Group items tagged

- The perpetrators were told to execute the order in the place where it was committed, - continues our source. - Another words not just to kill him in the alley, but do it in the heart of Moscow across from the Kremlin - deliberately to cause outrage around the world. Before the crime they received the advance payment, it was agreed that the remainder of the money for the "job" will be transferred to their bank account. - Why did they have to kill Nemtsov, who spoke out against Putin's policies? It turns out, they had killed their ideological ally! - [Ultra-] Nationalists and criminals will not stop at anything. To kill their ally for them is not a question of morality. Nemtsov became a bargaining chip. The goal was - to slander Russia, to show it in a bad light, to prevent peace in Donbass (especially after talks with Merkel and Hollande). To show the President of Russia in the eyes of the world community as the "ultimate evil" - to show: look, how he strangled the opposition. The world just began to warm up to Putin's politics, which he is following in relation to Ukraine. And this cynical murder of Nemtsov has caused a wave of discontent, fueled by the world media. The American and European press immediately began to show this murder in their own light, placing the responsibility on the President of Russia.

Adam Osmayev was previously suspected in the attempt to organize the 2012 assassination of Vladimir Putin, at that time a Prime Minister and presidential candidate. Osmayev  planned to blow up Putin's motorcade, which was confirmed by a video, found in his laptop, of Prime Minister's motorcade travelling through Moscow. Then Osmaev cooperated with the investigation - admitted he came to Odessa from the United Arab Emirates with instructions from field commander Doku Umarov. But in court Osmayev refused to testify, claiming he gave his testimony after a beating. His lawyers wrote a complaint to the Prosecutor's office and the European Court of Human Rights. - Osmaev failed to get to Putin himself, but it seems that he did not calm down, - says our source in the FSB. - And later the most accessible target to attack the President was selected - Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov lately was not seen as an active member of the opposition, was no competition to Putin, but his name was known. The choice of a sacrificial lamb was quite successful. The gangsters do not stop at anything. And gangsters involved in politics is a devilish blend.

- Will Osmaev be charged? - Now everything is in the stage of investigation and evidence collection. Some of the evidence we already gathered, but I don't want to tell everything in order not to hinder the investigation.

What was Adam Osmayev "famous" for... In 2007 in Moscow on the eve of Victory Day a terrorist attack was averted - explosives were found in a parked car. A native of Grozny, Adam Osmayev, a suspect in the case, was arrested in absentia by the Lefortovsky district court of Moscow and declared for international search. The investigation found that Osmayev with a group of Chechens and Ingush was also preparing an assassination on May 9 of the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. According to the press, after that Osmayev was hiding in the UK, where he was contacted by associates of Doku Umarov and was offered to organize a new terrorist attack. Adam agreed and went to Ukraine with a fake passport. In 2012, he was arrested after an explosion in a rented apartment - the terrorist was preparing homemade bombs. Osman and his "right hand", a Kazakh citizen, Ilya Pyanzin, admitted: they were preparing an assassination of the head of the government of Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. The suspects also reported that they recruited fighters for future terrorist attacks in Russia. But later they took back their testimony.

Russia demanded to extradite Adam Osmayev, however, the European Court of Human Rights had blocked it, declaring: "In Russia the detainee may be subjected to torture". Pyanzin eventually was extradited to Russia, and in September 2013 he was sentenced to ten years in a colony with a strict regime. On November 18, 2014, the court of Odessa declared a sentence for Osmaev: 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. He was released in the courtroom "for lack of evidence of preparation of assassination" - he was credited the time he already spent in jail. The court room reacted to the sentence of Osmaev with applause, and he, in turn, encouraged them to "protect Ukraine". In February of this year Osmayev headed the Ukrainian battalion  in the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev, succeeding the general, deceased under Debaltsevo, Isa Munaev. 

OFFICIAL COMMENT Dmitry Peskov: In the coming days, the prosecutors will announce the motives for the murder "We hope that in the coming days all legal formalities will be completed and prosecutors will announce their versions of the murder, will name those who are behind this," said the President's press secretary Dmitry Peskov to the journalists of "AP", answering the question about the prospects of completing the investigation of the murder of Boris Nemtsov.

