One of the first steps in any investigation is to outline the circle of suspects by different criterias, among which the most important are the questions, “To whom is it a benefit?” (“Cui bono?”) and “Who had an opportunity?” Who had an opportunity to bomb apartment buildings in Russia? The operation is complex enough to immediately outline the small circle of suspects – these are top dogs of the FSB-KGB and GRU, as well as other suspects from the SVR, the police and military units besides the GRU. We won’t consider ridiculous versions for naive people about North Caucasus resistance, Americans, space aliens etc.

The last of bombings in the city of Ryazan has ended in failure – the explosion was prevented, and terrorists with their FSB papers detained (but subsequently released by the order from Moscow). Which revealed the very organization that was acting on Kremlin orders, as well as in case of at least two successful identical bombings in Moscow. The one that took the “honorable” first place on this list – the KGB-FSB.

A comprehensive evidence is given in the book by Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, “Blowing up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror”. The volume of the article doesn’t allow to give even a general outline of this large work. Litvinenko was killed in the fall of 2006 in London. Andrey Lugovoy, accused of this murder, besides being a former KGB-FSB officer is also so-called “deputy” – a member of Russian “Duma” parliament, where no one can be accepted without Kremlin’s permission.

As it’s known for everyone who keeps track on activitiy of Soviet and Russian secret services, each of their agents has a kind of plan – at least two recruits per year. Failure to keep it up will result in penalty. Under the roof of Russian embassies, there are resident stations of the SVR with several dozens of staff working on “political intelligence” and “foreign counterintelligence”, and these are only so-called “legal” residencies. Besides “illegal” ones, there is also GRU with its network of residencies of both types, and of course “intelligence” activity from the territory of Russia itself.

In addition it should be noted that other Russian structures, for example, large businesses close to the Kremlin, are also involved in undercover work. Like Ministry of Internal Affairs (police) and units of the FSB (ex. KGB), which have no official relations to espionage. One of the most famous “moles”, G. Prime, was supervised by the Third KGB Directorate – officially responsible for military counterintelligence. (Pedophile Prime worked for Russia, which now has KGB pedophile Putin as president. Looks like just a tradition.)

And they have a plan to recruit new agents – amongst those who have prospects to become a politician or an official, or have already became ones, amongst journalists, public activists, etc. There is no reason to be surprised about how many friends USSR/Russia has. Undoubtedly, such an army will be mobilized by Moscow to oppose the revelations set forth in Litvinenko-Felshtinsky’s book.

Western governments do not oppose Russian espionage and terrorism. Not only because they are plagued with Kremlin agents. Foremostly, because for a politician there is nothing more important than his career. To oppose the atrocities and crimes of Moscow means to take responsibility for “unleashing a new Cold War.”

Somewhere Far Away

Afghanistan. One of the poorest countries on our planet. Soviet intervention of 1970s has plunged it into civil war and chaos for decades. It has no strategic resources, no market for products except for ammunition for obsolete Soviet weaponry. It is of no interest to anyone – except the Soviets and their expansionism.

If we ignore what we know today and ask ourselves a question: “If U.S. is attacked and for career-bureaucratic reasons, the administration hides the true culprit from the public, who then will be appointed as a scapegoat besides bin Laden hiding somewhere in Afghanistan and will the U.S. government be able to avoid the invasion of Afghanistan?” As of autumn 2001 the world just had no other character to be suitable for such a “role” more than bin Laden. The invasion could not be avoided.

Even the Soviet marshal Ogarkov persistently emphasized the importance of the Vietnam War – only with “tied hands” America is good for Moscow. The situation is repeating in Afghanistan, Russia is happy with it. Whom Americans are fighting in Afghanistan? Guerrilla soldiers. Does anyone in the world have experience of victory in such a war? No. Such war can’t end in victory. It will devour tremendous resources. And in particular, it will distract the U.S. from new developments in the military-industrial complex.

Take a look at the map. To the west of Afghanistan, there is Iran which is hostile to U.S. To the south and east there is Pakistan, and relations with it are worsening, which is in Russia’s interests. Pakistan once was a U.S. ally in this region. Could have Moscow before September 11, 2001, dreamed of such a destabilization of Pakistan? For the supply of troops in Afghanistan, only northern corridor remains.

