Chechnyan rebel terrorists, not a government conspiracy...

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Summary

390×200 11.8 KB

Jared Wickerham/Getty Images

Timothy Alben (C) of the Massachusetts State Police and Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis (Center R) in Watertown, Mass., on April 19

The identities of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing – Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 – appear tentatively to confirm several of Stratfor’s suspicions. From this profile, the simple nature of the attack, their efforts to rob a convenience store and their lack of an escape plan, we can at least say at this point in time that they were what we refer to as grassroots militants. Despite being amateurs, such militants clearly still pose a significant threat.

Analysis

Just after 10 p.m. on April 18, the Tsarnaev brothers were identified after having robbed a convenience store in Cambridge, Mass., just three miles from Boston, hours earlier. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, who responded to the robbery, was shot and killed and found in his car by fellow responding officers. The two suspects later hijacked an SUV at gunpoint, releasing the driver unharmed. Authorities later caught up to the suspects, and a car chase ensued.

Read more on decentralized, grassroots militancy

Just after midnight, the car chase ended with a gunfight in Watertown, Mass. The suspects reportedly threw explosive devices at police, though it is not yet confirmed what types of explosives allegedly were used. During the firefight, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was wounded, taken into custody and later reported dead. Some press reports suggest he may have been wearing some sort of suicide belt or vest. Dzhokhar escaped by driving the stolen SUV through the police barricade and remains at large. According to media reports, a third accomplice was detained earlier this morning by authorities and is being questioned.

According to The New York Times, the two men are from Chechnya. Their family also reportedly lived briefly in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, before moving to the United States in 2002. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s profile on VKontakte, a Russian social media website, said he attended school at the School No. 1 of Makhachkala, spoke English, Russian and Chechen and listed his worldview as Islam. A school administrator from the School No. 1 said the two suspects and their family had previously lived in Kyrgyzstan before moving to Dagestan.

VIDEO: History of the North Caucasus’ Instability

Given that they are grassroots actors, there is likely only a small chance that the authorities will discover a formal link between the suspects and a state sponsor or a professional terrorist group such as al Qaeda or one of its franchise groups. Any link will likely be ideological rather than operational, although it is possible that the two have attended some type of basic militant training abroad. Given what we have learned about the suspects and the nature of the improvised explosive devices they constructed, it is very likely that the authorities will find that the brothers had read and studied al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Inspire Magazine.

This case also highlights our analysis that the jihadist threat now predominantly stems from grassroots operatives who live in the West rather than teams of highly trained operatives sent to the United States from overseas, like the team that executed the 9/11 attacks. This demonstrates how the jihadist threat has diminished in severity but broadened in scope in recent years – a trend we expect to continue.

There will always be plenty of soft targets in a free society, and it is incredibly easy to kill people, even for untrained operatives. In this case, the brothers conducted an attack that was within their capabilities rather than attempting something more grandiose that would require outside assistance – and which could therefore have put them in jeopardy of running into a government informant as they sought help. It is thus important for citizens to practice good situational awareness and to serve as grassroots defenders against the grassroots threat.

Read more: Boston Bombing Suspects: Grassroots Militants from Chechnya | Stratfor

2

stratfor says “explosive devices” whereas the news this morning was reporting “grenades.” I would like to know how two immigrants got ahold of grenades, if that is indeed the case.

3

They are Chechan and have no link to any terror group and no real motive, so they must be grassroots terrorists… Yeah, grassroots. Grassroots… Grassroots. Chechnya. Grassroots. Al qaeda. 9/11. Got it kid, dumbass, basketball, Nietzsche. Rinse & repeat.

4

We’ll get a motive in a few days. The link to a possible terror network could also be ascertained, my guess is, through NATO and the US involvment with them in Eastern Europe right after the cold war. “Grassroots” simply means that they live in the US; it is not going to be a US nationalist/militia thing. It might even be a leftover grudge from fighting Russia’s state terror networks in much the same way that al qaeda (who fought as proxies for the US in Eastern Europe back then) is a leftover from US terror networks. They could also just be fucking dumbass kids that hate the US because they were taught to or learned to…i’ll have to see more before I believe that they were Islamic converts, but i suppose it’s possible. For instance, did the US kill their parents or friends in Eastern Europe when they were kids?

I love it when people’s minds are static, thanks hubba. But, I don’t think Nietzsche would do you any good. Just play basketball and memorize your statistics.

Do you understand how conspiracy fearmongering molds your mind in the same way that state propaganda does? by using fear? Moron.

5

So, you’re saying that it’s blowback that might have cause these kids to do what they did; just like what Ron Paul says was the case during 9/11?

6

pfft. No, I am just an apologist for the state… (/sarcasm).

But seriously, i cannot think of any other motive outside of them wanting to cause mayhem (which I doubt). I think 9/11 was state sponsored from SA/Isr/Pak - I think that is what we are not told (and that there were moles in the USAF and WH). I differ from Ron paul on 9/11. But, yes, “blowback,” something else the CIA wrote about 30 years ago…but we don’t trust them right?

7

Why would Saudi Arabia sponsor 9/11?

8

this is all american propaganda are u kidding.

terrorists doesnt exist. How much u want to bet, they gonna say that the perpetrator commit suicide, and then they gonna bury him in ocean for muslim ceremony, and not release any pics of his dead face?

EDIT: want to bet he will die of his wounds in the hospital?

9

To extort the bush family and their in common business associates at Carlyle Group and Raytheon (the bushes, bin ladens, and house of saud are financially and business-cooperation-ally connected through those businesses).

you know what SA, Israel, and Pakistan have in common? Their main geopolitical enemy in each case is.. dun dun dun duuun, Iran. Well, Pakistan might have India geopolitically…but, religiously, it is Iran.