Juan Ramon Quintana, Bolivia’s minister of the presidency, emphasized the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia’s direct role in the plot, according to teleSUR: “In 2007 the embassy of the United States installed a Center of Operations in order to execute a civil-prefectural coup to apply plan A, which was the coup, and plan B, which was the assassination.” TeleSUR noted that, “Relations between the U.S. and Bolivia have been strained since 2009, when President Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador from the country for supporting [an] opposition-led conspiracy against him,” a move that led then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to accuse the president of “fear-mongering.”

“Friends of Israel,” within the US defense community were convinced by Israel that the system could be finished and deployed to protect Israel against a purported “missile onslaught” from Tehran. In truth, there was no such intention. Instead, as in the film “Real Genius,” the laser system was always intended to be deployed against ground targets, for terrorism and assassinations. The “delivery system,” a Boeing airliner configured for AWAC, electronic warfare or refueling, could easily be modified to “clone” commercial air traffic and attack targets thousands of miles away or as close as Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iraq with total impunity.

McLeod and Rogers, in The Law of War, examine the history of prohibition of incendiary weapons. Israel’s use of white phosphorous, intended as a “smoke market” as a corrosive anti-personnel weapon against civilian populations in Lebanon and Gaza skirts initial language, as cited below, in the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, but falls well short of evading later prohibition on the use of chemical agents. “The first treaty to deal with weapons was the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868. Here states were concerned about the development of explosive or incendiary bullets for use against the wagon trains of enemy forces. It was felt that these bullets might be used against enemy personnel15 and cause unnecessary injury. The Contracting Parties agreed ‘mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances’.

The declaration does not seem to have affected the practice of states in using tracer for range finding, even mixed with normal ammunition, nor the use of small explosive projectiles for anti-aircraft and anti-material uses. It did not prevent states from using four pound, thermite-based incendiary bombs during the Second World War. These, obviously, were more than 400 grammes in weight. Furthermore it could be argued that they were not ‘projectiles’, a term that certainly would not include illuminating flares or smoke canisters.” The use of energy weapons for assassinations and terrorism had, prior to only a few short days ago, been subject of speculative fiction only. No one had imagined that a failed American weapons system would be pirated for deployment in acts of terrorism by a rogue state. A greater question arises, if this “failed system” costing many billions has been shipped off “in the dark of night” without public knowledge or official authorization for use in a criminal manner, what other systems may have been similarly pirated? There is conclusive evidence that W54/Davy Crocket nuclear weapons made their way to Israel after 1991 after an accident at Dimona is reputed to have made that facility useless for weapons development.

Similarly, when the Ukraine retired its “fleet” of SS21 tactical nuclear missiles, Israel took possession of the warheads, servicing their deuterium booster gas all these years to keep them ready for deployment. Intercepted communications between the Kiev junta and Israel now indicate that Israel is ready to “repatriate” some of these nuclear weapons to the Ukraine for use against pro-Russian separatists. Ukrainian leaders have spoken of the intent to deploy and use these nuclear weapons publicly on several recent occasions. From USA Today: “KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. ‘We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement,’ said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. ‘Now there’s a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake.’”

With the recent bombing of a UN refugee facility in Gaza, with the use of chemical and now energy weapons, with Israel’s planned sale of nuclear warheads to Ukraine, there is little more that could be done to establish Israel, not only as a rogue state, but as a “clear and present danger” to not only regional but global security as well. As Jim W. Dean of Veterans Today recently stated, “Their fingerprints are at every crime scene.”