To the north of Afghanistan, there are countries of the Central Asia – the former Soviet republics. Moscow has an extremely strong influence in this entire region. To the north of them begins Russia, therefore a corridor through Russia and Central Asia is required. Or a very narrow path through the Caucasus (Georgia and Azerbaijan) and the same countries of Central Asia. (We do not consider the “Chinese corridor” here.) Here, we immediately get the answer to the question of why Russia has invaded and tried to capture Georgia in 2008. Putin’s calls to the leaders of the Central Asian countries sounded paradoxically only at the first glance. Understanding of the situation is achieved through a simple fact: as a result of 9/11 attacks, the United States and its NATO allies became dependent on Kremlin, which was given the opportunity to put forward ANY demands.

As a result of war against the Taliban regime, Russia has finally got some relief – the seemingly inevitable loss of Moscow’s influence in Central Asia was no longer relevant. Today, Russia’s influence in the region is undivided.

Russia is the main beneficiary of the invasion of the United States and NATO allies in Afghanistan following the events of 9/11. Another beneficiary was Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, things there went not according to plan – but not entirely.

Often, politics is just trade. A “strategic partnership” has been formed between the USSR and the USA. So George H. W. Bush turned a blind eye to Spetsnaz raids in Vilnius and Riga (not long before the Operation Desert Storm) – after all, one cannot criticize the “partner”. He failed to formulate even mildly critical remarks against Moscow, being on a visit there at the time of this terrorist attack. A few days later he went to Kiev where he delivered an outrageous speech in front of parliament. The meaning of that speech was that Ukrainians should be happy as a colony of Russia. Such a “partnership” continued until Christmas 1991. Bush refused to acknowledge the collapse of the USSR.

In the mid-1990s, Yevgeny Primakov was a head of the SVR, and before that he was an indefinite “expert” on the Middle East. We don’t know what was said during the contacts of this sinister figure with Saddam, but we know what happened then – Saddam invaded Kuwait. And spike of oil prices. However, unlike during all other Cold War crises, the USSR did NOT veto a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq.

The seemingly insignificant scene from the Persian Gulf war of 1991 is interesting either. Leaving Kuwait, Saddam’s troops for some reason set fire to Kuwaiti oil wells, disabling them for at least six months. Where is Iraq’s profit here? Nowhere, but there is Moscow’s profit – high oil prices.

Schemes that have brought success in business, politics etc. will be repeated. Always. Moscow attacks the United States and latter is are dependent on Russian veto in the UN Security Council. In exchange for not vetoing, Russia can demand whatever it wants from Washington. As we know today, it didn’t work with Iraq. So Russia lost this time? No. Only one thing was important for Russia about Iraq – high oil prices, everything else was secondary. Let’s recall oil prices for the time after the outbreak of the Second Iraq war. And now let’s think why it happened.

Who could destabilize Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam’s dictatorship? Apparently neither the Kurds nor the southern religious community – Saddam was in conflict with both. There were no prerequisites for sudden emergence of strong guerrilla movement that could not be created under a brutal and corrupt dictatorship of Saddam. It couldn’t be organized during an incredibly short period of time between the overthrow of Saddam and the destabilization of Iraq. To find an answer, let’s recall a little but curious fact that Iraq was the ONLY country outside the Soviet bloc where no SVR espionage activity took place. Only liaison officers of the 20th Department were assigned to contact Iraqis. In other words, Iraq was controlled by the Soviets entirely.

Getting answer to the question of who had the opportunity, let’s try to answer another one – who benefits from it? Who benefits from destabilizing Iraq and thereby maintaining high oil prices? There is only ONE beneficiary in the entire world…

Let me remind you of one, as it might seem, insignificant fact that the cost of oil extraction in Russia is high. Behind this “minor” fact there are events of global significance. For Russia, low oil prices mean not a just a decline in profits, but a disaster since the extraction would become unprofitable. Let’s recall oil prices at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s and what then happened with the USSR.

And do not forget who supports Venezuelan regime now – which is not contributing to lower oil prices as well.

A sight on the world

It’s not possible to predict the exact implementation of security tightening scenario in response to the 9/11 attacks. But the bureaucratic world is known to do stupid things. Russia carried out the genocide of the Chechen people, but human rights activists criticized the United States for Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons and the simple deprivation of the elementary civil rights for their own people. With such policies, Russia of course counts its crimes will be totally ignored.