Iran = Shia, SA and Pakiston = Sunni; Israel, self explanatory.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Afghanistan and Iraq were chosen to further isolate Iran. You know where the US didn’t have military bases before 2001 and 2003? Afghanistan and Iraq. We shrunk the Iranians ability to expand their sphere of influence. And Israel or the US never struck Iran as I think has been the plan all along.

10

any speculations as to why that was the plan?

11

haha are you serious?

Because Iran is openly hostile towards Israel, Israel wants to remain the only true nuclear threat in the area (because it makes them by default regional hegemon) (Pakistan doesn’t even have their nuclear weapons assembled at any given time because they themselves are fearful of what could happen to them.). And the US wants to prevent the 600 million arabs from all turning on Israel at once since it will destroy the world economy. the US defense establishment is not ignorant of the influence that israel has over them. In fact, most of the things I’ve read say that the US acts on behalf of Israel because the heat that is caused by US actions is lesser than the heat that Israel would stir up if it acted unilaterally.

12

The entire world economy is dependent on Israel?

Why the US acts on behalf of Israel:

http://thezog.info/

13

ok, but why fuck with iraq and afghanistan when you could just invade iran and remove the threat?

14

It is a strategy of “further isolation.”

It is done that way because Iran can fight back in a way that Iraq and Afghanistan could not; thus, you have work your way up from the bottom of the possible allies or strategic territory available to the main enemy. (Think of the amount of children that US sanctions on Iraq did over 8 or 9 years. 400,000 people died. 200,000 of which could be potential soldiers in 18 years - from 1991/92. Do the math. That is why the US State and Defense justified it. And only after this policy had taken a big effect was iraq taken off of the terror list and added to regime change. Because we had shrunk their potential army and crippled their infrastructure at the start of it.) It is a way of knowing that you’ll fight wars in the future and planning accordingly…

Enemy list in order of threat level:

Iran, Syria, Iraq, then the rest of them; it doesn’t matter because, either, we had bought them off (Egypt, Libya) or they lacked any significant power anyway.

So, if Israel or the US were to attack Iran first, say in 2000, then all of the potential allies of Iran or the weaker enemies that Iran can take over (a real problem) get to kick in. So, we are talking Lebanon, Syria, and the various terror networks that Iran and they toy with plus Iran itself. First thing Iran does is attack the SA oil fields in order to cripple the entire Western economy. When Iran’s oil can no longer make it to China, they get involved. This would be, i think, why directly attacking Iran was out of the question. It would be starting a war where your enemy takes a significant chunk of land from Afghanistan, where the taliban does the same shit to iran theat they do to us, and taken Iraq since Iraq was much much weaker than Iran.

Also, interesting thing I learned from reading (JJ), was that Saddam Hussein told us that he claimed that he had WMD and refused to let UN weapons inspectors in was because he was bluffing Iran. Saddam was scared of Iran and tried to deter them with a WMD bluff (remember they were at war not to long before). it was a dangerous game that a state with many enemies, and for all different reasons,was playing…

Remember when Z. Brzezinski suggested to Obama that if Israel tried to strike Iran (this is how you know there are two main factions of foreign policy interests and not one well thought out “conspiracy”) that,

On those factions in the US policy wonks, there are the nationalists and internationalists (the neorealists and the neoliberals). The neocons are a faction within the nationalist faction. The internationalists (TC oriented) know that most of the world wants Israel to behave. Brzezinski is a hardliner, but that is how twisted geopolitics in the region is.

15

if they had any sense at all they would have put a million man army on the hoof and stomped a mudhole across all three of those bitches then come right the fuck back home. this shit is ridiculous.

16

well, this was all not to mention the war-profiteers (the M-IC) that are among those who make policy and strategize…

17

No. Israel uses their geography as a strategic asset, however. They just happen to be in a spot where the entire oil trade in the middle east can be disrupted. As does Saudi Arabia, Egypt (partially), and Iran…

18

yah but theyre dumbasses. they should have destabilized the region then went right to private defense contractors so they could try to be robber-barons in the ancap golden age that is to come. instead its gonna be other people, basically anyone who has a successful security company between now and 2025.

you know they dont know what theyre doing because they didnt have a plan for iraq after deposing the government. thats because there were no good options. that should have been a clue, keep moving east.

the problem is that they didnt have the combat experienced army. now theres a combat experienced army but a war-weary populace that cant support another 10 years of expeditionary warfare. it doesnt have to cost this much but you try telling some fat infantry ssgt that he has to walk most places.

19

Pretty much, but this is the fault of the Bush administration. iraq had a one party system that bush & co. systematically disbanded. they ran the whole fucking country water treatments, schools, etc! And no one stepped up to run the place “like they should have.”

I don’t think that matters as much when you fight guerillas.

20

what I mean is that they had the capability to rampage across southwest asia and trample the armies of the moslems. they didnt have the confidence to dare that greatly because the vast majority of the forces were unblooded. if there were no light speed communications it might have been different. have you seen generation kill? those guys were moving hot and fast, killing everything that posed a threat to them. the iraqi army dissolved. read roughneck 9-1 and see how a handful of rednecks with various personality disorders could not fuck up badly enough to avoid destroying enemy mechanized forces much larger than them. he who dares, wins, for a variety of reasons but often because people in general arent very good at fighting. not even when they are paid to it.

if youre alluding to the idea of the iranians putting up a guerilla defense against the initial invasion, I could hear more. what I envision is an american led coalition supported theater raid campaign on the order of about 3-4 weeks. we kill shit and bounce, mid-2004.