Russian Terrorism: A New Angle

By Joe Kleine

While the smell of smoke still lingers in the air and the body count rises, there are already at least 2 popular theories on the Moscow bombing. The most well-known theory is that the Chechen Rebels bombed the airport. A precursory look at the Wikipedia history of Russian/Chechen relations reveals that there is plenty of historical precedent for this to actually be the case.

What there is NOT precedent for is this ragtag group of rebels being able to hit downtown Moscow. A precursory search of this netted only 1 result, a bombing controversially attributed to Rebels, and/or Russia’s own FSB, depending on which side of the story one believes.

It also bears noting that there IS historical precedent for FSB staging ‘false flag’ terror attacks on its own citizens. Because of this fact, Alex Jones’ website has run articles by staff members pursuing the theory that FSB is also behind this attack.

I disagree with both of these theories.

I am a subscriber to the not-so-crazy theory that the CIA sets up and currently controls most ‘terrorist’ groups. The sheer timeliness of terrorist attacks to promoting a US Government agenda is so obvious it smacks you in the face.

9/11 wiped out evidence of Rumsfeld’s lost 2 trillion in defense budget.

Paved the way for the (pre-written) Patriot Act.

Paved the way for the (pre-planned) Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

Was the asked-for ‘pearl harbor event’ to bring about foreign and domestic policy.

Other terrorist attacks and threats occurred during the expiration of the Patriot Act (and always have, which is why the ‘temporary measures’ are still with us almost 10 years later)

‘Osama bin Laden’ warned the US to do more to ‘combat global warming’ during the debate on Cap & Trade.

Most every ‘terrorist’ organization has had or currently has ties to the CIA. The Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden (and therefore ‘Al Qaeda’) are included in this group.

Al-Awaki had dinner at the Pentagon while supposedly one of ‘America’s most wanted’.

The “cyber attacks” and “wiki leaks” during the debate on new Cyber Security laws.

The ‘underwear bomber’ to justify TSA’s idiocy (and subsequent admission from the US of ‘intelligence community’ s support of the bomber)…

The RIDICULOUS ‘intelligence reports‘ about ‘terrorists’ targeting ‘your local buffet’ over the last holiday…during the debate over controversial food laws (which passed, I might add).

There’s the Hutaree incident (trumped charges to justify the Homeland Security document demonizing militias) which was entirely the product of the FBI agent who infiltrated the group. There was such a lack of evidence that this militia was actually dangerous that the judge released the members back to their homes until the trial.

There is scarcely an incident you can mention that does not directly benefit a pre-existing USG agenda. For ‘terrorists’, their activities sure are convenient.

And now, barely a month after Russia and China agree to stop using USD in cross-border trading…suicide bombers appear in Moscow.

Come on now. Is it really a ‘conspiracy theory’ to suggest the obvious here?

According to the most recent account given on YahooNews, “No claim of responsibility for the bombing has been made and investigators have not named suspects or even presented a consistent account of what happened.”

Once again we have an UNCLAIMED ACT OF VIOLENCE, which by definition is NOT TERRORISM. Terrorism, as defined by the US Government, is the use or threatened use of violence to bring about an ideological, political, or religious change.

This means that a terrorist MAKES DEMANDS. You could walk into a mall tomorrow and blow yourself up—you’re now a murderer, but no terrorist. If you say, “Lower taxes, or I will blow this mall up”, then you are a terrorist. If you blow the mall up and your leader says, “We have blown up this mall. Lower taxes or we can blow up more malls.” then you are a terrorist.

Terrorist =/= ‘random act of violence-committer’.

So if the Chechens aren’t claiming to have done it… who did it? Why aren’t they thumping their chests going “We demand this” or “This was in retaliation for that!”

This again leaves open the possibility that the bombing was carried out by someone else.

Alex Jones would probably pounce here and proclaim that THIS is why it must have been FSB, but I say, ‘Not so fast’.

In all of his New World Order ramblings (most of which I agree with), the plot he lays out consists of a crumbling ‘old world order’ (US and Europe) and a transfer of wealth and power to the likes of China and Russia. The bankers don’t care which country serves as their source of industry and military might, and the US’s time serving that role is coming to a close.

While this necessitates Martial Law and the like in formerly-free nations (whose citizens have come to expect certain rights), it does NOT follow that nations on the receiving end of the NWO benefits will need to impose upon their own citizens tragedy to keep them subdued. Rather, as they become more important, we can expect to see an INCREASE in human rights. More industry means more work, so…more workers. This means the possibility of unions…and much more money. Nations with money have citizens who can afford luxury…citizens in luxury are not likely to revolt.

There is a lot of talk about a NWO control grid that will include microchipping citizens, and that may very well be true (but that is outside the scope of this article…see Alex Jones for more on that). But in Russia there is no Constitution guaranteeing citizens certain rights. Microchips can be mandated with little outcry expected from the populace. Government brutality is a daily reality in Russia and China, so ‘false flag’ events are less necessary to convince people to submit when the time comes.

Because of all this, it makes no logical sense for the FSB to attack its own people.

Yet, we are left with a pressing question: This Doku Umarov has been a ‘bad guy’ for a while, but never has he had the capability to take out Moscow airports, or he would have done it a long time ago. Why have these rebels become so suddenly bold?

This type of bravado can only mean one of two things:
His rebels have new backing. This gives them new confidence and (potentially) more explosives
This attack was carried out by someone else

Who would back these rebels? Or, since the rebels STILL have not claimed responsibility, who would make this attack that is being blamed on rebels?

To find that answer, we must find who may have a grudge against Russia. But I think we need look no further than the aforementioned group who seems to have its thumbs in all terrorist networks…the group who has a history of running weapons to rogue organizations to fight its enemies…of course I’m talking about the CIA.

This would necessitate Russia being an enemy of the US in some way, shape or form. Enter the Russia-China trade deal.

It is important to recognize how disastrous for the USD the Russia-China agreement is. It is paramount to grasp how crucial our reserve currency status is. Without that, our terrible debt-raising chickens will all come home to roost. We absolutely cannot afford to have nations do what Russia-China are doing. The idea that the CIA would promote Russian instability in retaliation is actually well in keeping with the history of the organization.

CIA subterfuge in Russia would lead to escalating tension between the US and Russia. Since we know the NWO is plotting the downfall of the US, it is ridiculous to assume that economic collapse is the only (or primary) means by which this will happen. They would be perfectly content to start World War III, and take down the entire West in one fell swoop.

So, to summarize… this attack does not meet the profile of known Rebel capabilities in Moscow, nor have the rebels taken credit for it. It is doubtful that FSB needs to ‘false flag’ its citizens to make a change in policy, therefore FSB involvement should not be assumed. The attack DOES have earmarks of CIA involvement, and there is plenty of motive.

Does this mean the CIA did it? Of course not, nobody can prove that. But it is a distinct possibility that should not be ruled out.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply