Why I suspected a Chechen angle? As mentioned the separatist Chechens have used the ball bearing IED previously.. The tit for tat has been heating up between Russia and the US. There is no doubt of that.
And that area is on the radar for US/Israel/NATO etc.
April 2012: I had put up a post called Predicting the future destabilization of Russia
In there was a link to the Heritage Foundation :A Threat to the West: The Rise of Islamist Insurgency in the Northern Caucasus and Russia’s Inadequate Response Ariel Cohen PHD
Before we get into this let's look at what interests Mr Ariel Cohen?
Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International StudiesAlso connected to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
If I took the time to dig, we would likely find connections between Mr Cohen and many other Israeli organizations. Though that is not what this post is about, it helps to understand why the Israel meme/reminders kept showing up surrounding the Boston bombing. Israel this and Israel that.....
Mr Cohen connects Israeli interests and US interests quite nicely.
And Chechnya falls into Israeli/US/ energy interests..
Before I continue on let me indulge in yet another digression?
I remind everyone of a meme, long ago planted in the perception of so many.
"Taking the fight to them"
OR the equally absurd?
"We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here
Sure, this nonsense originated with the Bush junta. But, it has carried on, like everything else, has through the "hope and change" Nobel peace prize winning Obama regime.
So, the Chechen's framed for the Boston bombing:
And yah, it looks to be a frame up. The whole scenario is plagued with problems. The narrative makes zero sense. The police seemed to do their best to kill the younger brother while he was hiding already wounded.That he lived was something simply beyond their control. 20 shots fired. at an already injured and bleeding individual????
20 SHOTS FIRED- SUSPECT IS DOWN Local reporters say the bomber was injured from the shootings last night.
"the bomber"? Trial by media and spectacle. I guess that is the way it works in freedumb land? Other then happening to be photographed at the marathon, there looks to be no evidence to connect these two brothers to the bombings... Lots of aspersion, innuendo and inane blather.
Cui bono? , Who really benefits from the Chechen Patsies bombing the Boston Marathon?
Answer: US.Israel.Saudi Arabia. Turkey. NATO. Energy companies. Military Industrial complex types. Private Mercs.
Ariel Cohen/March 26, 2012 from my April 05/2012 post linked above
The Islamist insurgency in Russia’s Northern Caucasus threatens to turn the region into a haven for international terrorism and to destabilize the entire region, which is a critical hub of oil and gas pipelines located at Europe’s doorstep. Neither Russia’s excessive use of military force nor its massive economic aid to the region appear to have helped.As Ariel Cohen states neither Russia's "excessive' use of military force our it's massive economic aid have helped to quell the dissent in the Northern Caucasus.
What Ariel, fails to mention, it has been almost impossible to do with all the US/Israeli/Turkish /Saudi money, arms etc.
Here are the three reasons Mr Cohen uses to justify western engagement in the Chechen region-
First, the presence of such an ungovernable enclave in Southeastern Europe compromises the border stability of U.S. friends and allies, such as Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Second, the North Caucasus pose a global threat as a potential terrorist base in close proximity to U.S. European allies.
Third, destabilization in the Northern Caucasus threatens not just Russia, but also the security of the whole Caucasus, including Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The region is a principal north–south and east–west hub. Oil and gas pipelines linking the Caspian Sea to Western Europe pass through Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
"Not just Russia" As if included, as an after thought. The primary reasons are highlighted.
"The interests of the United States and its allies could suffer from Russia’s failure to respond appropriately to Islamist extremism"
And that readers sums it up. Russia has failed to control it's Islamist terrorist. Never mind that these fellas' are funded by the US/Saudi/Israeli/ Turkish governments. Nope this is just Russia's failure and someone is going to have to do address that 'failure'
The Boston Marathon. Russia has failed to control the "terrorists" in their backyard and now it will be up to the US and friends.