Let’s recall how the creators of WikiLeaks promised to publish the exposure of tyrannical regimes, particulary the Russian one, but instead publishes American diplomatic correspondence and reports on the Iraq war.

Nevertheless, some actions of the American administration can be predicted in advance. For example, mute trials of terrorists and “terrorists”. An ancient unadvertised rule says “when the plan has worked, everyone is forced to defend it.” The Bush administration just could not allow the information about Moscow’s involvement in 9/11 attacks to leak – this was explained above.

And some idiotic actions were just difficult to predict. For example, NOBODY won but everyone lost something due to the elimination of anonymous banking under the pretext of combating money laundering and financing of terrorism. However, we see an increase in organized crime on a global scale and continuation of terrorist activities. What does the FATF do? It only helps economic crises to happen. Like it wasn’t bad enough for the world economy to be exhausted for a decade by excessive oil prices. The FATF also destroyed the mobile speculative capital that played an important role in the global economy. And which still cannot be taxed. But one can create difficulties for him and the consequences won’t be long in coming. The economic crisis is evidence of this. Unfortunately, not the last one if the FATF is not abolished.

The main, but not the only beneficiary of the global oppression and deprivation of elementary civil rights is Russia – again.

The Conclusion

A good investigation should begin with outlining the circle of suspects, but journalism has its own laws, so we will end with that list. Who were the suspects of 9/11 attacks?

Here is that list.

1. Russia

2. Israel

3. Islamist radicals (with or without bin Laden)

4. American putschists

5. Americans who needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq by some reason

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan makes no sense. It caused only losses.

The invasion of Iraq was carried out without the UN Security Council’s approval, with a casus belli of searching for WMDs. For that, bombing of own cities isn’t necessary. It’s the same nonsense as insuring a picture hanging in the house (but not the house itself), then blowing up the house to get insurance payments. So this version is rejected.

4^th version. As written above, in this case certain events (the purge) would have followed – and there was none. Rejected.

3^rd version. As written above, in case of no-plane theory there was no Islamist organization that planned 9/11. Rejected.

2^nd version. As written above, the results were not exploited (please don’t put forward ridiculous “assumptions” like “at first, they attacked but then were frightened themselves and therefore did not use the fruits of their action”). Rejected.

There is only one version left: Russia.

It’s hard to find a topic more inopportune than the one discussed here. One can’t find friends trying to investigate 9/11 but can get new enemies very quickly. And the first of them will be the researchers of “alternative versions” – mostly brave and honest people. The entire federal U.S. political establishment, and the entire Western world, Islamic fundamentalists, Israel, the FATF, and journalists were criticized. And most importantly, no matter how hard one tries to be gentle, all of them will be offended. All such different stakeholders.

Journalists usually avoid this topic. Quite understandable from a political scientist’s view – though it’s their job, their professional competence, one can’t be forced to do the job which brings only losses.

We won’t apologize either before numerous Kremlin agents or separate citizens of Russia. We either won’t be saddened to name Russia an enemy – a country thoroughly corrupt with ideocracy, a threat to entire world and its neighbors first of all.

Usually Western journalists (those who are not bought by Russia) consider the people of Russia and some dissidents main victims of its regime. Such an approach demonstrates a withering abyss of misunderstanding. An average man is usually prejudiced by evaluating others through his own personality, therefore often having a poor representation of how the motivation of some individual or a group (here, an ethnic one) can be different from his own.

Russians forgive their own authority any crimes, even murder of billions of people. Something other is important for them: to make everyone afraid of their “great empire”. And they are proud of it, celebrating it with incomparable, unprecedented and unique amounts of vodka…

Advertisements

Made in KGB

Tags

beheading, conspiracy, dictator putin, execution, fsb, hostage, ISIS, Islam, Islamist, kgb, Litvinenko, lubyanka, Mairbek Taramov, novorossiya, Qu'ran, terrorism, terroRussia, thug, Ukraine, war

This is my translation of a recent publication by Chechen human rights activist and dissident Mairbek Taramov for IPVNews.org.

