The Internet is alive with rumor. And so unfortunately is Substack.
I have learned from bitter experience to be careful about accepting the validity of sources based on X and Telegram and media of any kind.
With events like the Crocus atrocity there is inevitably a rush to judgment. You will notice, however, that Putin is not doing that – even though some of the facts look pretty clear!
...it immediately becomes obvious why American media shouted in unison that it was ISIS yesterday. Because this is not ISIS. It’s just that the actors were selected in such a way that they could convince the stupid part of the global community that it was ISIS. These are Ukrainians. And the fact that just yesterday, even before the arrests, even before the names of the perpetrators were found, Western intelligence services began to convince the world that it was ISIS—that’s what gave them away. This is not ISIS. This is a well-coordinated team of several other, also widely known, abbreviations… (Margarita Simonyan, RT)
That's a pretty convincing argument – especially in light of the fact-- that the Tajik killers were heading for the Ukrainian border which would have been difficult to cross without getting shot without a "window" opening for them on the Ukrainian side.
The question here is obviously what are those "abbreviations" ?
My sources in the Middle East insist that the US, MI6, and Mossad funded, armed and provided logistic and medical support for ISIS in Syria in their attempt to bring down the Assad government. Of course they can't prove that. And just because they're in the Middle East doesn't mean they actually know anything!
Slavyangrad writes
Sure maybe it was ISIS-K, but who backs them?
Why do they always attack American enemies and never Israel/UK/US?
Has the US not ran terrorist networks before?
The first three points are telling . The last one is easily documented.
Jihadis in Afghanistan, like Osama Bin Laden or Hekmatyar in Afghanistan
Contras
ar right groups as part of Gladio who did targeted hits in Italy
MEK against Iran
KLA in Kosovo
Al Qaeda in Syria
The US claimed that it had intervened in the Syrian conflict to fight ISIS. Why then was attacking Syrian government forces fighting ISIS and why did it not leave when ISIS was effectively defeated?
Trump of course blurted out the truth: US troops were “only there for the oil”. Trump’s problem is not that he is a liar – but that he is often times too honest.
With Syria and Russia winning the war in 2017, the US shifted gears – but not its direction.
Al Qaeda and Al Nusra were rebranded as Hay’at Tahrir. What to do about the crazies comprising ISIS however?
There are many reports to indicate that ISIS fighters in Syria, which included Afghans, Pakistanis, Tajiks and others, were airlifted to Pakistan and from there to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and also to destabilize Tajikstan which is a Russian client state. This was ISIS K. The US naturally denies all this. But then you expect them to admit it?
The CIA follows a script for Black Ops.
The US was supposed to be fighting ISIS K in Afghanistan as well as fighting the Taliban – so the US military needed more funding for its operations and the Air Force had to do more bombing.
ISIS K made this storyline easy with some well-publicized atrocities including attacks on a maternity hospital. More bombs to drop.The US was able to beef up the Afghan security forces also.
But ISIS K – who were ethnic outsiders in Pashtun society— did not do well in the areas controlled by the Taliban.
Then the US fled Afghanistan.
ISIS K tried to take advantage by attacking the Kabul airport killing 170 Afghans-- and 13 US military who got in the way. The US responded with an airstrike, killing innocent people.
Since taking over, the Taliban have arrested and imprisoned up to 1,700 IS-K militants and killed close to 1,100 others, including key commanders. Although the Taliban have claimed to have killed the ISIS leader Sanaullah Ghafari, some say he is still alive and living in Baluchistan.
An identity document reportedly issued in January 2018 by the Afghan Presidential Protective Service and published by the State Department, Ghafari is presented as a body guard of former prime ministers Abdul Rashid Dostum and Amrullah Saleh and had his service pistol listed as an MP-446 Viking pistol. An officer working for Dostum's cabinet claimed that the document was falsified. (Wikipedia)
As ever, details are murky.
But we do know is that Ghafari worked for ISIS in Syria before somehow ending up in Afghanistan. Whether or not he also worked for the Afghan security forces, he was clearly connected somehow – and it appears that sources who say that ISIS K was able to recruit from the former Afghan security forces after the Americans left them in the lurch are probably correct.
Is ISIS K an “off the book” CIA / MI6 terrorist organization? Let's just remember that the CIA keeps different books for covert operations and those in line with stated State Department policy.