Let's take a look at another piece from Ariel Cohen. A newer piece, from this year: 2013
This piece is interesting because Ariel drops all pretense (an inadequate or insincere attempt to attain a certain condition or quality) of concern regarding Russia
Since Vladimir Putin’s third inauguration as Russian president last May, U.S.–Russian relations have deteriorated sharply. Officials on both sides have moved past the “reset” honeymoon as disagreements over geopolitics and human rights abound.
Spanning two continents and with a veto on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Russia is uniquely positioned to play a prominent role in U.S. foreign policy. However, the United States needs a new course of action for the next four years to prevent Russia from negatively affecting U.S. interests across the globe
The current Russian ruling elite has not overcome the anti-Americanism imbued in their Soviet upbringing
Defined: Russia challenges the US imperialism/hegemony. They must be punished!
Mr Cohen fails to mention the US's anti-Russianism
Differences over Syria and Iran continue to prevent strategic action on two of the world’s most pressing issues. Russia has not wavered in its support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime, vetoing any meaningful sanctions at the UNSC. While Russian officials do not support an Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons, their selective commitment to the principle of noninterference in internal affairs of state causes resistance to potent sanctions and opposition to the potential use of force. High-level talks have not solved these issues, and as each one moves to a breaking point, Russia only hardens its resolve.
Defined: Russia challenges US imperialism/hegemony. They must be punished
Russian Diplomatic AssertivenessDefined: Russia challenges US imperialism and hegemony; they must be punished
Russia’s anti-Americanism and its geopolitical ambitions have combined to create a combative foreign policy. Russian measures over the past year include:
- Launching a slander campaign against U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul on state TV;
- Cancelling the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which aids in the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet space;
- Expelling the United States Agency for International Development;
- Forbidding U.S. funding of “political” nongovernmental organizations;
- Criminalizing dissent; (The US has long criminalized dissent)
- Banning Radio Liberty and the Voice of America from AM/FM broadcasting;
- Passing the DimaYakovlev law, which prohibits Americans from adopting Russian orphans;
- Banning $500 million a year in U.S. beef and pork imports; and
- Cancelling an agreement on law enforcement and drug control.
The pork and beef ban is interesting?
One can hardly blame Russia for this.
The Russians must have more concern for the health and well being of their citizens, unlike the US or Canada
The Russian ban centers around the toxic swill, Ractopamine, allowed by the US & Canada.
Both freedom loving nations..... free to poison the dumbed down populace with toxic foodstuffs and gmo, that is!
Would You Like Extra Ractopamine With Your Pork, Sir?
Ractopamine is a growth promoter drug. It is widely used on intensive livestock farms in the U.S. because it increases the rate of weight gain and carcass leanness in pigs, cattle and turkey. It's estimated that up to 80 percent of the U.S. pig herd is fed the drug every year. Of course, the drug doesn't come without its costs.
The European Union, China, Taiwan and more than 100 other countries have long banned its use in livestock farming because of concerns about the effect of ractopamine residues in meat on human health. As a result, many countries will not import U.S. meat from animals that have been fed the drug.
Of course, proponents of industrial farming are very quick to point out that ractopamine is perfectly "safe" and that there is no risk to humans from consuming meat from treated animals. Indeed, they argue that the ongoing ban on ractopamine-tainted meat imports by China and the EU is simply an act of trade protectionism to protect their farmers from the more "efficient" production practices of U.S. industrial farms. Or perhaps it's because their government food and safety agencies are a whole lot better at putting human health concerns above industry interest and profits. I'll leave that for you to decide.Russia joined in on this ban- Russia refuses to compromise on ractopamine - Meat Processing
Good for them!!!! There is no proof this garbage is safe. It just boosts production cheaply for the factory farms
According to an excellent report by food safety researcher Helen Bottemiller, ractopamine was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) back in 1999. It might surprise you, however, to learn that this approval was based solely on research data provided by Elanco, the drug's manufacturer.
But us free folks in the US and Canada get to chow down on this whatever the hell it really is???!!
Ari Cohen continues....