Numerous photos and videos made by ISIS operators caused a worldwide uproar. Mass shooting of half-naked people lying flat on sun-baked ground, cutting throats, let alone beatings and humiliation. Their victims are POWs and civilians of different religious beliefs. Here we see shocking footage of execution of American and British journalists with throats being slashed. And all that is being done by people who call themselves Muslims. How such atrocities relate to Islam really?

Any Muslim says in the beginning of a new deed should say “Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim” (“In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”). Do ISIS combatants say this before their mass murders and how the latter are related to mercy?

(Here and onwards in this text, Mr. Taramov points to verified russian translations of Qur’an and theologist commentaries. My translation has matching quotes from original acknowledged English versions.)

Surah 47, ayah 4-6:

“So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds.

He will guide them and amend their condition

And admit them to Paradise, which He has made known to them.”

Beware, that is only rules of the war where both sides have the same goal (crush the enemy and win). Apparently more humane than Geneva convention.

Yusuf Ali commentaries:

“4820 When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves.

4821 In the first onset there must necessarily be great lass of life; but when the enemy is fairly beaten, which means, in a Jihad, that he is not likely to seek again the persecution of Truth, firm arrangements should be made to bring him under control. I thus construe the words “bind a bond firmly (on them)”, but others have construed the words to mean, “after the enemy’s numbers are fairly thinned down, prisoners may be taken”. With this passage may be compared 8:67, and n. 1234.

4822 When once the enemy is brought under control, generosity (i.e., the release of prisoners without ransom) or ransom is recommended.”

Abul Ala Maududi commentaries:

This is the first verse of the Qur’an in which preliminary instructions have been given about the laws of war. Below is given a resume of the injunctions that are derived from this verse and the Holy Prophet’s and his Companions’ practice according to it and the juristic inferences as based on this verse and the Sunnah:

(1) The real aim of the Muslim army in war is to break the fighting power of the enemy till it is crushed and the war lays down its arms. Under no circumstances, should the Muslim’s lose sight of this aim and start taking the enemy soldiers as captives. Captives should be taken after the enemy has been completely crushed and its numbers thinned down. The Arabs have been so instructed at the outset lest in the greed for ransom and taking slaves they should forget and overlook the real aim of the war.

(2) About the prisoners taken in war it has been said: “You have the option whether you show them favor or accept ransom from them. ” This gives the general law that the prisoners of war should not be put to death. Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar, Hasan Basri, `Ata’ and Hammad bin Abi Sulaiman favour this view, which is quite valid. They say that a man can be killed only during the war. When the war is over and one has been made a prisoner, it is not lawful to kill him, Ibn Jarir and Abu Bakr alJassas have related that Hajjaj; bin Yusuf handed over one of the prisoners of war to Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar and commanded him to put him to death. He refused to obey and cited this verse and said: “We are not allowed to kill a man when he is a prisoner.” Imam Muhammad in As-SiyaT al-Kabir also has related that `Abdullah bin ‘Amir had commanded Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar to kill a prisoner of war, and he had refused to obey the command for this reason.

(3) But since in this verse it has neither been clearly forbidden to kill the prisoner the -Holy Prophet understood this intention of Allah’s Command, and also acted accordingly, that if there was a special reason for which the ruler of an Islamic government regarded it as necessary to kill a particular prisoner (or prisoners), he could do so. This is not the general law, but an exception to it, which would be applied only when necessary. Thus, the Holy Prophet put to death only `Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ait and Nadr bin al-Harith from among the 70 prisoners taken at Badr, and only the poet Abu `Azzah from the prisoners taken at Uhud. Since the Bani Quraizah had surrendered on the condition that they would accept whatever decision Hadrat Sa`d bin Mu’adh would give in their regard, and he had decreed that all the males of the Quraizah should be killed, the Holy Prophet had them executed. From among the prisoners taken at Khaiber only Kinanah bin Abi al-Huqaiq was put to death because of his violating the agreement. At the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet commanded in respect of only a few particular persons from among all the inhabitants of Makkah that any one of them who was captured should be put to death. Apart from these exceptions, the Holy Prophet never killed prisoners of war, and the same also continued to be the practice of the righteous Caliphs. During their times also killing of prisoners of war was rare, which was resorted to only for a special reason. Hadrat, `Umar bin `Abdul `Aziz also during his caliphate put to death only one prisoner of war for the reason that he had persecuted the Muslims very cruelly. On this very basis the majority of the jurists have held the view that the Islamic government can put a prisoner to death if necessary. But it is for the government to take such a decision; every soldier is not permitted to kill any prisoner he likes. However, if there is the danger of a prisoner’s running away or of his committing a dangerous mischief, the guard can kill him. In this connection, the jurists of Islam have also made three other points: (a) That if a prisoner accepts Islam, he cannot be killed; (b) that the prisoner can be killed only as long as he is in the government’s custody; if he has been allotted to, or given in somebody else’s possession by sale, he cannot be killed; and (c) that if the prisoner has to be killed, he should be killed in a straightforward way; he should not be tortured to death