It wouldn't be the first time that the CIA and MI6 funded and armed and trained terrorist organizations -gave them a wink and a nod-- and a little push to do their thing.
You know the line….
“As always should you or any member of your team be caught or killed we will disavow any knowledge of your actions. ...Good luck.” (Mission Impossible concept)
Slavyangrad writes
The CIA and MI 6 has trained Ukraine intelligence and so their actions will mirror American covert operations.
Ukraine has fighters from AQ and ISIS fighting for them today.
Ukraine VBIED on Kerch bridge, bombing of a cafe, and the murder of a philosophers daughter. GUR killed leading figures like Givi from the DPR and LPR when there was a peace agreement. These are all terrorist acts
Recruitment of these Tajiks matches the MO of Ukrainian intelligence operations, where they contact people through Telegram and other apps to carry out terrorist acts for cash
DIA leaked documents note Ukraine's plan to make contact with terrorist groups in Syria to strike Russia.
Why was the leader of ISIS owning a home in Kiev and directing Syrian operations from Ukraine for years? Why has another ISIS leader been seen in Ukraine since then?
Why is it that a ISIS-K cell arrested by the Netherlands and Germany, were all coming from Ukraine?
What kind of terrorists are doing it for cash rather than ideology?
Why did the terrorists not fight until death like most extremists?
Who benefits from this?
You should read Alex's analysis over at Black Mountain. It is highly speculative and as usual extraordinarily well-written. Aleks posits “rogue” elements in the CIA and MI6.
I doubt, however, that these “element” were "rogue".
I have known various CIA people both analysts and field agents. My impression is the CIA at least does nothing without direction. The CIA calls itself the “Company” for a reason. Its people are like company workers— they always follow orders from someplace. The dirty work is contracted out. The US taxpayer pays.
There is always an emphasis on plausible deniability. Black ops are indeed "black"-- and always disavowed.
The CIA has set in motion all kinds of terrorist activities and atrocities. It tries not to get his hands dirty— so it uses intermediaries that it knows are capable of anything.
Proof is ISIS itself and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. It disavowed their actions – and occasionally took action against them to keep them in line. Like the mafia it roughs up its thugs from time to time.
In this case, it is quite clear that the Americans and the Brits knew that something was going to happen. But if worst came to worst. Ukrainians would get the blame. In the Americans and the Brits would blame “rogue elements” in Ukraine whom Zelensky would find and punish. How shocking!
In the best case, blame would just attach to ISIS K— and not to Ukraine.
So, the Americans and the Brits are at two removes from responsibility.
Additional
As I said, read Alek's analysis and also Ismaele’s. Both really excellent.
Some quotes from Ismaele.
As the ancient Roman used to say, “Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta”, that is "Unsolicited excuse, manifest accusation" or "He who excuses himself, accuses himself".
The ISIS narrative has become dominant in the ranks of Western propaganda, but without mentioning that saying ISIS is the same thing as saying CIA, MI6 or Mossad.
There is a lot of talent here on Substack/
Note
If you liked this article and wish to support my work and also get on my mailing list for special articles for coffee buyers buy me a coffee! Click here. Or on the picture below.
That's Jet and Ichi. Jet, as you know, has passed away. He's black-and-white on the left and Ichi still misses him a lot, sleeping in Jet's little bed hoping he will come back.
Who is really behind ISIS? Food for thought....
Former Afghan President Karzai Calls Islamic State 'Tool' of US
https://www.voanews.com/a/former-afghan-president-hamid-karzai-callms-islamic-state-tool-us/3817463.html
ISIS is US
https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-US-Shocking-Behind-Terror/dp/1615771522
CIA and MI6 are both implicated immensely in the creation, funding, and direction of Islamic terrorist organizations, sometimes with the inclusion of gulf and Turkish countries.
This time is different though.
Both from the timing and indications that the CIA is looking for a way out of the Ukraine mess and the type of terrorist activity (in Russia).
The west is diverting attention from Ukraine not because they are the main drivers of this attack but because they are covering for the intelligence agency that actually planned the attack.
The Mossad.
Like you said, best case it sticks to ISIS worst Ukraine. But Ukraine is a lost cause already so they don’t care as much. They do care if it gets back to Mossad.
Thing is, by floating the excuses so early they are implicating Ukraine and themselves - an unintended sacrifice to cover for the Mossad.
I believe Russia knows and they will take action appropriately. Officially, it stops at Ukraine because it’s politically convenient.