The Archive appealed the lower court's decision, and with representation from the distinguished firm of Skadden Arps Meagher Slate & Flom, brought the case to the D.C. Circuit, with oral argument in December 2013. The National Coalition for History, including the American Historical Association and other historical and archival professional organizations, joined the case with an amicus curiae brief authored by the Jones Day law firm arguing for release of the volume. Titled "CIA's Internal Investigation of the Bay of Pigs Operation," Volume V apparently contains Pfeiffer's aggressive defense of the CIA against a hard-hitting 1961 internal review, written by the agency's own Inspector General, which held the CIA singularly responsible for the poor assumptions, faulty planning and incompetence that led to the quick defeat of the paramilitary exile brigade by Fidel Castro's military at the Bahia de Cochinos between April 17 and April 20, 1961. The Archive obtained under FOIA and published the IG Report in 1998. The CIA has admitted in court papers that the Pfeiffer study contains "a polemic of recriminations against CIA officers who later criticized the operation," as well as against other Kennedy administration officials who Pfeiffer contended were responsible for this foreign policy disaster. In the dissenting opinion from the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 decision yesterday, Judge Judith Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton) identified multiple contradictions in the CIA's legal arguments. Judge Rogers pointed out that the CIA had failed to justify why release of Volume V would "lead to public confusion" when CIA had already released Volumes I-IV. She noted that neither the CIA nor the majority court opinion had explained "why release of the draft of Volume V 'would expose an agency's decision making process,'" and discourage future internal deliberations within the CIA's historical office any more than release of the previous four volumes had done.

Prior to yesterday's decision, the Obama administration had bragged that reducing the government's invocation of the b-5 exemption was proof of the impact of the President's Day One commitment to a "presumption of disclosure." Instead, the bureaucracy has actually increased in the last two years its use of the b-5 exemption, which current White House counselor John Podesta once characterized as the "withhold if you want to" exemption. The majority opinion also left two openings for transparency advocates. It invites Congress to set a time limit for applying the b-5 exemption, as Congress has done in the Presidential Records Act. Second, it concludes that any "factual material" contained in the draft should be reachable through Freedom of Information requests.

Abaaoud, a citizen of Belgium of Moroccan descent, was well known as a violent radical miscreant linked to an Islamic cell in Verviers, Belgium, that did all sorts of mean, murderous crap.  As far as Belgian and French authorities were concerned, he had been an item long before Paris.

Washington believes the group is responsible for the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.  In November, the United Nations blacklisted Ansar al-Sharia Benghazi and its sister group, Ansar al-Sharia Derna, over links to Al-Qaeda and for running camps for the Islamist State group.  So there you have your soundbite.  The Paris outrage: Made in Libya.  Not Syria.  And brought to us by the people who killed Christopher Stevens in Benghazi. I am sure that Hillary Clinton is grateful to the French police for botching the raid to capture Abaaoud and pumping 5000 rounds into his apartment instead of capturing him; otherwise, he might have become a lively topic of interest and curiosity and the right wing could have cooked off the Benghazi! munitions through election day.  For that matter, it seems unlikely that the governments of the West, or the media cheerleaders thirsting for a rousing good vs. evil narrative, are very interested in exploring the morally fraught issue of blow back from the spectacular Libyan disaster, either. To sum up: the alleged and now reportedly deceased architect of the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, did not fight “for IS.”  He fought “with” Katibat al-Battar al-Libi, a Libyan outfit whose presence in Syria predates that of ISIS.  Even after Katibat al-Battar al-Libi decided to pledge allegiance to ISIS, it retained its independent identity.  And it would appear unlikely that Abaaoud, as a European of Moroccan descent, would be a central figure in the brigade, whose personnel, funding, and mission seem to have largely emanated from Libya.

Despite his seemingly junior status in an autonomous militia, it is possible that Abaaoud was recruited by al-Baghdadi to commit the Paris outrage.  But foreign fighters flock to Syria not only to accumulate general jihadi merit, but also to acquire skills they could apply in their own struggles.  And Abaaoud may have gone to the Syrian war zone to hook up with an extremely capable Libyan outfit and acquire the experience and connections to fulfill his own ambitions for mayhem in Europe, and not necessarily to support the global or even local objectives of the IS caliphate.  So it is by no means axiomatic that Abaaoud returned to Europe with the mission to execute a high-level ISIS strategy. Instead, Abaaoud might have been an angry guy with the skills, resources, and inclination to commit mass murder on his own kick.  The police were already after him big time after the Verviers raid in January (we are now told that Abaaoud was “on” or a “candidate for” a spot on the drone assassination assignment list, but I wonder if this is post-hoc ass-covering).  So maybe he and his friends decided to pull the pin, and go out in a big way. I doubt we’ll ever get the full story.  But “Paris: Made in Libya” is an honest hook.