(4) The general command that has been given about the prisoners of war is: “Show them favor, or accept ransom from them. ” Favor includes four things: (a) That they should be treated well as prisoners; (b) that instead of killing them or keeping them in captivity for lifetime, they should be handed over to the individual Muslims as slaves; (c) that they should be put under jizyah and trade dhimmis; and (d) that they should be set free without ransom.

There are three ways of ransoming them: (a) That they should be set free on payment of a ransom; (b) that they should be set free after taking some special service from them; and (c) that they should be exchanged for the Muslim prisoners of war who are in the possession of the enemy. The Holy Prophet and the Companions at different times acted in one or the other way as the occasion demanded. The Divine Law has not bound the Islamic government to act in only one particular way. The government can take any action it deems appropriate on a particular occasion.

(5) The practice of the Holy Prophet and the Companions confirms that as long as a prisoner of war is in the government’s custody, the government will be responsible for his food and clothing, . and his treatment if he is ill or wounded. Islamic Law does not permit prisoners to be kept without food or clothing, or be subjected to torture. On the contrary, instructions also have been given to treat them well and generously, and precedents of this very practice are found in the Sunnah. The Holy Prophet distributed the prisoners of Badr in the houses of different Companions and gave the instruction: “Teat these prisoners well.” One of those prisoners, Abu ‘Aziz, has reported: “The Ansar Muslims, in whose house I was kept, gave me bread morning and evening, but as for themselves they had only dates to eat. ” About another prisoner; Suhail bin ‘Amr, the Holy Prophet was told: “He is a fiery speaker, and has been making speeches against you: please have his teeth broken. ” The Holy Prophet replied: “If I have his teeth broken, Allah will break my teeth, although I am a Prophet.” (Ibn Hisham). When Thumamah bin Uthal, the chief of Yamamah, was brought as a prisoner, he was provided with good food and milk on the Holy Prophet’s orders as long as he remained a captive. (Ibn Hisham). The same was the practice in the time of the Companions. No precedent is found when a prisoner might have been mistreated in their time.

(6) Islam has not permitted that the prisoners be kept in captivity for ever so that the government may subject them to forced labor as long as it likes. If they are not exchanged for other prisoners of war, or ransomed, the method enjoined of doing them favor is that they should be made slaves and given in possession of individuals, and their masters instructed to treat them well This method was acted upon during the time of the Holy Prophet as well as of the Companions, and the jurists of Islam have unanimously upheld it as permissible. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that a person who might have accepted Islam before being taken as prisoner, and then is somehow made a prisoner, will be set free, but the acceptance of Islam by a person who accepts it after being taken prisoner, or after being given in possession of somebody, will not gain him freedom automatically. A tradition has been related in Musnad Ahmad. Muslim and Tirmidhi on the authority of Hadrat `Imran bin Husain that a person from among the Bani ‘Uqail was brought as a prisoner and he said: “I have accepted Islam. ” Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: “If you had said this when you were free, you would certainly have attained to success. The same thing was said by Hadrat `Umar: “When a prisoner becomes a Muslim after falling into the hands of the Muslims as a captive, he will not be killed, but will remain a slave.” Oh this very point. the jurists of Islam have unanimously ruled that the prisoner who becomes a Muslim after being taken captive cannot escape slavery. (Imam Muhammad, As-Siyar al-Kabir). And this also is quite reasonable. If our law had been that anyone who embraced Islam after being taken a captive, would be set free, no prisoner would be so foolish as not to win his freedom by pronouncing the Kalimah.