Russia’s recent actions suggest a strategic break from the West and establishment of a Russian “pole” in a multipolar world order in which Russia does not cooperate with the West and justifies domestic crackdown and political stagnation.
As the chairman of the Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, Alexei Pushkov, said, “We are saying farewell to our dependence on ‘Power No. 1.’” Referring to the Sergei Magnitsky Act, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We will consistently and firmly rebut attempts to interfere in our internal affairs and lecture us,” conveniently forgetting that the Soviet Union was a signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Accords on human rights.
Russia has also opposed any U.S. influence along its periphery, even when it serves common interests, such as the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. Putin has promoted the Eurasian Union, a Russian-dominated organization that aims to control former Soviet states economically. Like Russian and Soviet rulers before him, Putin is establishing a zone of buffer states to protect his centralized, authoritarian regime against the rising China and radical Islam while pushing Russia and its neighbors away from the West.
At the same time, Russia neglects its own strategic interests in which the U.S. could provide important assistance, such as improving health care and higher education, cooperating in science and technology, and developing the rule of law.
The Obama Administration believes it can convince Russia to cooperate rationally, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. It argues that both countries share a mutual interest to stem Islamist terrorism and that Russia has helped the U.S. in Afghanistan by facilitating the Northern Distribution Network for NATO troops. It takes at face value Russian statements that it wants to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; meanwhile, Moscow prevents stricter sanctions and calls any potential military strike a costly mistake.
The White House also ignores Moscow’s rapprochement with Beijing and Russian military modernization, which includes building new weapons systems that are clearly aimed at the U.S.
The U.S. Policy Conundrum
The Obama Administration unsuccessfully attempted to keep Russia as a partner within the West’s orbit. It signed an ill-advised New START arms reduction agreement and would like to conclude further bilateral arms reduction treaties, ignoring the massive Russian tactical nuclear arsenal of up to 8,000 devices.
Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the lifting of the Jackson–Vanik Amendment produced no progress in the bilateral relationship.
There is more, but I want to get to the conclusions Ariel Cohen puts forth:
What the U.S. Should Do
The change of the Obama national security team is a good opportunity to reassess ties with Russia and build a relationship that is realistic and serves U.S. national interests well. Specifically, the Obama Administration should:
- Deploy a missile defense system in Europe and avoid deep defense budget cuts. The U.S. cannot afford to leave itself or its allies unprotected from emerging ballistic missile threats or ignore the modernizing Russian military. Despite the pending reductions in force, the U.S. should maintain its space, air, and naval superiority in the European and Eurasian theaters.
- Enforce Russian compliance with WTO rules regarding the unfounded ban of U.S. beef and pork imports. No WTO precedent supports Russia’s excessive standards for U.S. meat imports. The U.S. does, however, have scientific support for its position from the World Health Organization and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
- Re-engage in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. The U.S. should expand political–military relations and economic ties with key countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. To balance off Russia (and China), the U.S. should expand broad political, military, economic, and civil society cooperation.
- Make human rights and democracy a central pillar of U.S.–Russian relations. The U.S. should call on the European Union to pass a measure similar to the Magnitsky Act, because corrupt Russian officials spend more time and hide more assets in Europe than in the U.S. Such an effort can be combined with U.S. international broadcasting reform and a renewed public diplomacy effort aimed at Russia and Eurasia. The U.S. should also call for the release of political prisoners, including Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former CEO of Yukos.
Keep in mind that many, many Chechens are in Syria fighting on behalf of the NATO warmachine
As has been mentioned on numerous occasions here at this very blog. Therefore, if the Chechens were any thing close to a real threat to the US/Israel/NATO they would not be present in Syria doing the dirty work that is so very beneficial to both nations. With no worry of threat or harm to Israel.
On the other hand, perhaps Russia and China and Iran should take this opportunity to rid Syria of the Chechen terrorists? You know, in the name of fighting "international terrorism"?
How would the US/Israel/UK/NATO war machine react to that?
This ain't rocket science folks.
I have more, sadly, I have more!
Part 2 is up. Please take the time to read it along with this intro piece