(7) The third manner of doing favor with the prisoners according to the Law of Islam is that they may be put under jizyah and made dhimmi subjects of the Islamic state and allowed to live as free citizens of dar a/Islam (abode of Islam) just like the Muslims. Imam Muhammad writes in his As-Siyar a/-Kabir: “Any person who can be made a slave, can also be made a dhimmi and put under jizyah. ¦ At another place he says: “The ruler of the Muslims has the right to levy jizyah on than and a tax on their lands and set than absolutely free. ” This method has been practised generally in the condition when the territory of the people who have been made prisoners, is’ conquered and annexed to the Islamic state. The Holy Prophet, for instance, practiced this method in the case of the people of Khaiber, and then Hadrat `Umar followed and practiced it extensively on the conquest of `Iraq and other territories. Abu `Ubaid writes in his Kitab al-Amwal: “After the conquest of `Iraq a deputation of the leading men of that country came before Hadrat `Umar and submitted: `O Commander of the Faithful, before this the people of Iran had subdued us: they subjected us to harsh treatment and committed all sorts of excesses against us. Then, when God sent you, we became very pleased, and we neither put up any resistance against you nor participated in the war. Now, we hear that you want to make us slaves.’ Hadrat `Umar replied: `You have the option either to become Muslims, or accept to pay jizyah and remain free.’ They agreed to pay the jizyah and they were granted full freedom. ” At another place in the same book. Abu `Ubaid says: Hadrat `Umar wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash’ari: Set free every farmer and peasant from among the people who have been captured in the war. ”
(8) The fourth favor is that the prisoner be set free without ransom. This is a special concession that the Islamic government can give only in case the special conditions of a prisoner demand it, or when it is expected that the concession will win the prisoner’s gratitude for ever, and help turn him a friend from an enemy, or a believer from a disbeliever; otherwise, obviously it would in no way be a wise thing to set free a person of the enemy camp, who could again return to fight the Muslims. This is why the Muslim jurists generally have opposed it, and imposed the condition: “If the ruler of the Muslims finds it expedient to set the prisoners, or some of them, free as a favor, there is no harm in doing so.” (As-SiyaT al-Kabir). Many precedents of this are found in the time of the Holy Prophet, and in almost every case expediency seems to be the reason.

About the prisoners taken at Badr, he said: “If Mut’im bin `Adi were alive, and had spoken to me in respect of these treacherous people, I would have Iet them go for his sake.” (Bukhari, Abu Da’ud, Musnad Ahmad). The Holy Prophet said this because when he had returned from Ta’if to Makkah, Mut’im at that time had given him refuge, and his armed sons had escorted him to the Ka`bah. Therefore, he wanted to repay his debt of gratitude in this way.

According to Bukhari, Muslim and Musnad Ahmad, when Thumamah bin Uthal, the chief of Yamamah, was brought as a prisnoner, the Holy Prophet asked him: “Thumamah, what do you say?” He replied: “If I am killed, then such a one would be killed, whose blood has some value: if I am shown favor, then favor would be shown to a person, who appreciates favor; and if you want wealth, ask for it, you will be given it.” For three days the Holy Prophet asked him the same thing and he gave the same reply. At last, the Holy Prophet ordered that Thumamah be set free. On attaining freedom, he went to a nearby oasis, washed himself and came back, pronounced the kalimah and became a Muslim, saying: Before this day nobody was more detestable than you and no religion more odious than your religion in my sight, but now for me no man is more lovable than you and no religion more lovable than your religion.” Then he went to Makkah for ‘Umrah and gave the people of Quraish a notice to the effect: “After this no grain will reach you from Yamamah unless Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace) permits it.” So, he stopped the grain supply and the people of Makkah had to request the Holy Prophet that he should not stop the supply of grain for them from Yamamah.

From among the prisoners of the Bani Quraizah, the Holy Prophet forgave Zabir bin Bata and ‘Amr bin Sa’d (or Ibn Su’da), the former because he had given refuge to Hadrat Thabit bin Qais Ansari in the Battle of Bu’ath, in the pre-Islamic days of ignorance; therefore, he handed him over to Hadrat Thabit that he may repay him for his favor. And he forgave ‘Amr bin Sa`d because it was he who was exhorting his tribe not to be treacherous when the Bani Quraizah were committing breach of the trust with the Holy Prophet.

After the Battle of Bani al-Mustaliq, when the prisoners were brought and distributed among the people, the Holy Prophet paid Hadrat Juwairiyah’s ransom to the person to whom she was allotted to secure her freedom and then married her himself. At this all the Muslims set their own prisoners free, saying: “Now they have become the Holy Prophet’s relatives. ” Thus, the prisoners of a hundred families became free. (Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Hisham).

On the occasion of the treaty of Hudaibiyah, at about dawn, 80 men came from the direction of Tan’im with the intention of launching a sudden attack on the Muslim camp, but were all captured, and the Holy Prophet set all of them free lest it became a cause of war on that critical occasion. (Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad).

At the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet forgave all the people of Makkah except only a few men, and did not kill more than three or four of even those who had been made an exception. The whole of Arabia was well aware of what atrocities the people of Makkah had committed against the Holy Prophet and the Muslims; yet the large-heartedness with which he forgave them after attaining complete victory over them, gave the Arabs the satisfaction that they had not been overpowered by a tyrant but by a merciful, affectionate and generous leader. That is why after the conquest of Makkah the Arabian peninsula did not take longer than two years to be completely subdued.

After the Battle of Hunain, when the Hawazin deputation came to secure the freedom of their prisoners, the prisoners had already been distributed. The Holy Prophet called the Muslims together and said: “These people have come with repentance, and I am of the opinion that their men should be rearmed to them. The one who would like to set the prisoner allotted to him free willingly without ransom, should set him free, and the one who would like to take ransom, shall be paid it out of the first income that is received in the Public Treasury.” Thus, six thousand prisoners were set free, and those who wanted to take ransom, were given it by the government. (Bukhari, Abu Da’ud, Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d). This also shows that the government is not authorized to set the prisoners free after they have been distributed; this can be done by the willing approval of those in whose possession the prisoners have been given, or by paying them the ransom.

After the Holy Prophet, precedents of setting the prisoners free as a favor continue to be found throughout the period of the Companions also. Hadrat Abu Bakr set fret Ash’ath bin Qais al-Kindi and Hadrat ‘Umar granted freedom to Hurmuzan and the prisoners of Manadhir and Maisan. (Abu ‘Ubaid, Kitab alAmwal).

(9) The precedent of setting the prisoners free on payment of the ransom in the time of the Holy Prophet is found only on the occasion of Badr, when the prisoners were set free on payment of one thousand to four thousand dirhams each. (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Amwal). No precedent of this is found in the time of the Companions; and the jurists of Islam have generally disapproved it, for it means that we should take money and set a man free so that he may again rise against us with the sword. But since taking of ransom has been permitted in the Qur’an, and the Holy Prophet also acted according to it once, it is not absoluutely forbidden. Imam Muhammad writes in his As-Siyar al-Kabir that if the need arises the Muslims can free their prisoners on payment of the ransom.

(10) The criterion of freeing a prisoner for a service rendered is also found in connection with the Battle . of Badr. For those of the Quraish prisoners who had no ransom the Holy Prophet imposed the condition that they should teach reading and writing to ten Ansar children each to win their freedom. (Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d, Kitab al-Amwal.

(11) Several instances of the exchange of prisoners are found in the time of the Holy Prophet. Once he dispatched Hadrat Abu Bakr on an expedition and he brought some captives, including a beautiful woman, who fell to the lot of Hadrat Salamah bin Akwa’ . The Holy Prophet urged him to give her back, then sent her to Makkah and had several ‘ Muslim prisoners released, in exchange for her. (Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Tahawi Kitab al-Amwal of Abi `Ubaid, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d). Hadrat ‘Imran bin Husain relates that once the tribe of Thaqif arrested two men of the Muslims. Some time later, a man of the Bani ‘Uqail, who were allies of the Thaqif, was arrested by the Muslims. The Holy Prophet sent him to Ta’if and got both the Muslims released in exchange for him. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad). From among the jurists Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, Imam Shafe`i, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad hold . the exchange of the prisoners as permissible. A ruling of Imam Abu Hanifah is that exchange should not be practiced, but according to another ruling of his exchange can be practiced. However, there is a consensus that the prisoner who becomes a Muslim should not be handed over to the disbelievers for the purpose of exchange.

This explanation makes it abundantly clear that Islam has formulated a comprehensive code in respect of the prisoners of war, which contains provision for this problem in every age under all sorts of conditions. Those people who take this Qur’anic verse in its simple meaning that the prisoners of war should “either be shown favor and set free or freed for ransom”, do not know what different aspects the question of the , prisoners of war has, and what problems it has been creating in different ages and can create in the future.  

Now look what ISIS combatants are doing. Neither of those rules from Qur’an and comments of theologists are fulfilled! What “Islamic” state are they talking about? Their actions have a purpose to discredit Islam causing disgust amongst non-Muslim community and Muslims both.

Their actions remind of similar deeds in pre-war Chechnya, when some “radical group” demonstrated severed heads of engineers from Britain and New Zealand and videos of russian POWs execution to entire world.

Who got the benefit from this horrible footage? Only Kremlin and Lubyanka who sent it by diplomatic mail to all foreign embassies in Moscow. The result was immediate – almost the entire world turned away from Chechnya and Putin was granted with full impunity which he immediately used. His atrocious genocide made without any cover is comparable to Rwanda massacre.

ISIS. To whose benefit?

Now let’s think, who supports, finances, arms ISIS fighters? Any investigation should build its versions around the question: cui bono? In the light of recent events in Ukraine and following U.S.A and EU sanctions, there is only one answer. Acts of ISIS terrorism benefit only Kremlin administration and their loyal ally Assad. For the latter, it’s very important to make the West believe that the main danger to the West comes from the ISIS.

Terrorist acts of ISIS in Iraq who act by orders of Kremlin and Lubyanka can be classified only as answer to economical sanctions of the West which has certain interests (mostly energy sources) in the area.

Open your eyes

Let’s return to ayahs of the Qu’ran, sent to people 1436 years ago. Many famous theologists say that one should not take all Qu’ran literally, blindly copying 1.500-years-old actions, as the God gave noesis to people for thinking and understanding.

Any reasonable man should understand why Our’an ordered Muslims “strike their necks” back then. Neck was the most vulnerable body part, often not protected by armor due to movement requirements. When people were fighting with sabers, arrows, spears etc. a blow to the neck was the quickest and least painful way (as said in the comments above) to kill the enemy.

Unfortunately not every Muslim understands such things. But even if one tries to copy Qu’ran so literally, why ISIS fighters wouldn’t get on camels and fight with blades and arrows? But here they understand they will lose despite any superiority in numbers. So fanatics embrace the reality and prefer modern weapons obviously superior to ones used in times of Mohammed. Isn’t such a selective following of the most convenient things a pure hypocrisy?

It’s much worse. According to well-known khadi of the Prophet, Islam has three deadly enemies: a militant atheist, a theologists who falsifies explanation of Qu’ran ayahs and an ignorant fanatic.

ISIS consists of all those categories of whom the largest is the latter one. Unfortunately there are even Chechens amongst them. The question is what they forgot in Syria and Iraq while their deadly enemies, russian cuttroats who tortured and murdered their families in Chechnya, destroyed their beautiful homeland, came to Eastern Ukraine with their thuggery now?

The following ayah is addressed to those radical Muslims who joined so-called ISIS.

“O people, beware of exaggeration in religion for those who came before you were only destroyed because of exaggeration in religion.” (Sunan ibn Majah 3029)

I think there shouldn’t be any comments.

I still have some comments for you who made it to the end or just skipped all Qu’ran quotes. While demonstrating extreme condemnation of ISIS atrocities, the West almost begun praising TerroRussia by tradition ignoring its commie butchery. Looks like an old trick of a KGB thug Putin who is the first to yell about “Islamic terrorism” as soon as the West begins to notice something. For that, he always can sacrifice some of his own serfs.

I do not deny the fact of Islamic terrorism. I call things with own names. Looking at habitual “fun” of “novorossiya” thugs (beheadings, humiliation, rape, butchery) and executions of “infidels” made by ISIS, one can see more resemblance than difference. And russian subhumans bark about their “true faith” as much as fanatic Al-Qaeda preachers, while butchering innocent people.

So-called ISIS and so-called Novorossiya are like twin brothers of the same depraved family with elders residing somewhere in Lubyanka. There is much more to consider than just resemblance (sufficient alone to stop and think seriously), and the future of the West mostly depends on actual ability to think on its own, without blindly following orders from Moscow that remind of relations between molester and mentally challenged child more and more as the years go by.